The asteroid that hit Santa Monica

During the election, I wrote two blogs, one about the national election and one about the election for Santa Monica City Council. In neither did I make predictions, but for the national election I expressed my “gut” belief that the election would be an earth-shattering, “realignment” election, based on which Democrats would set the agenda for the next 30 or 40 years. I had faith that it would be like an asteroid hitting earth. So much for faith, but at least Joe Biden won. (When all the votes have been counted, I’ll write more about the national election.)

I didn’t predict any results in Santa Monica, or even express any gut beliefs, but that was because I didn’t think I needed to. In my blog, reflecting on the dire circumstances in the city, I lamented the lack of a “principled opposition.” Nonetheless I wrote that I would vote for all of the incumbents, with enthusiasm. When I say I didn’t need to make predictions, that was because so few incumbents had lost reelection bids over the past 40 years, not since Santa Monicans for Renters Rights (SMRR) had become the dominant political force in the city. I expected the incumbents would win reelection, too.

Instead, the asteroid hit Santa Monica. Leaving aside Kristin McGowan, who was running unopposed in a special election, three of the four incumbents facing challengers—Terry O’Day, Ted Winterer, and Ana Maria Jara—lost. Only one, Gleam Davis, survived the impact of the extraterrestrial rock.

As a longtime observer of and sometimes participant in Santa Monica politics, I’ve been trying to figure out what happened.

Context is, of course everything. This election reminded me of the elections of 2002 and 1994, which, like this one, took place in fraught times—after riots and terrorist attacks, during economic slowdowns and/or housing and stock market busts. In 2002 no incumbents lost reelection, but just as unusual in Santa Monica, an education parcel tax failed. In 1994 incumbent Tony Vazquez lost, and was replaced with Ruth Ebner. Ebner is pretty much forgotten, but she is to this day my best example of unprincipled (and unbridled) opposition. I wasn’t involved in Santa Monica politics in 1983, but an “older-timer” told me this election reminded him of that of 1983, the first time SMRR lost a majority.

The context today is miserable. The virus is dispiriting, that’s a given, but no one blames the City Council for that, and the City’s response to the disease of Covid has been good. Instead, what defines the political context are the boarded-up storefronts downtown, drastically reduced city services in response to the virus’ hit on the City’s revenues, and the ongoing crisis of homelessness. The shadows cast by the terrible events of May 31 are as long as the shadows that hit the beach these days around 5:00 as the sun sinks directly across the bay.

Fourth Street this week.

I’ve been reviewing the campaign literature and ballot statements of the four challengers—winners Phil Brock, Christine Parra and Oscar de la Torre, and the fourth who didn’t win, Mario Fonda-Bonardi. The four ran as a slate. Their messaging was consistent and seized the moment. Typical phrases that they used incorporated words like “residents’ rights,” “fiscal accountability,” “public safety,” “reducing homelessness,” “zero tolerance for crime,” “stop overdevelopment,” “preserve the character of our community,” “reduce taxes,” “special interests,” and naturally, “it’s time for change.” To prove that they’re in Santa Monica, “protect renters” and “increase affordable housing,” are there, too.

Needless to say, they were fighting for the “soul of Santa Monica.”

Challengers previously have run on similar platforms, but incumbents have been able to win not only because of endorsements and the campaign financing that goes with them, but also because voters, even if they weren’t actively following local politics, recognized that they had it good living in Santa Monica, with its high level of services and progressive values. They assumed that there was competence behind those services. They didn’t realize that those services were greatly paid for with revenues generated by tourists, who disappeared with Covid, and that the competence was in the hands of managers who were rarely challenged by anyone, since they reported to a City Manager, not to elected officials or voters.

The budget and the services went down the toilet with Covid, and the aura of competence first dimmed when the City Manager was fired (or quit, I really don’t know) in the middle of the financial crisis, and then went dark entirely on May 31.

My theory is that local voters, swelled with interest in politics this year because of the national election, and alarmed at the local crises, paid more attention than usual to the local election, but not enough to become deeply informed. They read the ballot statements and accepted at face-value the claims of the challengers to be reformers who would deal with the city’s crises.

In fact, the challengers proposed bromides, not solutions.

Take homelessness, the shame and tragedy of our society. The challengers, three of whom will now be council members, campaigned that they could drastically reduce homelessness in the city, which they said was worse here than elsewhere. The situation in Santa Monica is terrible, of course, as elsewhere in the region, but have 40 years of conscientious efforts by the City to do something about made it worse? Have the challengers been over the border, to Venice, or West L.A., and seen the tent cities in L.A.? We don’t have those in Santa Monica because we have a proactive, services-oriented, housing-first approach to homelessness that incorporates services with policing.

The incumbents for the most part campaigned with cool rationality—too cool, probably. It wasn’t time for business as usual. In retrospect, their campaigns didn’t take into account the emotions of the moment.

