Immigrant farm laborer tourists unite!

If you used to read the column I wrote for The Lookout News you may recall that one factor in my being one of the luckier of all human beings is that my sister and parents bought property about 30 years ago in Umbria, the “green heart” of Italy. This means that to visit family I’ve had a rather touristic place to go.

Last week I did something I’d always wanted to do — visit my sister during the olive harvest. Maybe it was a crazy trip — two days consumed in flying to spend five days in Italy — but I had the requisite frequent flyer miles, I wasn’t going to be missed too much at home or in the office (the latter these days you take with you on your computer anyway), and so I went.

Call it “immigrant-farm-laborer-tourism,” something Tom Wolfe might have written a novel about, but for four days I picked olives. In fact, as I learned, you don’t pick olives, but instead rake them. It’s not digging ditches labor, or harvesting field crops labor, but by the end of the day I had stretched muscles I was no longer aware I possessed.

Yours truly raking olives from a tree.

Yours truly raking olives from a tree.

Nearly everyone where my sister lives has olive trees, much like people here with backyards have vegetable gardens, and much of the conversation last week was about picking them and getting them to the frantoio, the press where they get turned into oil. As with the produce from a vegetable garden, when you consider the time you spend the price of what you purportedly grow for free is exorbitant, but the satisfaction in mixing your labor with the product is priceless . . . and the product is at another level of quality.

I’m a city-lover who loves visiting the country, and one reason is that as lovely as the country is, you get reminded why people live in cities. There’s no traffic to speak of in the Umbrian countryside, but nonetheless it’s a 20-25 minute drive to a supermarket or to an ATM. I.e., it’s not a convenient life.

And there’s not much economic opportunity. You can imagine how back in the pre-industrial day, which in much of Umbria wasn’t long ago, everyone in large farm families could pitch in for a few weeks and harvest olives, and the family would have enough oil for the year (and some to sell), but these days it’s hard to pick olives on an economical basis. The olives wouldn’t sell for enough money to pay wages that include everything that goes into a living, 21st century wage.

And so for a couple of centuries all over the world country folks have been heading to town. It’s been well noted that in the past decade for the first time the number of humans living in cities exceeded the number living in the country. When they get to those cities, former agricultural workers find economic opportunities, but their low skill levels typically limit them to the lowest level jobs, with compensation insufficient to pay the higher cost of living in the city, which includes public costs, too.

Their seeking better opportunities in the city then leads to various urban crises — housing crises, education crises, transportation crises, and numerous social problems associated with poverty. Think the Lower East Side 100 years ago. Or much of L.A. today.

To be blunt . . . not making enough money is a problem. It’s often said we have an affordable housing crisis — but what if it’s not, given the cost of building housing, that rents are too high, but that wages are too low? Shouldn’t people who work make enough to afford a decent place to live?

Which brings up the latest big news in Santa Monica — the deal UNITE HERE, the hotel workers union, has struck with OTO, the developer of the two hotels proposed for the corner of Fifth and Colorado.

For almost 50 years, from the passage of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) in 1935 until the advent of Reaganism, a strong labor movement kept wages high and created a “working middle class.” Meanwhile American industry dominated the world as management and labor worked together. (By the way, if you think that strong unions and high wages are incompatible with high production and profits, look at Germany.)

But nearly 40 years of Republican domination of the National Labor Relations Board essentially rewrote the NLRA to remove the right to organize.

The labor movement has found new life, however, in the L.A. area over the past two decades, in organizing service workers. By raising the wages and benefits of these workers, the unions have benefited our entire society. Congratulations to UNITE HERE Local 11 for the deal they have reached with OTO, which follows the deal the local made for the hotel at 710 Wilshire, and which will no doubt be followed by deals with all new hotels in Santa Monica.

Congratulations, too, to OTO, for not following today’s corporate conventional wisdom and ideology and for showing its willingness to make a union deal.

Finally, let’s hear it for those politicians and political organizations in Santa Monica, notably Santa Monicans for Renters Rights, and activists and organizations like Santa Monicans Allied for Responsible Tourism and the Santa Monica branch of Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice, who have supported the union’s efforts over the years.

This is nothing for unions to be shy about. Business uses the political process, and so should labor.

Thanks for reading.

This photo has nothing to do with the article -- it's just a cool picture of fog in the valley of the Tiber River, as seen from my sister's village.

This photo has nothing to do with the article — it’s just a cool picture of fog in the valley of the Tiber River, as seen from my sister’s village.

