The price of your membership is up to you — you decide how much and how often. Our pledge is to keep original, authoritative journalism for Santa Monicans accessible to all, regardless of their means. Your membership helps accomplish that, and powers journalism focused on solutions to improve the city we share.
Prefer to give a one-time contribution? Click here.
I’d been hoping for logical arguments for and against, but the recent Daily Press story “Former Santa Monica mayor proposes initiative to amend Measure GS” reflects with unfortunate accuracy that what we’ve gotten instead is dueling ex-Mayors, Pam vs. Sue. Mud-wrestling won’t help. We Santa Monicans really need to start defining ourselves by what we stand FOR, not what or whom we oppose.
I am FOR education, resources to combat homelessness, and affordable housing. Therefore, I think the proposed amendment to Measure GS is a bad idea.
Measure GS already exempts fully affordable housing projects, and that is enough. For me to support the proposed exemption for all multi-family projects, I’d need to be convinced a possible GS disincentive was so burdensome as to cut off market-rate rental unit production. If that happened to the extent that we’d become unable to fulfill our RHNA obligations for market-rate housing, it might make us subject to more “builders remedy” projects or other penalties. I’m sorry, I don’t see that magnitude of market-rate shortfall as even possible, let alone likely. We will hit our market-rate RHNA, and beyond, without a doubt.
We are far more challenged to subsidize enough affordable housing to meet the larger RHNA affordable housing target. That is the reason we voters supported and passed Measure GS less than two years ago. Why would we now willingly abandon the revenue from unaffordable multi-family developments? Remember, even with our inclusionary zoning, those profit-driven projects are 85% or 90% non-affordable, renting for exorbitant market rate.
Measure GS appropriately captures a small part of the money flowing into local real estate value appreciation, and for very good purposes. As the original ballot argument in favor said, “If you value our children and public schools, helping severely rent-burdened seniors age in place with dignity, and keeping Santa Monica economically diverse rather than a community where only the wealthy live, vote for Measure GS.”
I oppose amending Measure GS by the ballot measure filed on March 29th. Such an amendment might favor certain interests, but not the interests of our community.
Paid circulators may appear on our streets looking for voter signatures to put the proposed amendment on the November ballot. Santa Monica voters should consider the issue and be very careful what they sign.
Opinion: Be careful what you sign
Share this:
I’d been hoping for logical arguments for and against, but the recent Daily Press story “Former Santa Monica mayor proposes initiative to amend Measure GS” reflects with unfortunate accuracy that what we’ve gotten instead is dueling ex-Mayors, Pam vs. Sue. Mud-wrestling won’t help. We Santa Monicans really need to start defining ourselves by what we stand FOR, not what or whom we oppose.
I am FOR education, resources to combat homelessness, and affordable housing. Therefore, I think the proposed amendment to Measure GS is a bad idea.
Measure GS already exempts fully affordable housing projects, and that is enough. For me to support the proposed exemption for all multi-family projects, I’d need to be convinced a possible GS disincentive was so burdensome as to cut off market-rate rental unit production. If that happened to the extent that we’d become unable to fulfill our RHNA obligations for market-rate housing, it might make us subject to more “builders remedy” projects or other penalties. I’m sorry, I don’t see that magnitude of market-rate shortfall as even possible, let alone likely. We will hit our market-rate RHNA, and beyond, without a doubt.
We are far more challenged to subsidize enough affordable housing to meet the larger RHNA affordable housing target. That is the reason we voters supported and passed Measure GS less than two years ago. Why would we now willingly abandon the revenue from unaffordable multi-family developments? Remember, even with our inclusionary zoning, those profit-driven projects are 85% or 90% non-affordable, renting for exorbitant market rate.
Measure GS appropriately captures a small part of the money flowing into local real estate value appreciation, and for very good purposes. As the original ballot argument in favor said, “If you value our children and public schools, helping severely rent-burdened seniors age in place with dignity, and keeping Santa Monica economically diverse rather than a community where only the wealthy live, vote for Measure GS.”
I oppose amending Measure GS by the ballot measure filed on March 29th. Such an amendment might favor certain interests, but not the interests of our community.
Paid circulators may appear on our streets looking for voter signatures to put the proposed amendment on the November ballot. Santa Monica voters should consider the issue and be very careful what they sign.
Kevin McKeown, Retired former Mayor
Related