Inevitably, since in normal times most political controversies in Santa Monica involve development, the question arises whether the victories of the challengers reflect a no-growth mandate. While the challengers tend to be from the slow growth side, if in different degrees, development was not the big issue they ran on. The challenger most identified with no-growth, Mario Fonda-Bonardi, lost. The incumbent who survived, Gleam Davis, is a favorite target of those opposed to development.

Still, from what I can tell, the anti-development groups provided a lot of the energy behind the challengers’ campaigns. That cannot be discounted. The City is now embarking on a new update to the Housing Element of its General Plan, an update that is required every five years. The City has legal obligations to plan for a level of housing development beyond what I imagine the new council members and certainly their no-growth backers would willingly agree to. I wonder how this will play out. In the 90s the City was sued over its Housing Element, which was found legally deficient.

A political asteroid hit Santa Monica. But was this a realignment election? Is the SMRR era over? SMRR has always rebounded from defeats in the past, but how could it be that thousands of renters must have defected from SMRR this year? Will the debris kicked up by the asteroid’s impact darken our skies for years?

No answers here. Just congratulations to the winners. (Good luck.)

Thanks for reading.

Howard Dean, Prophet

Taking place in a year when extreme political polarization collided with catastrophic reality, the election next week has the potential to be the political equivalent of an asteroid hitting earth.

Either way. Both sides are claiming that if their candidate loses, the election will have been stolen, either through fraudulent ballots or suppressed voters. Both sides predict the country will fail if the other candidate wins – by subversion of our democracy leading to authoritarianism if Trump wins or by socialism if Biden wins.

Trump’s strategy has been to focus on getting more of his base to vote. Since there are a lot of disaffected, non-college educated white voters who didn’t vote in 2016, it’s a plausible strategy. Plausible enough to keep me awake at night.

But I hope that the polls showing Joe Biden with a big lead, and Democrats challenging Republicans everywhere, are correct, and that they take into account that any increased voting from the Trump base will be more than matched by increased votes for Democratic candidates. That is what happened in 2018.

Again, that is what I hope. I don’t know enough about polling to make predictions.

I believe, however, that next Tuesday will be a great day in our country’s history. I believe that not only will Joe Biden win in a landslide, with more than 55 percent of the popular vote and at least 350 electoral votes, but also that Democrats will flip seven or eight Senate seats and add 15 more Democrats to the House. Next Tuesday will be like the election of 1932, and remake politics for a generation or longer.

On what do I base this belief?

On a trying-to-be-rational level, I base my belief not only on the 2018 elections, but also on the many special elections Democrats have won in red districts since 2018. Democrats are fired up. I expect that as in 2018, in 2020 there will be more new Democratic voters than new Republican voters.

In fact, however, my belief that Nov. 3 will go down in history as a Democratic realignment election like 1932 is based on something more than rationality, something that’s more from the “gut.” On faith, I suppose. Faith that Americans get serious when threatened by a profound crisis (in this case, crises). Faith that it has been at those historical moments—“inflection points” is the trendy term—that Americans radically realign their politics to center them again around liberal values.

The concept of a “realigning election” is a simplification, but even if elections don’t realign anything themselves, it is true that voters do realign. Realignment can take place over time or quickly. The Depression led to the New Deal era, which saw a profound realignment that resulted in the “New Deal coalition.” The switch of many white voters from Democrats to Republicans, which took place in stages, starting in the South, after the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the social changes of the ’60s, was a realignment. Sooner or later realignments express themselves in elections. Of the nine presidential elections starting with 1932, Democrats won seven; of the ten starting in 1968 the Republicans won seven.

Realignments don’t occur in a vacuum. They reflect reactions to new realities.

With respect to the 2020 election, one reality was the election of Trump in 2016. There’s no question that Trump’s own personal characteristics are a reality that creates cognitive dissonance; just ask the Lincoln Project. No question that from the start, with the Women’s March in January 2017, the resistance grew.

Another new reality is the pandemic. There’s nothing like an “Act of God” to make people realize that they can have all the personal responsibility in the world and yet they still need a functioning government. Covid-19 is a nationwide Hurricane Katrina.

A third 2020 reality was the common revulsion against racism that followed the murder of George Floyd.

These specific, 2020 realities accelerated a realignment that was coming in any case. The pro-corporate, anti-labor, anti-environment economic program that began with Nixon and came into full fruition under Reagan, hit the inevitable wall, culminating in the Great Recession. The failure of Reaganomics to deliver results to masses of people, including, by the way, the white victims-of-capitalism who support Trump because he expresses their anger and says he feels their pain, is killing this country, tearing us apart. Yet that reality is, at the same time, fundamentally altering politics back towards a new, New Deal.

Meanwhile the demographic and generational change that has long been predicted to move the country leftwards is taking place. This is another new reality. Not only is the electorate more diverse, as immigrants and their children become voters, but also younger (and Millennials and Gen-Z are even more diverse than the whole of the population), more tolerant, and open more to change. The young also care more about climate change and other environmental issues.