Storming FAA beach

For a while now the groups of residents seeking to close the Santa Monica Airport have been counseling caution in dealing with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The City of Santa Monica was so bruised by losing its case against the FAA over big corporate jets that the groups, the chief of which are Community Against Santa Monica Airport Traffic (CASMAT) based largely in the Santa Monica neighborhoods of Sunset Park and Ocean Park, and Concerned Residents Against Airport Pollution (CRAAP) based largely in the L.A. neighborhoods of Mar Vista and Venice, proposed strategies and tactics that — t’ai chi ch’uan style — avoided a head-on clash with the FAA.

You know what t’ai chi masters say is the way to stop an oncoming train from running you over, don’t you? It’s “step off the track.”

The FAA’s train was a covenant in a 1948 “Instrument of Transfer” by which the federal government released its wartime interest in the airport; the covenant on its face required Santa Monica to operate the airport in perpetuity. In all the decades of litigation over the airport the feds had never tried to keep the airport operating by invoking this clause, but a few years ago — getting desperate? — FAA administrators grabbed hold of the covenant and threatened Santa Monica with dire consequences if the city tried to close the airport in 2015, after the city’s agreement to keep the airport open until then, contained in a 1984 Settlement Agreement with the FAA, expired.

In the t’ai chi philosophy of martial arts one defeats one’s foe by yielding and “sticking” to them rather than opposing force with force, and in true t’ai chi fashion the tactics of the anti-airport groups involved two gambits. One focused on a parcel of land, called the “Quitclaim Parcel” because the City obtained it by way of a quitclaim deed from the federal government in 1949, which was not covered by the Instrument of Transfer, and the other on the leases to aviation companies at the airport that expire in 2015.

The tactics were (1) that the city would take back the Quitclaim Parcel, which would reduce the airport’s runway from 5,000 to 3,000 feet and preclude big corporate jets from using the airport without directly challenging the “perpetuity” covenant, and (2) that the city would simply not renew the aviation leases, thus drastically reducing the functionality of the airport.

Although I had several times written in my Lookout column that the airport should close when the 1984 Settlement Agreement expired, I didn’t get to know the people in the anti-airport groups until I ran for City Council in 2012. I met them during the campaign, and what impressed me about them from the start was how practical they were.

It’s easy for residents to make demands on the city without always considering legal, economic and other realities, but the anti-airport groups never took anything for granted. They researched everything about the airport, from its history, including the legal history of each parcel that makes up the airport, to operations — such as analyzing flight data to reveal that about half of all takeoff and landings at the airport came from flight schools that operated out of leased city-owned buildings.

Then, knowing that fighting the FAA in court would be expensive and grueling, they came up with their strategies based on the Quitclaim Parcel and the leases. They demanded action from the City, but the actions they demanded were measured and cautious.

So what happened?

Well, blow us all away, but forget yielding and sticking. Last Thursday the City of Santa Monica went to battle against the FAA more like Marines landing on a beach. As I’m sure readers know, the City filed suit against the FAA seeking to quiet title on the airport land, asserting, among other arguments based on the language of the documents and, in some cases, the FAA’s own policies, that the perpetuity covenant in the Instrument of Transfer violated the City’s constitutional rights under the Fifth and Tenth Amendments of the Bill of Rights.

If you haven’t read the Complaint, I urge you to do so. It’s written in plain, non-legal language. The arguments based on the facts — and I can’t wait to read the legal briefs supporting them — are powerful.

SMO Complaint (10-31-13) page 1 cropped

A few things are clear. The City — and that includes the council members, City Manager Rod Gould and his staff, and City Attorney Marsha Moutrie and hers — not only listened to the community groups, but also studied the history of the airport they and others (notably environmental lawyers at UCLA) had unearthed.

As a member of Airport2Park.org and looking forward the great park the City will build at the airport, I’m thrilled by the bold action the city took.

But I also want to mention that the city’s complaint preserves the city’s rights to take back the Quitclaim Parcel (which it explicitly clarifies as not coming under the Instrument of Transfer) and terminate the airport leases.

In a future post I’ll go into the complaint in more detail, but for now — Bravo!

Thanks for reading.

Me at the Activists Support Circle tonight

I’m the speaker tonight at a meeting in Santa Monica of the Activists Support Circle; I’m going to talk about the up-and-down role that activism has played in my life. I’ll try to be objective. Here are the details if you can make it.

Activist Support Circle Public Forum in Santa Monica

Wednesday, October 30  6:30 PM

Santa Monica Friends Meeting Hall
1440 Harvard Street, Santa Monica 90404

The program will start at 7:00PM. Doors open and refreshments will be served at 6:30PM.

Guest Speaker: Frank Gruber

Author of Urban Worrier: Making Politics Personal & Co-Founder of Airport2Park.org

Mr. Gruber is an entertainment attorney, an author, a former member of the Santa Monica Planning Commission, a former local columnist, a popular blogger, and a longtime neighborhood activist and “self-proclaimed urbanist.” He is also a co-founder of Airport2Park.org, a community coalition of residents who want to create a park for everyone in place of the Santa Monica Airport.

