Landmark Campaign Kicks off

By Oliver Lukacs

Feb. 20 -- Members of two opposing factions, many from the same neighborhoods, began a month-long battle Thursday in Santa Monica's first mail-in election, which will determine who has the ultimate power to designate single family houses as historic landmarks -- the homeowner or the City.

At the heart of the battle are two opposing philosophies: Homeowners argue that it is a property rights issue and that they should have the ultimate say in whether they want to tear down or make significant changes to their homes. Preservationists counter that the community's right to preserve its architectural history is paramount.

Following in the footsteps of the Living Wage, the homeowner-sponsored ballot measure already has drawn widespread attention from preservationists and developers who are closely watching an election that could guide other cities struggling to balance individual property rights and community rights.

The "Homeowners Freedom of Choice Initiative," which requires a homeowner's consent to designate a single-family home as a landmark or include it in a historic district, has spurred a grassroots movement that has stepped up its campaign in the last two weeks.

It also has forged an opposing coalition that includes neighborhood groups, as well as local state, and national preservationists who have banded together as "Save Our Neighborhoods" to defeat the initiative.

Homeowners for Voluntary Preservation, which has raised more than $54,000 for their Prop A. campaign, is relying on a core group of 100 volunteers who have been getting the property rights message out by canvassing the single-family neighborhoods and calling homeowners, organizers said. Soon flyers will be sent in the mail.

"People view their homes as their homes," said Tom Larmore, a Santa Monica-based land use attorney who authored the initiative. "People don't view their homes as community assets. We want it to be our choice."

The campaign message, organizers said, resonates with homeowners. "All you got to do is drive around" to see the "Yes on A" lawn signs, said Larmore, who added that 900 of the1,000 signs produced have been snatched up by supporters.

But opponents -- who have raised more than $40,000 and have hired Park Skelton, Santa Monicans for Renters' Rights top political strategist, to run the campaign -- contend that many homeowners are not in lock step with Prop A.

They point to the "no on A" position taken by homeowner organizations Friends of Sunset Park and the North of Montana Association, as a sign that Prop A proponents are out of touch with homeowners.

The Prop A campaign, opponents contend, is using "fear mongering" to drum up support. The result is the Prop A signs mushrooming across the city's single-family neighborhoods.

"You see these (Yes on A) signs in front of new houses," said Darrell Clarke, a NOMA board member and chair of the Planning Commission. "What were they told? There's no way those houses would be designated. There are very few houses, if any, North of Montana that meet the standard. This is fear mongering.

"People have been told to make them frightened from the beginning that the City is going to make all of NOMA a historic district," said Clarke, who owns a house built in 1923. "That just isn't true." Clarke added that even his vintage home, which is a rarity in the neighborhood, doesn't meet the standards for designation.

NOMA's decision to oppose Prop A, Clarke said, was taken at the groups monthly public meeting in January.

But Larmore, a homeowner and NOMA member, countered that the board of the organization "only represent themselves," that they "met in secret" to make that decision and that the "members themselves were never given a chance to voice their opinion."

The two camps also disagree on the impacts of the initiative, which would strip the Landmarks Commission of much of its power.

Currently the commission can prevent or delay demolition or remodels that change the character of the exterior of buildings considered worth preserving based on their architectural style, cultural significance or historic importance to the city. If a building is more than 40 years old, an automatic review is triggered by a demolition application.

Homeowners say they have plenty to fear. There are 1,377 potential sites slated for consideration, 162 of those are in the North of Montana area.

"Once a home is designated as an historic building, the owner is prohibited from making virtually any changes to its exterior without the approval of the Landmarks Commission," the "Yes on Prop A" Web site warn homeowners. "Therefore, the choice about the nature of one's home is taken from the homeowner and transferred to the City, even if all zoning and building laws would be satisfied."

Opponents counter that Prop A will likely impact a handful of homes. Since the creation of the Landmarks Commission in 1976, 16 of all the 48 structures on the historic inventory have been private homes.

To date, only the Third Street Neighborhood Historic District in Ocean Park -- which is comprised of 38 structures built between 1875 and 1930 (along with a small pocket of several homes nearby) -- has been officially designated as historic. Homeowners were behind the decision to create a district.

Opponents of the initiative -- which include the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the California Preservation Foundation, the Los Angeles Conservancy and the Santa Monica Conservancy - argue that Prop A just makes it easier for developers to demolish old houses and replace them with "monster mansions."

"The initiative is a new, aggressive outgrowth of the tear-down trend, which has become rampant in Santa Monica's affluent neighborhoods, where older homes and established landscaping are giving way to 'monster mansions' at an epidemic rate," says the L.A. Conservancy's Web site.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation last June included "this tear-down mania in communities such as Santa Monica as part of its annual '11 Most Endangered Historic Places' list," according to the Web site.

Larmore counters that there is no basis for the "inflammatory" argument.

"That inflammatory argument is without merit," Larmore said. "There are zoning laws against 'monster mansions' and Prop A has no effect on those zoning laws."

Clarke - who notes that Larmore is a partner in law firm of Harding, Larmore, Kutcher & Kozal, which represents developers in Santa Monica -- believes the landmark ordinance should remain mandatory like the zoning laws.

"Voluntary preservation is no preservation," Clarke said. "That's why we have laws. Because we are willing to put limits on what people can do for the greater good."

Larmore -- who said he was not aware of any donations to the campaign made by developers --contends that the current Landmarks Ordinance hurts individual homeowners. He points to Marc Schrobilgen, whose predicament became a rallying cry for the movement when he was refused a demolition permit after purchasing his home because it was a landmark nominee.

"It took almost a year and it almost bankrupted him," Larmore said of Schrobilgen, who has since received his permit and demolished his house. "Nobody should have to go through what he went through."

Some opponents of the measure, however, argue that Prop A could be spurring interest among homeowners to designate their homes, qualifying them for Mills Act benefits that permanently lower property taxes by 50 percent.

Roger Genser, a member of the Landmarks Commission, said that most of the 16 private homes designated have been the result of the owners' request. If anything, all the publicity garnered by the proposition has increased the number of people interested in designating their home, Genser said.