It’s not only the young who comprise generational change: there’s a new middle-aged and getting older generation of educated people, particularly the females of that cohort, who see that good government is more than a zero-sum game about how much you pay in taxes. Conservative members of the Silent Generation and older Boomers, are, as happens to all, passing on.

Next week’s election is a great opportunity for the Left. While Trump, racial justice, and Covid-19 occupy center stage, the results of 2018 and, I would argue, Barack Obama’s election in 2008, were already evidence of realignment. It’s no accident that in spring of 2019 Joe Biden and the other principal Democratic candidates for president all already had significant leads in the polls over Trump.

The Left has seized the opportunity. At last, in vindication of Howard Dean’s 50-state strategy, Democrats are active everywhere. The drivers of the expansive strategy, however, are the grassroots, not the party leadership. The money pouring into more than a dozen purple-state U.S. Senate candidates and several dozen purple-district House candidates (on top of 40 or so flips in 2018) was not orchestrated by the DNC, the DSCC or the DCCC. (All the people needed, it turned out, was ActBlue.)

The consensus that took place overnight among all the factions behind all the presidential candidates to unite behind Joe Biden also evidenced a sense of shared purpose unusual among the Left. (For once no one is taking seriously third-party candidates yapping about “there’s not a dime’s worth of difference.”)

The fact that our candidate, Joe Biden, has the confidence (and the money) to expand the map not only into red states, but also into historically Republican areas of every state, is more evidence that voters are realigning.

In times of extraordinary crisis and upheaval the American electorate has sometimes turned inward and rejected a positive governmental approach to solving problems. More often it has reacted to crises by recognizing the need for governmental and other collective action. I believe – I have faith – that this will happen Nov. 3.

Not a prediction. And not something that auto-actualizes. Keep making calls, sending texts, knocking on doors (but be safe). Vote and make sure everyone you know votes. Let’s turn faith into reality.

Thanks for reading.

Women’s March, January 2017

Stay the course, Santa Monica, but …

We California voters are receiving our ballots in the mail this week. When I fill mine out, which will be soon, I’m going to mark it in favor of the five incumbents running for Santa Monica City Council: Gleam Davis, Ana Maria Jara, Terry O’Day and Ted Winterer, running for the four-year term, and Kristin McCowan running (unopposed) for the two years remaining in what was Greg Morena’s first term.

Three of these candidates, Davis, O’Day and Winterer, are long-time incumbents and I know them well. They are thoughtful and conscientious and work hard as members of the City Council in good times and bad. They deserve our support as the City faces challenges unprecedented in living memory.

Dealing with the three specifically:

Once upon a time I included Ted Winterer into the “Santa Monicans Fearful of Change” category, which he protested, and while Winterer can still be a bit nervous about zoning for more apartments, overall he’s a politician with real grace who listens to all sides of an argument and does his best to craft progressive solutions.

It shouldn’t be news to my readers that of all the council members, the views of Terry O’Day and Gleam Davis are most closely aligned with mine, particularly when it comes to housing development, supporting unions, environmental issues, and closing Santa Monica Airport.

The other incumbent running for a full, four-year term, Ana Maria Jara, has been in office for nearly two years. Since I’ve been less active in Santa Monica politics lately, I don’t know her personally as well as the other three. However, I have paid attention to her votes and what she brings to the council and the City. She is just what the City needs more of: a City Council member who is not defined primarily by her views about development. Jara comes out of the social and economic justice world, and her worldview is different from the “First World problems” orientation of so much of politics here.

I know Kristin McCowan only from what I’ve read about her, what I’ve seen her do on the (virtual) dais since her appointment, and what longtime Santa Monicans have told me about her and her family’s involvement in Santa Monica over the years. What I’ve seen, however, and learned about her, is inspiring and I hope she will become a beacon for the next generation of leadership.

You might think that with this excellent group of incumbents to vote for I would be happy about the state of politics in Santa Monica, but I’m not. The political status quo in our city is perilous. As happy as I am voting for the incumbents, because they’re good, it’s not healthy to have politics without a credible opposition, and a credible opposition is something Santa Monica lacks.

Back in May, with Juan Matute, I wrote two blogs about how obscure the finances of the City were. No one seemed to know how much money the City had available to it to help ride out the Covid-19 storm. Then at the end of May the civil disturbances after the murder of George Floyd broke out, with the twin fiascos of how police dealt with protestors (which also involved the City’s misuse of curfews that criminalized peaceful protests and caused more problems), and the looting that took place downtown.

Real life in the form of admittedly extreme events—the pandemic and the nation’s overdue response to systemic racism—exposed the reality that the City Council needs to supervise staff more closely. Santa Monica has a City Manager form of government, which means that the executive branch of our local government does not answer to the public in elections. The City Manager runs nearly everything and hires everyone except the City Attorney, yet the City Manager is not a mayor who answers to the people. The City Council must be not only a legislative body, but also the “electorate” that oversees the executive.