Visit:  Airport2Park.org and facebook.com/Airport2Park

The event is free to the public. On-site free parking is available.

The Activist Support Circle is an open and ongoing support group for progressive activists that started in 2005 to help guard against activist burnout.

For more information visit: ActivistSupportCircle.org or call:  310-399-1000.

Arguing about the good stuff

I’ll admit it — I love it that Santa Monicans are arguing about what should go on in Palisades (and our other) parks. When it comes to city life and politics, what’s better than arguing about how to use public space? (So long as you’re not in Istanbul rioting over it.)

I mean, what a relief from the development wars — it’s so refreshing to hear our city council members being accused of selling out to exercise trainers instead of developers.

Seriously, we are blessed that we are having this argument. We are blessed that the founders of Santa Monica created public space in Palisades Park (although they might have blessed us with some big wide open spaces inland, too), and we are blessed that we use parks and care about how they are used.

I say so because we shouldn’t take public space for granted. Not today in America. Consider so much of America built since World War II, where the most public of all spaces are malls. We live in a city where there are vibrant public spaces – not only parks like Palisades Park, but also the Promenade and the Pier.

And streets where people actually walk! What if the closest thing you had to a main street was a highway lined with fast food drive-thru’s and strip malls?

We live in a city. Cities (and real towns) have public spaces.

Public space is not the same thing as open space, or natural space. Yosemite is the greatest of parks, but it’s not a public place — it’s not where people go to be with the public. Instead, it’s a place where people go to have an enhanced private experience (even if, or particularly if, the roads are clogged with others looking for the same).

It’s the genius of park designers who are geniuses that they can create in city parks, in public places, the sense that you can be alone with nature in a place where you do not expect to be alone.

This is why, as I wrote last week, I have high hopes for Tongva Park and, naturally, I have the highest of hopes that we can create a great park on the site of the Santa Monica Airport. (Speaking of which, I’ll be out of town this weekend, but I hope you join Airport2Park.org for a potluck picnic Sunday at Clover Park (noon to 2:00 pm) where noted urban planner James Rojas will run a fun workshop to envision an airport park.)

What about the current controversy over trainers in our parks?

Palisades Park

Palisades Park

With everyone all riled up I hate to be boring, but I have to give the City Council credit for adopting a good program to regulate exercise trainers in the parks, at least on a “pilot” basis that will be evaluated in a year.

To begin with, I reject both extreme positions: On one hand, it was becoming intolerable (or had already become intolerable) to allow private trainers and exercise classes to dominate park use, particularly in narrow Palisades Park, for all the reasons you’ve heard (crowding out others, improper use of equipment, impacts on turf, etc.). On the other hand, a blanket prohibition of trainers and trainees wouldn’t be right either – i.e., it’s not surprising that after the vote to limit trainers, Santa Monica got ridiculed for “banning healthy people from parks.” Parks and exercise are a what you might call a good fit.

City parks are for people to use. It’s ironic, but in the past neighbors’ complaints about Palisades Park have focused on the homeless “taking over.” Homeless people are attracted to parks when other people don’t use them. Trainers bringing classes to a park is a sign of a park’s success.

But too much of a good thing is not a good thing. In this situation, you need to balance uses through regulation, and the council did a good job. (This is one of those cases where you think they must have done right since everyone – neighbors and trainers — seem to be mad at them.) They regulated how many trainers can use the park and where they can hold their workouts; the pricing seems fair and favors the use of other parks; the council banned trainers from Palisades Park on Sundays; and they regulated the use of equipment.

Let’s give this plan a try and see how it works out.

Thanks for reading.

Turning corners at Corner’s park

As I watched the festivities Saturday for the opening of Tongva Park and Ken Genser Square I couldn’t help but reflect on the history of the past 25 years of planning for the Civic Center and the various characters (and I mean that in at least two senses of the word) who had been involved, but there was one name that particularly came to mind: that of John Jalili, the former City Manager of Santa Monica.

I don’t recall hearing Jalili mentioned in anyone’s remarks Saturday, but he was a key player. After the 1994 earthquake Jalili established the City’s earthquake recovery redevelopment district, a district that covered most of the city and included downtown and the office/industrial corridor along Olympic. This took some chutzpah, since even with all of its earthquake damage Santa Monica did not fall obviously into the “blighted” category that was the justification for redevelopment.

The City used tax-increment money generated in the redevelopment zone from new development and re-sales of appreciated old development to fund the $53 million the City used to buy 11 acres from RAND, of which the new park covers about half.

