The Living Wage, Beach Parking and Saving a Mermaid

April 4, 2000

Dear Editor,

I am very concerned that big business in our community has organized and
will be spending a million dollars to defeat the Living Wage study and
Ordinance proposed by the city.

A Million Dollars. Can you imagine?

There must be something to protect for that kind of money. It turns my
stomach to think that they will do that on the backs of poor dishwashers and
busboys.

As I understand the proposal it will bring the salary of a minimum wage
worker to $22,000 a year. Is that not poverty level? One can't find an
apartment in this town for this money.

Whom are they kidding when they tell you to sign their petition? DON'T sign
it, they should be ashamed of their actions.

We should not tolerate shoddy business in our town anyway.

Bruria Finkel
Rent Control Board Chair
Santa Monica

Dear Editor,

Rather than deal with the issues raised in my March 19 letter, Councilman Kevin McKeown obviously prefers to set up straw men and attack those -- a familiar tactic when both logic and facts are against you.

First, I criticized SMART and the Council members who support it for misappropriating the label "living wage" and applying it to a measure which would more than double the current minimum wage. Mr. McKeown knows full well that every single "living wage" ordinance in the country relates to wage levels paid by city contractors and recipients of municipal financial assistance; not a single one attempts to regulate wages paid by private companies who do not do business with the city.

Rather than simply acknowledge this plain fact, Mr. McKeown switches to an argument on the merits of the recommended wage level. Let's forgive Mr. McKeown for his understandable reluctance to address the issue and focus on his point -- that a $10.69 wage level should not be considered to be "too much wealth to bestow on struggling workers."

The Chamber of Commerce fully supports efforts to increase the income of all workers -- improvement in wages will benefit the business community as well as all of society. We have stated since our early involvement in this issue that steps are needed to increase family wage levels, particularly for workers at the low end of the income spectrum. We simply have an honest disagreement as to the proper mechanism for doing so.

The economics of restaurants are fairly simple. Labor costs are approximately one-third of annual sales, with profit being 5 to 8 percent of sales. Many workers are paid at or close to minimum wage because they receive a significant portion of their income in tips. It is not unusual for a successful waiter to earn $10 to $15 an hour in tips. Combined with the approximately $6 paid by the restaurant, the total hourly compensation will be well above the level required by the SMART proposal.

However, if a restaurant is forced to pay approximately double the current level, it will have to take drastic steps to remain in business and may not be able to do so. Doubling its labor costs to two-thirds of annual sales will obviously render continued operation impossible. This is not rocket science but simply economic fact. Many restaurants will be forced to close, making way for high-level retail chain stores on the Promenade, exactly the type of outcome the Council purportedly opposes.

My second point was that the SMART proposal was prepared without input from the business community. The presentations Mr. McKeown referred to before the Bayside District and Chamber were after the measure had been completed; there was no effort whatsoever to engage in any discussion with the business community during the formulation process. Had there been, we would at least have had the opportunity to explain the plight of the small independent restaurants in a more rational setting than a series of two-minute remarks at a public hearing already dripping with political overtones.

My third point was related to the second. If this Council were attempting to achieve a fair result, it would have seen the wisdom in the Chamber's recommendation to appoint a special committee consisting of representatives of labor, business and the community to attempt to reach a consensus.

Instead, Council members were making it clear that the SMART proposal was the only one to be seriously considered. This is particularly odd given this Council's penchant for appointing groups to debate various interests on matters of much less significance, such as the "monster mansion" ordinance and the revamping of Virginia Avenue Park. Mr. McKeown, in his letter, completely fails to enlighten us as to why this request was so objectionable.

Mr. McKeown apparently forgot to respond to my last point, which was the process by which Professor Pollin was selected to conduct the economic study over the objections of the City Manager. (Mr. McKeown even refused Mr. Pollin's sensible suggestion that two consulting economists be appointed to conduct a "peer review" in order to improve the credibility of the study. Fortunately, the City Manager has seen the wisdom in this suggestion and arranged for it to occur.)

Finally, Mr. McKeown incorrectly characterizes the Chamber's position on customary "living wage" ordinances. Contrary to his statements, I have consistently supported this type of measure. What the Chamber has opposed, and continues to oppose, is the minimum wage approach that SMART has recommended. His statement on this issue is simply wrong.

While incorrectly responding to the issues raised in my letter, Mr. McKeown criticizes the initiative measure the Chamber is supporting, apparently on the grounds that there is an effort being made to "hoodwink" the voters. What Mr. McKeown apparently realizes is that when SMART's proposal is explained, people who are not ideologically and politically committed to it conclude that it is ill-conceived.

No wonder they are afraid to face the voters-it is much easier to simply adopt something at the Council level, where they have virtually total control, than it is to compete in the marketplace of ideas.

Dear Editor,

As I understand it, the Coastal Commission told the City of Santa Monica to provide reduced rate coastal access parking. This was supposed to benefit residents who wish to use the beach for short-term exercise-type usage, access for local shopping, spaces so beach goers wouldn't be taking up parking on residential streets, etc.

So what does the City of Santa Monica propose? To add about 250 parking meters and double the parking rate to $1.00 per hour. It is currently 50 cents per hour, as are the other meters all over Santa Monica. However, they will now allow us to pay using nickels and dimes, as well as quarters. This is supposed to be an act of generosity? Double the rate, but allow us to pay with nickels and dimes as well as quarters? This is certainly not making the beach more accessible, just more expensive.

There is no mention as to whether these will be 24-hour meters. As it is now, those of us who live here and wish to walk, etc., at our beach before or after work can do so without paying for meter parking (before 9 a.m., after 6 p.m.). Is this new doubled fee parking going to also do away with these times when we can get out of our car without paying the city? Again, not more accessible, just more expensive.

They say they are going to lower the daily lot rate from $7.00 to $5.00. Most of the year, the rate is already $5.00. Today is a sunny day so the sign says $6.00. These lots are rarely more than one-third full most times of the year. Only in the peak summer months is the rate $7.00. So they really aren't lowering the rate all that much anyway.

People have been trying for years to get more short term, metered parking at the lots at the beach, but doubling the rate is not what the public had in mind. I have been paying taxes on my house here in Santa Monica for 23 years now, and I feel like I should be able to have free, or at least reasonable, access to my local beach.

Sincerely,

Dear Editor,

I'm about to go have a great big Porterhouse steak at the restaurant you wrote about (Emotional Signs, March 24). And I'm going to make the owner pay for it!

Ron Schur, The Galley's Captain, spoke briefly and had to leave in haste due to an emergency at his restaurant. He didn't hear my heartfelt testimony about his enchanting sculpture of a sign. I'm so glad it was saved, for it is really appropriate for his unique architecture, fun to look at, and fits in perfectly on Main Street. Not to mention the pretty
blonde mermaid.

So now that Ron gets to keep his sign, and now that I sat through 7 hours of bureaucracy, and now that my quote is in print, I'm gonna feast on Ron's tab!

Thanks for a great article.

Chaz Desimone
Creative Director/CEO
Desimone Design
Venice