I believe that the incumbents running for reelection understand this, but what we lack in Santa Monica is an opposition that credibly questions how the City Council fulfills its role. This doesn’t mean that if there were such an opposition, I would not still in this case vote for the incumbents, but at least the important issues would be raised and there might be real alternatives.

Instead in Santa Monica the opposition has taken the form of the kind of nihilism that plagues so much of American politics today. I know three of the main candidates running against the incumbents well, and none of them would bring to City Council either policies or an approach that would serve Santa Monica constructively. Whatever their politics are outside of Santa Monica, their rhetoric within the city sounds like the Tea Party.

Mario Fonda-Bonardi, as a Planning Commissioner and columnist, has put forward a constant stream of phony progressive mumbo-jumbo designed to hide adamant opposition to building a city for the next generation. He is par excellence a Santa Monican Fearful of Change.

Phil Brock has a long history in Santa Monica public affairs, but it’s a long history of saying anything to please whomever he is speaking to, and then invariably catering to the squeakiest wheel.

I formerly was a strong supporter of Oscar de la Torre (even once drafting for him a long defense, to give to the City Council, of his management of the Pico Youth and Family Center), but he lost me somewhere between his careerism at the Center, his embrace of anti-housing policies, and then his joining with fee-seeking lawyers to bring the district elections lawsuit. Given the demographics of Santa Monica, district elections might benefit de la Torre personally, but they would diminish the clout of Hispanic voters rather than increase it.

I don’t know Christine Parra, and she seems to be a well-respected civil servant in Culver City, but there’s nothing in her campaign that goes beyond the usual “let’s keep them out” slogans.

It didn’t use to be this way in Santa Monica. Back in the 90s when I became actively involved in local politics, there was content in the political conflict we had, and real choices. Then as now Santa Monicans for Renters Rights (SMRR) was the dominate political force, and overall that was good for Santa Monica, but the platforms of the opposition politicians were more than various combinations of “Raise the Drawbridge!” and “Throw the Bums Out.” Whether you voted for them or not, council members like Bob Holbrook, the late Herb Katz, Bobby Shriver, and Paul Rosenstein cared about the city and its future in a changing world and brought constructive ideas to the discourse. There was pluralism within SMRR as well: “development skeptics” who received the SMRR endorsement, council members I often disagreed with such as the late Ken Genser and Michael Feinstein, had nuanced views, cared about social justice, and often surprised everyone (including themselves!) with their votes.

To reiterate: please join me and vote for all five incumbents. Happily. They’re good people. But here’s hoping for a rebirth of a principled opposition.

Thanks for reading.

A very stable election, or? (And return to the Miramar Hotel)

As we go crazy in response to the latest Trump provocation, the latest being his saying he won’t leave the White House if he’s not declared the winner immediately, or we go just as crazy in response to the latest article or column (even from David Brooks!), telling us to be prepared to hit the barricades if Trump won’t give up, it’s important to remember that the shape of this election, as described in poll after poll, has been stable since Joe Biden declared his candidacy 18 months ago.

Then, as the other Democratic candidates were arguing over details of their policy proposals, Biden entered the race and correctly diagnosed what the election was about, namely, in his words, “the soul of America.” Thankfully, Rep. Jim Clyburn and the Black voters of South Carolina rescued the country. Can you imagine if now, after all that’s happened this year, we were running against Trump on anything other than his manifest unfitness to be president?

Biden began his campaign polling about six points ahead of Trump, and that’s where he is today. The polls have been preternaturally stable, through one event after another. Let’s hope that leads holds (or increases!) for another month, because to be safe in the Electoral College, Biden needs a national margin of four or five points.

As is often discussed, the national polls in 2016 were largely correct, but state polling in the industrial heartland was off because the views of non-college-educated voters were undercounted. Trump, in basing his 2020 campaign solely on motivating his base, is counting on the same phenomenon. I assume this is why Biden is now pushing the Scranton vs. Park Avenue argument. Good for him, attack Trump where he’s strong. Let’s pray, however, he doesn’t forget that his path to victory will be paved with the votes of women, particularly Black women.

Trump tries to make the election about “Sleepy Joe” – with crazy insults and everything else his meme-machine can generate (which the media always amplifies) – but Trump has not succeeded. Every few days there’s a new revelation about Trump, or there’s a new outrage from him, that turns the spotlight back on him. Trump loves the attention, but now it is illuminating just how much he doesn’t care about the American people.

• • •

Back to local news and an oldie and now a goodie: namely the redevelopment of the Miramar Hotel. After the project’s approval a few weeks ago by the Planning Commission, City Council will consider it at the council’s meeting Tuesday night.

The Miramar is a project that’s been in development for a decade, and I’ve written about it many times. (Search on “Miramar” in my blog, and you’ll see.) I most recently wrote about it two years ago, when the hotel released the third major iteration of the plan. As I wrote then, after two false starts, the third plan, developed with a new set of (much better) architects and by a new development team, was good. In two years since then of environmental analysis and other inputs, it’s become better. Third time’s the charm.