Children's play area in Tongva Park

Children’s play area in Tongva Park

Ironically, or tragically, depending on how you look at these things, with the end of redevelopment the State of California now wants this money back, along with redevelopment money the City used to build parking structures and other infrastructure projects. If the City doesn’t pay up (or prevail in litigation) at least in theory the State could “repossess” the park.

One can make moral arguments against how redevelopment money that would have otherwise gone to fund schools and other public purposes was at times used in California to subsidize private developers in certain areas at the expense of other areas not getting the subsidies, but at least after Saturday’s glorious grand opening of the park, Santa Monica can hold its head high — we spent this redevelopment money to build a beautiful park in a location where it can and will serve the entire region.

Santa Monica City Hall from Tongva Park

Santa Monica City Hall from Tongva Park

The park design is a triumph, and to comprehend how triumphant it is, one must consider how difficult the site is for a park. On the northern edge, between the park and downtown, that’s not a river flowing languidly, under “Morty” the big fig tree, to the sea, that’s a freeway. And think about it, how much cause do people usually have to walk between City Hall and the Pier? For about 20 years I’ve ridden my bike nearly everyday over the Main Street Bridge, I can assure you few pedestrians find reason to walk on that stretch of Main Street.

To create a park that would stitch connections between downtown, Ocean Avenue, City Hall, and the rest of the Civic Center, as well as attract people to a location hard by a freeway, designer James Corner and his team had many challenges. While the site will be helped when the Olympic Drive extension opens along the southern edge, with the new apartments and ground-floor retail facing the park, and it will be great when Chez Jay opens its patio, the designers had to create a park that would be an attraction in and of itself, without becoming something other than a park.

James Corner speaking Saturday at the Grand Opening of Tongva Park

James Corner speaking Saturday at the Grand Opening of Tongva Park

While it’s too early to know for sure — we’ll know in a few years, after the novelty wears off if the park attracts enough users to keep it active — I suspect Corner succeeded. One reason — no pun intended — is that the park has a lot of … corners. There always seems to be another angle to turn at and see something new. The park is not a maze, but it is a bit amazing how in a tight space, about six acres, the park presents so many different “habitats” for the human species to enjoy itself and get lost in.

Picnickers in Tongva Park

Picnickers in Tongva Park

I suspect in a metropolis where most parks are either wilderness or dedicated to recreational uses, people will be attracted to and want to use a park that is a living, interactive sculpture.

Thanks for reading.

The group "String Theory" performing Saturday.

The group “String Theory” performing Saturday.

In this case, no need to compromise

I’m still consumed with (and writing about) the idea of turning the Santa Monica Airport into a big park, and this post contains more follow up to the Oct. 3 Airport2Park workshop — first to let readers know that videos of the workshop (in two parts) are available to watch on the Airport2Park website.

Honestly, the raw footage hasn’t been edited yet (and in certain places sound needs to be added from other cameras that were recording the meeting) and you may not want to spend two hours watching the whole event (although I guarantee you will be entertained!), but in the you-owe-it-to-yourself department, be sure to watch Mark Rios’ presentation on how airports and industrial sites all around the world are being turned into parks (which begins at the 20:42 mark of Part 1), and the presentation of the ideas from the breakout sessions (which begins around 11:30 in Part 2).

You will be edified.

In the meantime, we at A2P are tabulating the responses we received not only in the breakout sessions, but also from the many individual surveys that we have received from the public. (It’s also easy to add your ideas for a park to the mix by sending a message to Airport2Park from the website.)

Over the past decade or so, a number of landscape architects have made the case for a movement they call “landscape urbanism” which seeks to understand how cities develop by looking more at terrain and ecosystems than at a city’s buildings. It’s not coincidence that this way of looking at the city has arisen in an era when many cities are dealing with the remains of the industrial revolution in a postindustrial economy. (Perhaps the most famous example of landscape urbanism is the redevelopment of the High Line In New York City.)

Intrinsic to the landscape urbanism movement is the notion that in the urban context landscape is not simply landscape, it is what shapes the city. More specifically, a park is not simply a park. Parks and other open spaces not only serve important functions on their own, but also affect the performance of other urban functions.

There are many debates floating around about the role of landscape and the impact of landscape urbanism on the design of cities, but one thing that was clear from the A2P workshop is that ordinary residents instinctively understand the principles involved. While there were many calls for the restoration of terrain, unprogrammed spaces, and “quiet places,” there were as many calls, typically if not always from the same people, for connections to be made with the surrounding city, for active recreation, arts, and cultural uses, and for restaurants and cafés. People get it.

When asked at the end of the workshop to list five “takeaways” from the meeting, Mark Rios mentioned these — quiet spaces, connections to the city, environmental fixes (swales and the like), the arts, and cafés. But he also raised and responded to an important question that people might have: would trying to accommodate all these different uses lead to a compromise design, a “weird camel,” as Rios put it?

