Did you know that the Santa Monica Pier was originally built as a sewer? In the latest addition to the "3-Minute History" video series (courtesy of Mayor Phil Brock and the Santa Monica Conservancy), I learned that the pier was created in 1909 to carry treated wastewater away from the beach. The first incarnation of an amusement park came along in 1916 when a second, adjoining Pleasure Pier was added, starting a tradition of camouflaging sewage with crowd-pleasing distractions long before the current City Council election.
Of course, when it comes to politics, the tradition of offering the public "bread and circuses" goes all the way back to ancient Rome. So it’s unsurprising that when we’re facing grievous problems, including addicts on our sidewalks and empty storefronts on our streets, we long for easy answers. And the two rival slates of Council candidates are happy to provide them, beguiling us (some would say bludgeoning) with populist rhetoric or progressive boilerplate.
The Change Slate, rechristened the Safer Santa Monica Slate (did I mention the populist rhetoric?) offers outrage in place of legally viable options, as if they can huff and puff and blow homeless addicts out of the city. They also vociferously assail the political influence of real estate developers, while a Political Action Committee has formed on their behalf with a $100,000 contribution from Douglas Emmett Properties, a real estate company, specializing in management, and — you guessed it — development.
Is this hypocrisy on the part of the candidates? Or merely cynicism? A month ago, I flippantly suggested this slate would be willing to nominate a tuna sandwich for Council, and they seem to have taken me up on the challenge by nominating two of them.
Neither John Putnam nor Dr. Vivian Roknian has any experience in government or public service. Their primary qualification seems to be living in Santa Monica for decades, yet in those decades they never chose to serve the community on any of the two dozen municipal boards or commissions or to even join the PTA. Mr. Putnam’s campaign website showcases his time volunteering on Thanksgiving and Dr. Roknian’s shares that she has provided pro bono dental work. These are commendable actions, but not valid credentials for governing a complex city.. This isn’t to cast aspersions on their character or merit. I would be unsurprised to learn that they are upstanding individuals with praiseworthy skills, and I don’t question why they would like to be on the Council. But I do question why the two incumbents, Councilmember Oscar de la Torre and Mayor Brock, selected them.
Both incumbents had impressively lengthy resumes of public service prior to joining the Council, including many years on the Arts Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, School Board and several neighborhood associations. Was there not a single person in those groups that they found honorable and competent? Or did the incumbents purposely choose inexperienced running mates who would be indebted to them?
On the other side of the fence, the opposing slate consists of four qualified candidates with a large range of municipal experience — and a tendency to spout progressive talking points in the kind of knee-jerk lockstep that could put a Politburo apparatchik to shame.
I’m uneasy imagining them as a majority rubber-stamping policies based on principle rather than reality, even if their principles are admirable, because that too is a form of magical thinking. It’s to their credit that they have avoided reactionary responses to contentious issues, but I’d like to see more signs of individual thought. Ellis Raskin is clearly the most knowledgeable candidate in the race, but he could show more of the independence he has claimed as a key asset.
However, if voters want independence, they have another option. Ericka Lesley, the chair of the Rent Control Board, is running independent of either major slate, as Councilmember Lana Negrete did in the previous election, and it has served the city well to have someone on the Council unbeholden to any particular faction or its benefactors.
Ms. Lesley, a self-described "military brat" who has also experienced homelessness, bemoans the political obligation to choose sides on the left or the right. "There’s no one in the middle," she said, before adding "I’m dead center."
She’s a level-headed single mother of three sons, who seems unattached to any one ideology. As a black woman, she’s concerned about pretextual stops by the police, while equally concerned about crime. "We have a lot of people getting their catalytic converters stolen," she said. "How do you suggest the police stop them, if they don’t stop them during the act?"
Her pragmatic perspective has won her the endorsement of the local police and fire unions and she’s served on several boards, ranging from Downtown Santa Monica to the local chapter of the NAACP. But she’s not a polished politician, which makes her willing to pose tough questions, even about touchy topics like the airport.
She fully supports creating a park there, but that doesn’t stop her from asking about the elephant in the room: "Has anyone considered the money we’re going to lose?"
She pointed out that the decision to replace the airport with a park was made before the city’s current financial crisis — and while there was money available to pay for it. "When you’re strapped for cash, you look around for other ways to make revenue," said Ms. Lesley, speaking from personal experience as someone who worked as an Uber driver to make ends meet. "As a city we’re obligated to do the same."
Her goal isn’t for the city to reverse course on the park, but for its leaders to engage in honest and rigorous debate about the city’s fiscal challenges. "Do we want the libraries open or don’t we?" she asked.
Too many political candidates sugar-coat their comments like carnival barkers luring customers to a carousel ride. We already have an amusement park on the pier; we don’t need another at City Hall.