Artist’s conception of the new Miramar Hotel

The Miramar along with the Paper Mate project were the focal points of the revival of no-growth politics after the City adopted the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the general plan in 2010. Looking back, the level of hysteria about the plan then seems incredible, when you actually look at what’s being proposed. True, the hysteria was inflamed by the well-funded opposition of the neighboring Huntley Hotel; but since the Huntley was found to be at the center of political finance shenanigans by the California Fair Political Practices Commission and fined $310,000, the hotel’s opposition has been muted, or at least under the radar. It also didn’t help to create a calm atmosphere to evaluate the merits of the proposal when the hotel got into a spat with then rising political star Sue Himmelrich, who based her winning campaign in 2014 to a great extent on her opposition to the project.

The opponents, and this continues today with various mindless opposition pieces, argue that somehow the project is “monstrous.” But it is, when you get down to what is actually proposed, modest. There’s (i) replacement of the hotel (the room count stays about the same, increasing from 301 to 312, certainly not a mega, Vegas-type hotel), (ii) replacement of an old tallish building with a some new tallish (but not taller than nearby buildings) buildings, and (iii) the addition of 102 housing units – 60 fancy condominiums on the hotel site and 42 affordable units on land across from the hotel on Second Street that the hotel will donate to Community Corp. of Santa Monica (the Miramar will also pay the costs of building the affordable housing). (The original plan was somewhat bigger, calling for 132 units, of which only 12 would be affordable, but even adding 132 units to downtown Santa Monica would not have been noticeable in terms of any impacts. There are, after all, about 50,000 housing units in the city.)

Meanwhile, a rundown hotel that’s a key part of the downtown economy gets rebuilt for another century (creating quite significant amounts of tax revenues for the city and the school district out of thin air), the site gets opened up to the public, two historic assets (the big fig tree and one of the old buildings) get preserved, and the economy gets a big boost. The architecture is good, too.

This is the kind of change that cities are supposed to experience.

So, what’s the problem? There is no problem other than panic on the part of Santa Monicans Fearful of Change (SMFCs), and a new group I’ve come to identify as Santa Monicans Resentful of Someone Else Making Money (SMRSEMMs). It always kills me to hear anti-capitalist greed rhetoric coming from Santa Monicans who live in houses worth millions north of Montana or, in this case, live in the high-rise building on California that overlooks the Miramar.

Oh, all right, I’ll admit it: the SMRSEMMs don’t actually resent people making money. It’s just that the rhetoric works for SMFCs in a good, leftie town like Santa Monica.

Usually in Santa Monica the SMRSEMMs avoid the anti-Semitic imagery historically associated with anti-greed screeds, but it looks like people opposing the Miramar project couldn’t help themselves. Over the weekend in the Santa Monica Daily Press someone paid to insert a flyer (shame on the Daily Press for accepting it) making wild claims about the project (it will ruin Santa Monica!) that included this image of Michael Dell, the owner of the Miramar who happens to be Jewish:

Michael Dell as depicted in a flyer distributed by an apparently anonymous group called SMAME.org

Here’s what Dell looks like in real life:

Is that Michael Dell? I thought he had a bigger nose. And where’s all the cash? No piles of golden coins?

Thanks for reading. (And l’shana tova to my co-religionists. Have an easy fast if that’s what you do.)

Labor Day 2020: even this year, a lot of politics is local

Labor Day is the traditional start of the election campaign. While this is a quaint notion given that Donald Trump began running for reelection immediately upon being inaugurated, and Joe Biden has been running to replace him for going on two years, I’ll use it as a starting point for returning to my blog.

Labor Day is also a reminder that many of our current crises, and I’ll include our response to Covid-19, have roots in the Republican Party’s attack, going back 70 years to Taft-Hartley, on the rights of American workers to organize. If workers and the middle class of workers that unions created were receiving the share of the American economic pie that they received half a century ago, when unions set the agenda for wages and benefits, imagine how much less discontented Americans would be? Imagine how much less they’d be fighting among themselves for the scraps that fall from Wall Street’s table?

I have written primarily about politics from a local perspective for 20 years, starting with the 2000 election. This is one year, however, when I have to admit that Tip O’Neil’s declaration that “all politics is local” seems irrelevant. The issues at stake in the national election, not only for President but also for Congress, overwhelm local concerns. Nonetheless, I would still hold that the attitudes of voters take shape locally, given that anti- and pro- Trump votes can be arrayed over a geographic spectrum from the centers of cities to rural communities, whereby the farther you live from an urban center the more likely you are to support Trump.

The closer people live to each other, the more they must acknowledge the role of government. People who live in rural areas and in small towns, even though their lives and livelihoods are just as or even more dependent on government than those of people who live in cities, are not reminded everyday of that dependence. They believe passionately that they are independent, “free” of the need for government. Yet they get back more money from Washington than they send there, and these days Republican members of Congress from rural districts are scrambling to save the Post Office.

