| |
|
 The Empty Seat: What's
at Stake? |
|||
|
By Jorge Casuso April 1999 -- On the surface, this weekend's special election for an empty seat on the Santa Monica City Council seems to be just another humdrum race: Candidates agree about crime (it's dropped), about parks (there's a need for more) and defend rent control (you have to to win in Santa Monica). As it has for most of the decade, the local economy is booming - Santa Monica is one of only four cities in the nation with a Triple-A bond rating -- and, as always, the cool breezes blow in the year round. Besides, Santa Monicans for Renters Rights, the powerful grassroots tenants group, already holds a 4-2 majority after picking up a seat in November on the seven member council. You'd never know it from the dull debates and upbeat fliers, but the seaside town of 94,000 may be holding one of the most critical elections since an unlikely coalition of senior citizens and long-haired radicals put "The People's Republic of Soviet Monica" on the national map with a stunning victory for rent control 20 years ago. At stake is the future of the city, which finds itself in the initial throes of a politically charged affordable housing crisis that has seen rents escalate overnight, threatening to turn the radical renters bastion into "Beverly Hills by the Sea." The signs are literally everywhere. For the first time in recent memory, "for rent" signs seem to outnumber campaign signs -- this in a city whose rental market has been shut so tightly for the past two decades that "no vacancy" signs have pealed and rusted on their posts. Since January, it's been the for rent signs that tell the politically volatile story -- $1,200 for a one bedroom, $1,800 for a two, $2,400 for a three. The steeply rising rents - in some cases double the previous rent-controlled rates -- are the result of a 1996 state law that, since Jan. 1, has allowed landlords to charge what the market will bear for rent-controlled units vacated when a tenant voluntarily moves out or is evicted for non-payment of rent. The fallout has put SMRR on the defensive, as the tenants group that shaped the face of the city - from the size of a major development to the placement of a stop sign -- finds itself fighting to hold on to its gains. "We don't want our city to go through the dramatic change that is on the horizon," said SMRR candidate Richard Bloom. "There are economic forces influencing the dynamic of what is happening, and we don't have control over all these forces." Bloom, is the front runner among the seven candidates vying for the council seat vacated when landlord advocate Asha Greenberg resigned in mid-tern and moved to Brentwood. A family attorney and neighborhood leader, Bloom fell just 92 votes short of upsetting popular incumbent Mayor Robert Holbrook in a hotly contested November race for three council seats. Bloom finished fourth, nearly 1,800 votes ahead of Susan Cloke, the top challenger in the upcoming election, who finished a distant fifth. When a deadlocked council failed to appoint a candidate to finish Greenberg's four-year term, a $150,000 election was set for April. To boost turnout, the SMRR majority scheduled it over two days on a weekend, a first in the state. The tenants group also placed Prop.1 on the ballot, an initiative to bolster tenant protections, giving renters extra reason to go to the polls. For SMRR, the election is critical - both in the long and short term. A victory would put three incumbents on SMRR's slate for four open council seats in 2000, all but ensuring the tenants group maintains control at least through the 2002 election. What's more, a fifth seat would give SMRR the necessary two-thirds majority to push through emergency ordinances that go into effect immediately, without the delay of lengthy staff deliberations or advance notice for public input. A fifth vote also would give the tenants group the votes to eminent domain property, reallocate funds from the budget, change existing zoning and fire the city manager, city attorney and city clerk. Although there is nothing council members can do to rein in escalating rents, a fifth vote gives them the power to enact emergency ordinances that protect tenants from landlord harassment. On April 27, the SMRR majority is expected to introduce an ordinance that strengthens existing tenant protections. SMRR also plans to raise the fees charged to landlords who opt not to build low and moderate income units on site. Tenant activists hope that the higher fees will discourage developers from tearing down existing rent controlled buildings. "New housing doesn't do anybody any good after they've been evicted and are now living in Van Nuys," said SMRR Councilman Ken Genser. SMRR also plans to use a clear majority to lend weight
to their lobbying efforts in Sacramento, where legislation is currently
being proposed that would disallow rent increases for landlords who
