SMRR Debates a Change of Name

By Jorge Casuso

Would Santa Monicans for Renters' Rights by any other name be as powerful?

That was the source of a heated, and often emotional, debate during the tenants group's annual summer meeting, which drew more than 75 members to John Muir Elementary School on Sunday.

One faction cheered at the chance to change the 20-year-old group's name to Santa Monicans for Residents' Rights. They noted that the new name better reflected SMRR's broader concerns - education, the environment, slow growth --, as well as its membership, which includes many homeowners. The new name also would broaden the group's appeal, supporters said.

"Homeowners have the highest percentage of registration and turnout," said former rent board member Jay Johnson, himself a property owner. "We lose heavily in those districts. We need to build a broader coalition. The time has come."

But opponents saw the measure - which has been contemplated for five years -- as a slap in the face to the two generations of renters who have made SMRR perhaps the most powerful political organization in the city's 124-year history. To make the point, Delores Press, one of the group's early members, read a fable comparing SMRR to a beautiful baby girl.

"The parents proudly announced her name would be Santa Monicans for Renters' Rights," Press said, and efforts to change the name "with many offers of corruption ensued to no avail." One day, Press went on, a Hollywood producer called and offered the beautiful young woman a leading part, under the condition that she change her name.

"My name is my identity," Press said SMRR told the producer. "It's my history with the people. How can I betray their spirit? If I change my name, those who love me and need me will not know me."

A wave of cheers and applause erupted after Press finished the fable, followed by calmer voices who tried to play down the importance of a name change that didn't even affect the acronym, much less the group's soul.

"It isn't like our name was Moishe Greenbaum and we're changing it to John Christianson," said Councilman Ken Genser. Changing the group's name "doesn't mean ignoring our roots," he said. "That doesn't mean fighting our roots."

But the name, opponents of the change noted, is indeed rooted in a long and proud history that dates backs hundreds of years. And you can see attempts by landlords to erase the powerful connotations of the word "renter" by putting up "for lease" rather than "for rent" signs.

"The word renter has long, historical connotations," said Bruce Cameron, a longtime SMRR strategist. "I'm proud I'm a renter. I have been one for 30 plus years, and I'll be one for another 30."

Councilman Kevin McKeown also said he is proud of being a renter who has lived in apartments his whole life. But he added that the debate is over more than the emotional bond a word conveys, it is also a matter of political pragmatism. With homeowners sharing many of the same goals as the tenants' group, it makes sense to include them.

"We have every reason in the world to work together," said McKeown, who rushed down from a Green Party meeting in Santa Barbara to take part in the debate. "It is all of us against the speculative interests, the developers and the attorneys who work for them."

McKeown urged the group to put "a second door on (SMRR') tent" to "welcome everybody."

The idea of a compromise by adding "resident's" to the name -- instead of substituting it for "renters'" -- was advocated by several speakers.

Many others, however, said it was crucial to keep the word renter, a critical selling point during elections. "I know what pushes the buttons to get theses people out to vote," said George George, who works on SMRR's political campaigns. "To drop renter is not good."

But at least one member noted that Sunday's debate failed to take into account the question of semantics.

"A resident and a renter are two different things?" asked John Petz, who advocated using the word "residents." "A renter is not a resident?"