The cities have also been, since the end of the 19th century, where most immigrants have arrived and settled, and where Blacks from the South settled during the “Great Migration.” The nativist sentiments that Trump exploits are going to be stronger where there are more “natives” (paradoxically where there are fewer immigrants to bother them) even if those natives are often themselves descendants of the despised immigrants of a century ago. While there’s no doubt that changing demographics have caused tensions in cities over the years, ultimately city dwellers realize that they “have to get along,” to paraphrase the immortal words of Rodney King, and Trump’s appeals to xenophobia have been less successful among whites who live in cities and suburbs, and they have little appeal to the immigrants themselves, let alone to African-Americans.

So, I don’t know if all politics is local, but a lot of it is.

We saw that in the closing days of the recently-concluded session of the California legislature, where a host of housing bills died. I’m not endorsing every provision of every housing bill that failed, but in the face of a statewide housing crisis, a crisis that Governor Newsom promised to solve, it’s incredible that the legislature has let another year pass without taking significant action to make it easier to plan, finance, and build housing.

The obstacles to housing legislation are essentially local, but not necessarily in ways that are obvious.

The obvious local obstacle to housing legislation is that statewide laws limit the cherished powers of local governments over land use. Local governments, which have responded over the decades to constituents who oppose building apartments by zoning apartments out, claim, loudly but unconvincingly, that Sacramento does not need to limit their powers over land use to get more housing built. Nonetheless, I don’t believe that local government opposition has been the crucial factor preventing state legislation. By now a majority of legislators, and the governor, are ready to buck the interests of local governments and pass major housing legislation. The question is why they haven’t done so.

In-fill housing under construction in Santa Monica last year.

I would argue that the reason for the deadlock is that the elements of the Democratic coalition in Sacramento cannot agree on legislation that balances the interests of those elements. There is agreement if not consensus that the solution to the housing crisis, which has resulted in high housing costs for California’s middle and working classes and the shame of rampant homelessness, is to build more multi-unit buildings, in all forms from duplexes to apartment towers (as and where appropriate), as urban in-fill rather than more sprawl. There’s also broad agreement that the state needs housing for all income levels, notwithstanding that some “housers” from the “YIMBY” side push relaxed zoning requirements as a cure-all solution, and some housers from the anti-gentrification side push only for more affordable housing.

What happens in Sacramento, though, is that elements of the Democratic coalition resist housing legislation that affects the concerns of their constituents. These concerns aren’t ideological or national, even though they reflect issues that are general; they are what local politics is all about.

For instance, the building trades unions want to make sure that the housing that is enabled by statewide legislation does not undercut the wage rates of their members or their jobs. They argue that the good wages they have negotiated are what allow workers to afford housing, and they have a point. Given the real cost of building housing (independent of wage rates), a good case can be made that it’s not that housing costs are too high, but that wages are too low. (A result of the Republican assault on labor unions; see above.)

This legitimate advocacy for their members, however, frustrates proponents of affordable housing, including unions that represent relatively low-wage service workers as well as builders of housing for the homeless, who are astounded by the high cost of building affordable housing.

Meanwhile, the environmental movement, another element of the Democratic coalition, is torn. On one hand, environmentalists don’t want to see more sprawl, and they support in-fill development which reduces greenhouse gas production, but on the other hand, environmentalists are concerned that many housing bills would limit review under the California Environmental Quality Act, the state’s signature environmental law, and they worry about CEQA being killed by a thousand small cuts.

Then there are complex issues about where to build housing so as not to displace currently housed working people. Legislators from working class areas want more housing options for their constituents, but they don’t want to see development pressures that ratchet up the cost of existing housing by suddenly increasing the value of land. While on an economic theory level well-intentioned people may agree that too much land in California cities is zoned for single-family houses, it’s more difficult on a practical level to agree on exactly where and how single-family zoning should be modified.

I could go on; I haven’t even mentioned conflicts over financing. The point I want to make is that these conflicts are too complex to resolve in the pressure of a legislative session, especially in the context of all the other crises we are experiencing today. What needs to happen is someone—perhaps the governor, or if not him, a consortium of housers—needs to canvass or convene all the elements of the Democratic coalition and forge an approach to housing legislation that balances their competing interests.

Thanks for reading.

Flooding the zone of public opinion: two weeks that shook the world

The demonstrations responding to the Memorial Day murder of George Floyd have galvanized the world. For the first time since the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., in 1968, major protests against racism have erupted simultaneously across the nation.

Different from the civil disturbances in 1968, this time the protests have themselves been by and large peaceful (and increasingly so). They also have included unprecedented numbers of protesters who are not African-Americans.

These protests are a big deal, and there is great hope that we are at a turning point in American history. Great hope not only that whites are finally acknowledging the pervasiveness of racism and the legacy of racism in America, but also that they want to do something about it, finally recognizing that we are all held back (although whites not as much as black and brown people!) by systemic prejudice, discrimination and denial of rights.

