By Jonathan Friedman

Lookout Staff

September 23, 2010 -- Santa Monica College (SMC) might want a piece of the Measure Y pie if the half-cent sales tax proposal is approved by Santa Monica voters in November. Measure Y is accompanied by an advisory measure, YY, that says the City Council should designate to education half the estimated $12 million per year the tax is estimated to generate.

The concept for Measure YY was proposed by Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District (SMMUSD) activists and there was no mention of SMC during the council meeting when both measures were approved. But it was revealed at Wednesday night’s Democratic Club endorsement meeting that there could be issues.

Measure YY does not specify where half the tax revenue should go, it only says “support school, educational and afterschool programs.” City Council member Kevin McKeown said when the council voted to place the measure on the ballot, it was only considering the SMMUSD.

“I don’t think the college at that point was contemplated,” he said. He added, “(The SMMUSD has) no other way to raise money. They can’t raise the fees for classes. And almost all of their students come from within the city that will be voting on this measure, whereas most of the students at the college come from outside Santa Monica.”

Louise Jaffe, who sits on the SMC’s Board of Trustees, said the college does need help for programs involving locals, including the emeritus and high school dual enrollment programs.

“In the long run the City Council will determine how that funding is spent,” she said. “There are issues involved.”

Former Mayor Judy Abdo said she supports giving some of the Measure Y money to the college.

“I agree that the college is part of education and that is a valid point of view that we can fight about later,” she said. “I will be fighting for it going to pre-K to 14 myself.”

SMMUSD Board of Education member Ben Allen said he had heard there was a letter written by SMC executive Don Girard stating the college had no intention of seeking Measure Y money. Nobody else at the meeting could verify the letter’s existence.

The club unanimously voted to endorse both measures as well as Measure RR, which would strengthen tenant protection.

The club endorsed nearly all the Democrats in the local Legislative races as well as the statewide competitions. The exception was regarding state treasurer, for which the club took no position. It declined to support Bill Lockyer, who is seeking a second term.

“Lockyer was someone who years ago he did not help us on rent control,” said Julie Lopez Dad, the club’s vice president for membership. “We kind of overlooked that for awhile. However, he supported and voted for Arnold Schwarzenegger and bragged about it. Ever since then we have not overlooked it.”

For the state propositions, the one garnering the most debate was Proposition 21, which would place an $18 fee on vehicle license renewals to create a revenue source for State Parks. Residents in turn would get to visit all the parks for free. Nineteen of the 33 members who voted supported the measure, but this fell short of the 60 percent approval needed for an endorsement.

Lopez Dad said she did not support Prop 21 because it was an example of earmarking funds, and there are already too many. “I think that’s a big mistake because I think the Legislature should have funds that it can allocate to where they are needed when they are needed. And every time we do this, we are digging ourselves into a worse hole.”

She also said it was a regressive tax, to which Allen responded that high park fees are regressive. This measure likely would prevent the City from collecting parking fees for the beach, but McKeown said that was not a reason to reject it.

“While this measure would create some problems for Santa Monica, I think it would be incredibly selfish of us to oppose this because of the greater good it does for the whole State of California,” McKeown said. “It’s not a matter of revenue. What it is a matter of is we use the revenue from the parking to maintain the State beach. And we’re in negotiation with the State right now on how they might compensate in some way so that we can continue to do that.”

Another measure that sparked debate was Proposition 19, which would legalize marijuana. It received enough support for an endorsement, but some people wanted the club to take no position, which is what the State Democrats did.

“While I would like to see a real change in the drug laws … I think that the legalization takes it too far,” Santa Monicans for Renters’ Rights co-Chair Patricia Hoffman said. “And we already have a huge problem with people who are running around impaired. I think that by making it legal, that people will not realize that it is still a drug … I think that some of the driving issues that we have with alcohol will be expanded to marijuana in that case.”

Other said that marijuana use was not likely to increase just because it became legal. They also said Prop 19 would reduce the prison population, which many people believe is too high.

“I don’t want people to drive around stoned,” club President Jonathan Troen said. “I don’t think that many more people will than already are. And those that are should be stopped and ticketed. And there are too many other issues with the violence that (marijuana being illegal) creates (and) injustices in the minority communities.”

The club also endorsed “yes” votes for Proposition 22, which would prohibit the State from borrowing local redevelopment money, Proposition 25, which would reduce the threshold to pass the spending portion of the State budget from two-thirds to a simple majority and Proposition 27, which would eliminate the Commission on Redistricting for State Legislature districts and put elected representative back in charge.

The club endorsed “no” votes for Proposition 20, which would give the authority for Congressional redistricting to the Commission on Redistricting, Proposition 23, which would suspend the air pollution control law AB 32 until the state unemployment rate sinks to 5.5 percent and Proposition 26, which would require a two-thirds vote to approve certain State and local fees.