No, he said, a great park can accommodate many uses, programmed and unprogrammed alike, without being a compromise. Think about the great parks you have experienced in your life; a great park design is not compromised because the park accommodates conflicting purposes – doing that is what makes it a great design.

This is an important concept for any kind of urbanism, not only of the landscape variety. We spend a lot of energy trying to prevent things from getting worse. But it is possible to make things better.

Thanks for reading.

A2P Oct 3 Rios

Mark Rios speaking at the Oct. 3 workshop. (Photo courtesy Mike Salazar)

 

Airport2Park — the time is now

If you weren’t among the 150 or so who attended Airport2Park.org’s workshop Thursday evening about turning Santa Monica Airport into a great park, you missed an inspiring event. What was so exciting was how optimistic the gathering was. So much of local politics — I suppose all politics these days — is about fear of the future. This event was all about how good the future could be.

The key player in all that optimism was noted landscape architect Mark Rios, who gave what I can only call a moving talk, illustrated with slides, about how people around the world have turned godforsaken and human-forsaken landscapes leftover from the industrial revolution and turned them into beautiful, functional and beloved parks. His fundamental precepts: “Thing big; think green.”

Rios’ presentation ignited the imaginations of the public, who then went to work in ten small groups and came up with ideas that showed the power and logic of collective action.

It was a lot of fun.

I was proud to have a part to play at the workshop, which was to give a curtain-raiser for Rios — a talk that explained why Airport2Park has been formed now and why now is the time to plan for the green future of the airport site. Rather than rewrite it for the blog, here is my talk:

Let’s Build a Park – Why Now is the Time

I’m going to make a few remarks to put what we are doing tonight in historical context, because we are at an historical moment. We at Airport2Park have called this a once-in-a-generation opportunity, but it’s really more like a once-in-a-century opportunity, because it was nearly a century ago that the City of Santa Monica began acquiring the land at the airport with money raised with a parks bond.

At that time, an airport — basically a dirt strip then — was considered park-like, but that hasn’t been the case for a long time. Donald Douglas may well have been the most important person in the history of Santa Monica, but if so, he became that by turning the airport into one of the world’s biggest industrial plants, part of the arsenal of democracy that won World War II.

photo 2

Photo courtesy Mike Salazar

By the ’60s, however, when the City denied Douglas’ request to condemn residences to expand the runway so that he could build jets there, the residents of Santa Monica and city officials had recognized that the airport was no longer a good fit.

Things got worse when the FAA required the airport to serve jets. In response to that, in 1981 the City Council voted to close the airport. The FAA fought back in court, and the City, the FAA, and the pilots entered into the famous, or infamous, 1984 Settlement Agreement.

The 1984 agreement is clear: the City covenanted not to close the airport prior to July 1, 2015. Given this provision, it’s plain that all parties to the agreement believed at the time that the City had the right to close the airport. Speaking for myself, I got involved in local politics about 20 years ago, and all I can say is that everyone I met said that the airport was going to close in 2015.

It was also during this time that organizations like Concerned Residents Against Airport Pollution got started – they brought to everyone’s attention the negative impacts of the airport.

photo 5

Photo credit: Mike Salazar

The 1984 Agreement gave all aviation users 30 years to earn back a return on their investments and make arrangements to leave the airport. The aviation users often defend the airport by saying that nearby residents knowingly bought homes near an airport, but it’s they who have been on notice, for more than 30 years, that the airport would close.

Notwithstanding the clear language of the 1984 Agreement, a few years ago the FAA began claiming that under a provision of a 1948 agreement, the “Instrument of Transfer,” under which the federal government returned the airport to the City after leasing it from the City during the War, the City was obligated to operate the airport in perpetuity. I want to be clear that we at Airport2Park – and also the folks in City Hall – don’t accept the enforceability of this clause, and we don’t believe that anyone in 1984 believed that the clause was enforceable. But I won’t go into that legal analysis now; it would take a long time and we have work to do.

But it is important to note that based on research and documents uncovered by the groups working to close the airport, it is apparent that even assuming that the Instrument of Transfer is enforceable, it would not apply to that part of the airport, called the “Quitclaim Parcel,” that includes the westernmost two thousand feet of the five thousand feet of the current runway. Meaning that this part of the runway could be closed, but a functioning smaller runway would be left to satisfy the Instrument of Transfer if it is enforceable.

Last April Marsha Moutrie, the Santa Monica City Attorney, told the City Council that she thought this approach – using the Quitclaim Parcel – to sidestep any FAA claims based on the Instrument of Transfer was promising, and the council directed her to investigate further and report back in March 2014. At the same meeting, the council members expressed views in favor of converting this city-owned asset into a park if all or part of the airport can be closed.