You see this in the white parents taking their children to demonstrations so that they can tell their grandchildren that they participated in history.

Change is in the air.

I am going to argue here that historians will credit this great moment of potential to the power of nonviolent protest: to the power of civil disobedience and passive resistance to fight oppression by altering public opinion. (I have no intention of telling anyone how to protest. I merely want to state my empirical analysis of what has happened the past two weeks.)

In 1992, after the acquittal of the police who beat Rodney King, the unleashed rage of the African-American community was destroying the neighborhoods of that community. The actor Edward James Olmos, in an awe-inspiring act of non-violence, stopped the destruction by showing up with a broom.

Last Monday, in Santa Monica, Long Beach, and other places around the country that had been hit by looting over the weekend, local people showed up with their brooms and dustpans to clean up. There was no blame cast. The implicit message was that this was a community problem, and the community would fix it. Soon the looting, all over America, stopped. At the same time, the protests expanded and became more peaceful, bringing in more participants and flooding the zone of public opinion.

But it wasn’t only the actions of ordinary people that turned the protests into massive nonviolent demonstrations. There was one not-ordinary person who had a major impact: Donald Trump.

Yes, it was the response of the protesters and the public to Trump’s militarization of the police response to the protests in Washington, D.C., Trump’s violent clearing of peaceful protesters from Lafayette Square, and Trump’s authoritarian rhetoric, that made it clear to all that the logic of Gandhi, King, and Mandela, was the most effective strategy to use not only to achieve justice, but also to oppose a tyrant.

It was as if hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of protesters had instantly taken the training John Lewis and others went through before integrating lunch counters or becoming Freedom Riders. The secret of passive resistance is that to make public opinion favor those who are denied justice, one needs to let the world see where violence comes from. While the video of George Floyd’s murder was Exhibit A for that, the passive resistance of tens of thousands simply marching for justice and being met by disproportionate force, as epitomized by Trump’s clearing Lafayette Square, has galvanized public opinion in favor of justice.

In the words of Abraham Lincoln, “[P]ublic sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed.”

As usual, Santa Monica was a microcosm of national events. There have been many protests here, and downtown Santa Monica was hard hit by looting that was contemporaneous with protests on Sunday, May 31.

Questions about the police response in Santa Monica focus on what happened then. The police concentrated their forces near the Pier, in a standoff with protesters the police considered a threat to property and public safety. The police did not deploy officers to stop looting on and east of Fourth Street. Local television stations were broadcasting all this, from both locations, live.

The actions of the Santa Monica police have been challenged from two directions, which are not mutually exclusive. Protesters accuse the police of overreacting to the situation near the Pier instead of deescalating it. The police used tear gas and “less than lethal” weapons against protesters. The other challenge has come from business owners and residents who are bewildered that the police didn’t have any presence on Fourth Street to stop the looting that was taking place in broad daylight. For their part, the police say they did the best they could, given the circumstances and the resources they had. They point out that no one was injured in Santa Monica.

At the moment I’m not interested in second-guessing given that the information I have is necessarily incomplete. Nor do I expect that in the “fog of civil unrest” police and other authorities can be expected to make perfect decisions. But what happened that Sunday must be investigated. Not necessarily to cast blame, but certainly to learn.

I believe it’s obvious, however, that Santa Monica, like many cities, made a big mistake when it implemented drastic curfews (starting at 4:00 p.m. that Sunday in Santa Monica and then almost around the clock for Monday and Tuesday, June 1 and 2). These curfews criminalized constitutionally-protected rights of speech and assembly and operated as unconstitutional “prior restraints” on First Amendment rights.

While the intent behind curfews is to reduce lawlessness and facilitate law enforcement, these blanket curfews paradoxically made policing more difficult. We have seen this all around the country. Police became obsessed with curfew-violators, or even potential violators, who were otherwise peaceful. Enforcement of curfews caused and incited more violence, typically originating from the police themselves.

Fortunately, in Santa Monica and around the country, authorities finally realized that blanket curfews, along with overly-armed and militarized police are counter-productive, and have been lifting the curfews, returning police to their regular equipment. The public has responded with a virtuous circle of expansion of the protests, as more and more people, realizing that the demonstrations are safe, join to show their solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement.

No justice, no peace. No peace, no justice.

Thanks for reading and take care.

Aligning Santa Monica’s assets to its mission

By Frank Gruber and Juan Matute

We wrote in our last piece that although the City of Santa Monica is experiencing an unprecedented financial crisis during which revenues are predicted to miss targets by $200 million over the next two years, the City has substantial assets to use to cushion the impact of the crisis. In this post, we want to dive deeper into those assets and what might be done with them, but we also want to start with some words of caution.

For one thing, the data set forth in the latest Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), which we cited in our post, are as of June 30, 2019. While the CAFR shows that the City had over $700 million in cash and investments, of which the report identified $171 million as unrestricted, one friend pointed out to us that these numbers did not reflect the $42 million settlement of the Eric Uller abuse litigation; presumably the ultimate source of that payment was the City’s accumulated assets. But this only highlights the need for the City Council to be aware of just what the City’s resources are before the council makes decisions about the budget.

