I’m sure it’s clear at this point to readers of this paper that public safety will be a prominent issue in our City Council election November 5th. And certainly concerns about security are valid, given that crime has increased in Santa Monica in recent years.
Incumbent Councilmember Oscar de la Torre and Phil Brock and two newcomers with no experience in government or public service are on a slate that has thus far focused their outreach on the safety issue. You may also remember the incumbents’ same pledge to reduce crime in 2020.
Brock’s website says we need 278 cops and many of the slate’s supporters argue the City needs to boost the ranks of its sworn PD officers to 300 or more, but they neglect to mention the challenges in recruiting new officers and paying for them. And much of the demagogic messaging claims that the incumbents running for re-election have been curtailed by their colleagues on the Council from boosting the SMPD ranks. Furthermore, the incumbents and their acolytes accuse the challenger slate of Dan Hall, Ellis Raskin, Barry Snell and Natalya Zernitskaya of being unconcerned about public safety and opposed to hiring more officers.
First, let’s consider that last assertion. In the first candidate forum of the season, all 10 Council candidates were asked "Should we fund more police officers?" All 10 replied yes. So much for the specious populist rhetoric which tries to paint Kamala Harris as soft on crime. Oh wait, I meant the Council challenger slate, not Harris. But it’s the same divide and conquer strategy.
Now let’s look at the SMPD staffing data and the promises being made. In fiscal year 2022/23 the budget allowed for a maximum of 221 sworn officers. The following fiscal year that number was increased to 228 and this fiscal year it’s up to 232. Does that sound like the City Council has refused to allocate more funds for PD staffing? And those increases came while the City is close to being broke, its resources ravaged by the pandemic and hundreds of millions paid in settlements to sexual abuse victims of a volunteer at the Police Activities League.
In budget deliberations this past June, the Council allocated funds for four more officers to get to that 232 total by deferring some road maintenance projects. That budget passed unanimously 7-0. To repeat, all Councilmembers voted to add more officers. So maybe the excuses about being constrained by others on the Council from increasing the number of cops is just so much malarkey, like assertions at the national level that immigrants are feasting on our pets. (An aside: interestingly, in January 26th, 2021, Brock and de la Torre voted to eliminate five sworn SMPDofficers.)
Yet despite increases in the budget for police officers, the number of active SMPD officers peaked at 223 in February of 2024 and is now down to 214. Why? Primarily due to attrition from retirements and a few moves to other agencies, leaving vacancies that are challenging to fill. It’s no secret that it’s harder to recruit police officers when there is greater public scrutiny of police departments, officers wear body cameras that will record the slightest misstep and the bad guys have ready access to bigger and better guns. In fact, other police departments in our region have a higher vacancy rate than Santa Monica — Torrance is currently offering a $100,000 signing bonus to new recruits.
But even if recruits were lining up at the door to serve on the SMPD, hiring more than the current allocation of 232 would be a heavy lift. The City is required by law to have a balanced budget, so increasing police staffing means cuts would have to be made in other areas, such as reducing library hours even more or paring back after school programs. And what would it cost to increase the current budget from 232 officers to the 300? At a conservative estimate of $225,000 per officer per year, more than $15 million annually would have to be eliminated from other City services and programs. So the next time de la Torre, Brock and their slate mates tell you they are going to hire more officers, ask them for the details of their plan. Do they have an actual strategy or is this just campaign season bombast?
How can the City allocate more funds for officers without reducing or eliminating programs that are popular with various constituencies? The answer lies in increasing municipal revenues by attracting new businesses and luring back the foreign tourists who haven’t returned in full force since the pandemic. Now ask yourselves: does bloviating in every available media space about how scary and unsafe our city is sound like a recruiting tool for new investment and visitors? Or would it be more responsible and effective to promote what the City has done and will continue to do to address public safety concerns? Lure back the customers and businesses with a positive message, increase revenues and then enhance safety even further — that’s the shrewder strategy.
So what’s a concerned voter to do? Well, vote for Measure K for starters to enhance municipal revenues. Then look at the Council candidates carefully. The question then becomes how to they propose to enhance public safety in a fiscally responsible manner? For the incumbents who who promised to reduce crime when they ran in 2020, why has crime increased during their terms? And what are their visions for the other issues in our city, such as housing affordability, economic development, sustainability and mobility? Are they running on a dark, dystopian vision of our city or do they represent the hope for positive change?
As for me, I’m voting for the liberal Council candidate slate that will restore integrity and competence to our city government: Hall, Raskin, Snell and Zernitskaya for not only a safer Santa Monica, but also for a better Santa Monica.
Ted Winterer served on the City Council 2012-2020 and as Mayor 2016-2018.