Marcia Hanscom-1

Photo credit: Marcia Hanscom

We are now presented with exciting opportunities, but they may run in stages. The first stage is that the City can reclaim the Quitclaim Parcel July 1, 2015, the same date that all the leases for aviation uses at the airport expire and can be terminated. Without challenging the FAA on the Instrument of Transfer, the Quitclaim Parcel could then be turned into a park, and the runway could be reduced to less than three thousand feet.

We believe that ultimately, with a less than 3000-foot runway, which could not service jets, and without aviation services, the airport would have to close, and the whole of the runway and adjacent areas could be turned into a mile-long park.

After the City Council’s meeting in April, we formed Airport2Park.org to gather support for building a great park at the airport site, and we started planning this workshop over the summer. Surveys by Community Against Santa Monica Airport Traffic have already shown overwhelming local support for a park, but we need to create a movement to make this happen. We’re gratified by the support we’ve already received from the Sierra Club and the Friends of Sunset Park neighborhood group, and we expect more endorsements to follow.

The interests behind the airport, including the aviation industry and the FAA, a captive agency if there ever was one, will fight closure of the airport with every tool they have. But keep in mind — the FAA always says that it will not allow airports to close, but hundreds have closed in past decades.

Unfortunately, we know that the supporters of the airport will use fear as a fundamental tactic. What is scarier than anything else? . . . Well, it’s always the unknown. What the airport supporters say is, “don’t close the airport, because you don’t know what will take its place.” The politicians, they say, will allow big developments there that will be worse than the airport.

Our movement to build a park at the airport is designed to present a credible and a beautiful alternative to the airport, a positive message that everyone can support whether they live under the flight path or simply want a park to hike or cycle in, or one where they and their kids can play sports, or one where nature can be restored. A park would be a healthful, sustainable, environmentally safe and economically sound investment in Santa Monica’s future.

Tonight we’re taking a major step in that direction. Later on this evening we’re going to ask you to brainstorm about what a park could be, what it could mean. After that, we’re going to ask you to create a movement – at the city level, the county level, the state level, and yes, the federal level – to make this happen.

Tonight, let’s inspire ourselves, and hopefully others, as to what we can build for generations – for centuries – to come. And let’s have fun doing it.

Thanks.

And thanks for reading.

It’s About Building a Park

In anticipation of Thursday night’s workshop on turning Santa Monica Airport into a park I had intended to write another post about how building a park there would be the best legacy we current Santa Monicans could leave for the future. It was going to a joyful piece. The apparent death, however, of Mark Benjamin and his son Luke in Sunday evening’s crash has drained me of anything in the category of joy.

I knew Mark; not well, not personally, but with as much affection and regard as one can have for a person one knows not personally, but politically. Not that any dealings I ever had with Mark were political in the usual (negative) sense of the word, but they were political in the positive sense that they had to do with community.

In 1999 I served with Mark on an oversight committee for a school bond. Suffice it to say that having the head of a major construction firm on an oversight committee for a construction bond meant that at least someone knew what was going on. Another fond memory is of the pride Mark, who was Jewish, took from the fact that the Archdiocese in L.A. chose his company, Morley Builders, to build the cathedral downtown. It was wasn’t just the ecumenical angle, which Mark got a kick out of, but he said it was humbling to be charged with building something that was expected to last for centuries.

Mark and Luke will be missed by everyone involved in community affairs here, and we can only hope that their family and friends ultimately find solace in the memories they left behind.

• • •

As for turning the airport into a park, while the crash is sure to affect the controversy about closing the airport, it has little to do with whether the airport should be turned into a park. Even if airplanes never crashed, Santa Monica should do everything it can to close the airport and build a park. For that matter, even if planes were quiet and didn’t pollute, Santa Monica should build a park.

Why? Well, it’s true that building a park would solve the negatives associated with the airport, but building a park is not about closing the airport. It’s about building a park. Specifically, it’s about building a park on land that the public owns, in a place where there are not enough parks.

People who use or benefit from the airport make many arguments against the park, all framed in negative terms. This is understandable; it is difficult to make a positive argument for the airport, given how few people it serves (and given its negative impacts).

One of the negative anti-park arguments is that because the airport is located on the border with Los Angeles, a park will serve non-Santa Monicans. This argument fails on four counts.

First, as it stands now, the airport serves few residents of Santa Monica. When pilots and others appear at meetings to argue for the airport, few can identify themselves as Santa Monicans. As it happens, Santa Monica is subsidizing, to the tune of more than $1 million per year, a facility that mostly serves non-residents. On any given day, more Santa Monicans use the soccer fields that the City built in the ’90s on the “non-aviation” land it regained control of under the 1984 agreement with the FAA, or use the various cultural and educational facilities at the airport, than use the airport as an airport.

