EXCEPT IN SANTA MONICA
It might make you weep.
Some here don’t like to bring it up because it could be awkward for them. Our City governments and many civic leaders have spent a lot of energy and money, and years of planning, and propaganda, to implement their patriarchal "visions," their pet agendas for the future of our city. Those plans require ignoring the needs of the current residents – gosh, some might not even be able to live here anymore – and tossing aside a lot of Santa Monica history. But, you know, "progress," toward a modern, 21st century Santa Monica, requires sacrifice. Those who fight it are stuck in the past, nostalgic for a quaint beach town that hasn’t been a reality for years, and no longer serves us. That’s what you hear from these forward "thinkers." But none of that is true.
You can progress, and develop toward future needs responsibly, smartly. Reduce, recycle, reuse. It applies to buildings, and cities, as much as to cans and plastics. There are reasons Santa Monica is a well-known, popular destination for the world. And it has nothing to do with density or high rises on the beach. In fact, just the opposite. You can get that in a lot of places, places that don't have our history, culture or attractions. But ideologues, the ones responsible for developing us into crime and ugliness, don’t care. They take something with a kernel of truth – bikes and walking are healthier for the environment, density reduces per capita water usage – and plow ahead without caring about current realities, or how residents are affected. We don’t even have decent public transit. We do have a water crisis. Continuing to build high rise residential buildings with low-flush toilets may reduce the numbers per capita some, but eight stories of apartments will use a whole lot more water than the single story building that was there before. And developers have this habit of claiming there is enough water in Santa Monica for their project, without factoring in all the other projects in construction or already approved.
WHO KILLED THE ELECTRIC CAR?
It’s obvious the infernal combustion engine is helping mightily to choke the planet. And bring heretofore unheard of climate disasters killing hundreds of thousands and costing us hundreds of billions of dollars. But corporate America fought that notion fiercely ("Who Killed the Electric Car?" - 2006) until they could figure out how to cash in on the electric car. Corporations have only one purpose, and it is not to make our lives better. Or even to make sure they don’t kill us. A "few" of us. "Collateral damage." Neither they nor the government can be counted on to protect us when there is big money involved (even though that should be the first duty of any government, from federal down to city).
With what we now know about pollution and climate change, alternative means of transportation are a modern necessity. But in Santa Monica (and Sacramento) you have those ideologues moving forward with tunnel vision, for their agenda (or maybe just for the money), passing legislation, accelerating development as fast as possible, without any regard for previous, long-standing guardrails, or local realities. You can’t pretend cars are no longer needed (or parking spaces) until you have decent public transit. And here, we don’t. We could have small electric shuttles criss-crossing our city, something Mayor Phil Brock has been advocating for years. But we don’t.
ALBUQUERQUE, 1706
Although first settled by the Tiwa people around 1250, Spanish conquistadors built homes in what is now known as Old Town, in 1706, and it remains the top tourist attraction nearly 370 years later. The town square and bandstand remain, across from San Felipe de Neri Church, 1706. Those centuries-old buildings became restaurants and shops. They were repurposed. Recycled. Not torn down for tall developments. Albuquerque preserved its history.
I was recently impressed, and saddened, by a walking tour of downtown Petaluma. So many gorgeous old buildings, so many fascinating small businesses. Our southern LA neighbor, San Pedro, likewise knows the wisdom of preserving history, while accommodating common sense development. It can be done. Why not here?
I haven’t quite figured that out. Yes, our land values are really high, but that doesn't benefit development unless there is political cooperation. Other nearby communities have sky high land values too. I think it’s our "culture" of politics here, small groups of people who live for their control of "their" territory, be it the Pier or renters or the airport. They ignore the needs of the city at large. It’s a strange system, but it has damaged us immensely.
The buck always stops at City Council, and until four years ago those were controlled by SMRR. You couldn’t get elected without their endorsement. Long ago, SMRR, a good idea to begin with, became enamored of their political power, and worked primarily to maintain and increase the number of renters here, to keep their power. So, build, build, build, even though we already have more than 4,000 residential vacancies, even though we are already an extremely dense city, and despite the fact that building shiny new units raises the price on all rentals. Then, two elections ago…
"THE SLATE"
Came along, Phil Brock, Oscar de la Torre and Christina Parra, and did the unthinkable: they won Council seats without the endorsements of SMRR. It’s been a sea change, though a slow-moving one. They are still a minority vote, but when appointed member Lana Negrete sides with them, as she often does, things are different. The last election added two voices for overdevelopment to Council, along with established ideologue Gleam Davis. The next election here, in November, will make a huge difference. I have recently heard rumblings of more organization among the residents, and good candidates testing the waters.
Many of my readers know all this. But for those who don’t, I think it’s important to try to unravel why we have the problems we do, so we can fix them with a City Council that will respect our unique history. This is an amazing little city, and deserves our protection. Take the "For Sale" sign off Santa Monica. Organize, and vote.
Charles Andrews has lived in Santa Monica for 38 years and wouldn’t live anywhere else in the world. Really. Send love and/or rebuke to him at therealmrmusic@gmail.com