cancel or fail to renew Section 8 certificates, or who fail Opponents fear a fifth vote gives SMMR inordinate powers. "If they win five seats, they will feel very emboldened to do some very dramatic things in Santa Monica," said Councilman Paul Rosenstein, a former mayor who broke away from SMRR in 1996 and backs Cloke. "You will see the effect in City Hall. The staff will be tempted to jump through hoops for them. I see a lot of conflicts ahead. I see businesses locked out of City Hall and throttled." Opponents say local businesses, as well as landlords, have reason to be concerned. After all, the SMRR members fell one vote short las year of using eminent domain to buy The Lobster House, which was under reconstruction, for park land on the bluff above the Santa Monica Pier. "There's no doubt in my mind that properties like The Lobster House are in jeopardy," Councilman Holbrook said. "If it's for the public good, it's for the public good. That's their attitude." Aside from eminent domain, landlord leaders fear SMRR will use its super majority to strengthen tenant harassment ordinances and more aggressively prosecute landlords. "They'll do anything they can to drive the stake into the heart of a sensitive landlord," said Herb Balter, president of ACTION Apartment Association, the city's largest grassroots landlord group. "As soon as tenants paying market rents constitute a majority, SMMR's days and numbered, and they know it." So far, the SMRR majority has done little to flex its muscle - there has been no moratorium on new market rate housing, as opponents had feared, and their only major pro-tenant initiatives have been supported by the entire council. Opponents sense an unsettling silence before the coming storm that only fuels their worst fears. "The most dangerous thing in the world is a political party that believes they have a mandate to do any damn thing they want," Holbrook said. "It's the mob mentality.". ***** In any other city, Susan Cloke would be considered a liberal. She marched for Civil Rights in Selma in the early sixties, is staunchly pro-Union and worked as a planning deputy for Gloria Molina when the county supervisor was on the Los Angeles City Council. She is endorsed by several key former SMRR members - including former mayor James Conn --, as well as Molina, former Congressman Mel Levine and three local unions representing retail clerks, nurses and electrical workers. In addition, Cloke has the support of California First Lady Sharon Davis. In a city where SMRR opponents are moderate liberals by any but Santa Monica standards, Cloke and Bloom seem to see eye to eye on the critical issues - both vow to save and build affordable housing and protect tenants against harassment from landlords eager to cash in on the state-mandated rent hikes. "We have to make sure we use every possible avenue to create and preserve affordable housing in the city so we continue to keep diversity," Cloke said. She adds that you "have to be practical. You can't tell people, 'you have to do this,' and then they don't have a way to do it." That kind of talk worries tenant leaders. "People will say 'I'm for rent control, I'm for motherhood and apple pie,'" Mayor Pam O'Connor said. "But when you have three paths to go down, which one are you going to hit? How far will you go to support tenants so they don't get unfairly evicted?" SMMR points to Cloke's campaign war chest as an indication of her hidden agenda on housing and development. Like Bloom, Cloke received money - she'd raised a total of $43,000 by April 12 -- from a wide array of sources. But her campaign statements list more than 50 contributions -- a quarter of the 212 contributions of more than $100 - from developers, Realtors, income property owners and their representatives, most of whom donated the $250 maximum. Cloke says the contributions reflect her willingness to "bring everybody to the table" to explore ways to promote "balanced growth and keeping the unique character of Santa Monica." "Not everybody can own you," Cloke said. "When you have a broad base of support, you have no choice but to build consensus. I treat people fairly. I have an open mind and look for reasonable solutions where everyone has a part." If anything, Cloke says, it's Bloom who is beholden to special interests. SMRR, after all, has raised $50,000 for his campaign. By comparision, Bloom has raised $20,000. At a recent debate in Century Cable, Cloke proposed bringing down the high costs of local elections - which already restrict contributions to $250 - by urging candidates to pledge that they won't accept endorsements from organizations that raise more than an agreed amount. "The total spent on Santa Monica campaigns is too high," Cloke said. "If Bloom had to raise the money in his name, it would be a totally different race." SMMR leaders scoff at the idea, noting that their organization receives thousands of small donations from tenants who constitute a true grassroots base. While much of the campaign has focused on the future of affordable housing, the five cash-strapped independent candidates have tried to address other issues, such as the lack of jobs and the youth violence plaguing the low-income Pico neighborhood. But this is Santa Monica, and 20 years after rent control became city law, the overiding issue remains the same. "There's only one issue in this town," Balter reminded the candidates at a landlord forum, "and that is rent control."
|