Second, for its entire history Santa Monica has happily been a destination for visitors, who come to use the beach and our other attractions. Being a regional, even international, center for recreation is part of Santa Monica’s identity and character, and a beautiful park will be consistent with that history.

Third, the argument ignores the fact that we residents of Santa Monica don’t lock ourselves into the city’s limits; we freely use regional attractions all around us, including parks and cultural facilities like museums and concert halls. We know we are part of something big. We share and they share.

Fourth, there is every reason to believe that because of the importance of the new park to the region, Santa Monica would not need to bear all the costs of building the park. Regional funding should be available. Keep in mind that the most costly item in the capital costs of building a park has already been paid for – the land itself, which was purchased in the ’20s with money raised from a parks bond. Airport2Park.org, which is sponsoring the workshop Thursday evening, intends to explore financing possibilities at a future event.

Thanks for reading.

Flying Blind

When I lost my bid last year to be elected to the City Council, I could have returned to writing my column for the Lookout, but as a columnist I couldn’t have stayed involved in politics. Even an opinion columnist, at least one who works for an editor, needs to be objective, and after 11 years of journalism, I was itching to become active again.

Since dropping the column and starting this blog I have become involved with various causes. The one I am most passionate about is turning the Santa Monica Airport into a big public park.

Thursday night, October 3, Airport2Park.org, a coalition of residents and organizations dedicated to making a park happen will hold a public workshop to envision what this park could mean. (The workshop will take place from 6 to 9 PM, at Mount Olive Lutheran Church, at 14th and Ocean Park Boulevard; for details click here.)

On Saturday Airport2Park had an information table at the Open House that the airport hosts each year. Naturally there were a lot of pro-airport people at the event, but many visitors supported turning the airport into a park. Surprisingly, even several pilots acknowledged that the closure of the airport was inevitable, given the number of jets that use it and its location surrounded by houses and businesses. One pilot even told us that she was embarrassed by the “arrogance” of pilots who had no regard for people who lived around the airport.

Naturally, there were pilots and others at the event on Saturday challenged our goal of turning the airport into a park. Actually, it wasn’t so much that they disagreed that parks were good, but they challenged our right to advocate for closing the airport to make a park possible.

They weren’t arguing about the City’s legal right to close the airport, but the moral right of residents negatively affected by the airport’s operations to demand it be closed. Their argument was that the airport was here first, before the people who live around it moved in. Leaving aside California law, which gives new residents living near a nuisance the same rights as old residents, and leaving aside the fact that the airport and its uses and impacts have changed considerably since housing for Douglas Aircraft workers began to be built close to the airport during the ’40s, and even more since the FAA required the airport to accept jet traffic more than 30 years ago, this argument is flawed because it is the airport users, the aviation businesses and the pilots, who have known for a very long time that the City of Santa Monica intended to close the airport.

The City’s opposition to the airport goes back at least to the ’60s, when the City refused Douglas Aircraft’s request that the City condemn houses so that the runway could be extended to allow Douglas to build jets. Keep in mind, to judge the gravity of this decision, that in doing so, the City Council — then dominated by business interests, not environmentalists — went against the interest of Santa Monica’s biggest business.

Then in 1981, in the aftermath of the FAA’s requiring the airport to allow jets, the City Council passed a resolution to close the airport. This decision resulted in litigation, which was settled in 1984 pursuant to an agreement with the FAA. Under the settlement agreement the City agreed not to close the airport until July 1, 2015 — leaving the clear implication that the City would have the power to do so on that date. The agreement is public record; any aviation users who have made investments in the airport since 1984, or who have based their planes there, have known, or should have known, that their use of the airport could cease in 2015.

I thought of this on Saturday, when a pilot with a video camera was peppering Airport2Park folks with questions about how long they’d lived here; he told us he’d moved to Santa Monica 16 years ago. Presumably he started flying out of the airport since then. I wondered if he’d read the 1984 agreement.

Apropos of a park, under the 1984 agreement the City gained control of the southern part of the airport along Airport Avenue, the so-called “non-aviation land.” In the ’90s the City built two soccer fields and a dog park there. When the City gains control of the rest of the airport, we want more of the same — and hiking and biking trails and restored habitat and everything else a park can be.A2P at SMO 130921-788

Airport2Park’s table at the Santa Monica Airport Open House, with the soccer fields from the ’90s in the background.

The moral argument works the opposite way from what the airport proponents argue – for a very long time it’s they who should have known that the airport would likely close.

But in any case, there’s a stronger moral argument, of a positive nature, in favor of a park. The people own the airport land, but few get any benefit from it. Let’s build a park for everyone. What could be more moral than that?

Thanks for reading. (And be sure to come to the workshop Oct. 3!)

A Tale of Three Motions

I was busy (i.e., sleeping) in the wee hours Wednesday morning, and it wasn’t until the weekend that I got around to watching the City Council’s deliberations over the Bergamot Area Plan (BAP). It surprised many residents who spoke at the meeting, but the main issue for the council members was not traffic, density, or parks, but rather how to increase the affordability of housing.

This gulf between what some residents believe are the issues and what in fact were the issues arises because the council members, even those elected with the support of, for instance, residents who rank traffic congestion as Santa Monica’s worst problem, are aware that they have to deal with the inevitable more than they have to deal with the wishful.

It is inevitable that the old industrial areas of Santa Monica will be redeveloped, and it is inevitable that the number of Santa Monicans who live in apartments and condos, already a massive majority, will continue to increase. Santa Monica is both a post-sprawl and a post-industrial city, and people charged with managing that transition, that evolution, cannot wish away the inevitable.

And so the council members did not discuss traffic much, because they know that the BAP deals with traffic as best as any realistic plan for the area could, and they didn’t discuss density much, because they know that the densities to be allowed under the plan, even if you don’t count new streets in the FAR calculation, are moderate and realistic for a place that a metropolis surrounds and which in turn surrounds a train station on a billion-dollar light rail line. It was telling that there was no controversy among the council members about increasing the density for the two privately own parcels on Michigan Avenue adjacent to the Bergamot galleries.

Nor did the council members argue much about parks, since they know that given the legal and fiscal constraints, they couldn’t do any more Wednesday morning to create parks than the plan did, and that the real work of creating usable public open space will come in the negotiation of development agreements.

So what did the council members argue about, or given that they didn’t really argue, what did they spend a couple of hours discussing? Well, it was housing, specifically how to get more housing that would be available to people who work in the area. The discussion revolved around three motions.

Council Member Gleam Davis made the first motion, and it reflected the consensus of a lot of progressives in the city, including the leadership of Santa Monicans for Renters Rights, that the plan needed more affordability. Davis’ motion was to expand density bonuses for building affordable housing, and to target the bonuses reward developers who build units for households earning less than what staff had recommended.

This motion passed unanimously.

The next motion came from Council Member Ted Winterer, and it had to do with the ratio between commercial and residential development in the area under the plan. If you were reading my Lookout columns three years ago about the updates to the land use and circulation elements of the general plan (the LUCE) (and you’re obsessed enough with local politics to remember them), you will know my heart went all fluttery when Winterer made the motion, because he wanted to clarify that the ratios called for in the plan would include in the calculation of the ratio existing square footage (which is all commercial), and existing square footage that is removed in the building of new development, thereby increasing the percentage of residential development because the percentage would be based upon the whole amount of development, not only the new development.

Winterer’s motion passed on a 4-3 vote; voting for it were Winterer, Davis and Council Members Tony Vazquez and Kevin McKeown. Council Member Terry O’Day said that he was voting against it because he believed that it would put the BAP in conflict with the LUCE, and presumably Mayor Pam O’Connor and Council Member Robert Holbrook agreed with him because they didn’t say anything and also voted no.

Council Member McKeown made the third motion, and it was to increase by 50% the amount of affordable housing that would be required under the plan in large projects. This motion lost on a 4-3 vote; Davis, who was the key vote all night, voted no because she was concerned that an across-the-board increase in the requirement might reduce the overall amount of housing that would be built, defeating the purpose of, as McKeown had emphasized, getting housing built near the jobs in the area to house working families and reduce commuter traffic.

Instead, Davis and the rest of the council directed staff to analyze the economics of increasing the affordable housing requirement; this data can then be used in negotiations over development agreements, which is where the data, on a project-by-project basis, would be most relevant.

In the end, the council members voted 6-1 to pass the BAP. The no vote came from McKeown; he made a protest vote on the affordability issue, but otherwise did not express significant disagreements with the plan. It was significant that O’Day, Holbrook and O’Connor voted for the plan even though they had lost the vote on the commercial/residential ratio, and that Vazquez and Winterer voted in favor of the plan even though they had lost the vote on McKeown’s motion to increase affordability.

It’s worth remembering that the Planning Commission approved the plan on a 5-1 vote, and the one no vote then was also a kind of protest vote, that time on the parks issue.

Some Santa Monicans are mystified about how the commissioners and the council members could so overwhelmingly endorse a plan that plan opponents say the public overwhelmingly rejects. Leaving aside the question whether the general public is in fact upset about the plan, the fact remains that the job of the commissioners and the council members is to plan for the future not sanctify the past.

Thanks for reading.