In our post we said that the City needed to prudently tap its assets to “determine how much [could] be tapped over three or four years” to maintain necessary services. We want to say that we don’t know if the crisis will be over in four years. As Frank wrote a few weeks ago, we could easily be at a major historical inflection point, the end of the post-War era of worldwide economic expansion. Neither one of us is an economist (not that economists are particularly good at predicting), but it is plain that 2020 is just as likely to be another 1930 as it is to be another 2008. If not more likely.

Even if we are facing another Depression, it makes sense to use the City’s assets to cushion the impact over a finite term (say, three to five years), because that would give the council and staff enough time to restructure the City’s finances to accommodate a changed world. Further, to the extent the City can dispose of non-financial assets, those assets are likely to lose value over time if the economy tanks.

A changed world, with dramatically less travel, with less disposable income available for entertainment, with less demand for office space, would be brutal for Santa Monica. A full one-third of the City’s revenues come from hotel taxes, business taxes, and sales taxes; these are to a great extent generated by non-residents. The City’s assets will not save Santa Monica from having to reconsider its levels of expenditures and what it spends money on. The assets should, however, allow Santa Monica to make thoughtful, not-panic-induced choices.

Many of those choices, however, must be made in the next few weeks, at least those that affect the next fiscal year. The City Charter requires the City Manager to submit a draft budget to the City Council at least 35 days before the start of the fiscal year beginning July 1st (May 27). According to the staff report for the May 26 City Council meeting (two days from now), the proposed budget will be submitted as an information item at the meeting. The City Council will have hearings in June and it must approve a balanced budget by June 30. After the initial budget is passed future adjustments would require a supermajority of five votes. It is critical that the council, before voting on the budget, be aware of the assets that are available to soften the impact of the impending deficits.

So what are those assets?

As we discussed in our first piece, the City’s net worth on paper is $1.6 billion. Its assets include $437 million in federal securities, $178 million in corporate bonds, and $25 million in municipal bonds. A portion of these relatively liquid assets is needed to cover current liabilities, which totaled $108 million at the end of fiscal year 2019. But before approving the 2021 budget, the City Council needs to know to what extent these liquid assets can be drawn upon to fund current expenditures.

Looking ahead longer term, into a potential Depression, the City must evaluate what fixed assets it can dispose of to soften the transition to a budget structured for a new reality. In certain circumstances, the two goals can be joined. Restructuring government is not only a matter of cutting jobs; it should also involve a discussion about the purpose and goals of local government.

When it comes to the City’s real estate, the CAFR substantially understates the City’s position. As we discussed in the previous post, accounting rules require deduction of depreciation, which has no connection to market value. Even more significant, accounting rules require the City to list landholdings at what the City paid for the land. For instance, all the land at Santa Monica Airport is valued at eight dollars (yes, about two cappuccinos) in the CAFR. (Not that selling any of the Airport would help the City’s budget, since per the FAA the proceeds would have to be deposited in the Airport fund.)

How accounting standards can differ from reality: the land at SMO valued at $8.

While much of the City’s real property is dedicated to municipal purposes, and can’t be sold, the City needs to consider what services and “enterprises” are, or should be, part of the City’s mission.

For instance, in the 1950s “Republican-Socialists” who ran Santa Monica believed it was the City’s mission to subsidize local businesses by building a Civic Auditorium. Unfortunately, once built the Civic became a large drain on City revenues. The fiscal bleeding only stopped a few years ago when the City closed the Civic to the public on the grounds that it was seismically unsafe. At that time the City formed a task force (one of us, Frank, was on it) to figure out how to save the Civic as part of a multi-use development. But any realistic hope of such a fate for the Civic evaporated when the City Council approved a walled-in soccer field and a water runoff retention facility in the Civic’s parking lot.

Meanwhile, the staff report for Tuesday night’s City Council meeting calls for another $228,000 to be spent to maintain the Civic. Is owning a Civic Auditorium integral to the City’s mission in 2020? We don’t think so. We’d rather see $228,000 used for more productive purposes.

At $200 per square foot, a conservative valuation in Santa Monica, the four acres containing the Civic would be worth $35 million. Perhaps it is time to sell the property?

The City also owns many parking structures and parking lots. Municipal parking structures are assets of declining value in an era of shared ride apps and scooters and a future of automated vehicles. Given that City policy now is to discourage driving to fight Climate Change, would the City today choose to enter the parking business? The City should look into selling one or more parking structures downtown, including those at Santa Monica Place. The owners of the mall might be willing to pay a premium given that in the long run redevelopment potential for these sites is among the greatest in the city as they are in the Transit Adjacent Zone.

The City should also consider whether it should be in the development business. We’re thinking in particular of the fiasco at 4th and Arizona. It’s proven impossible for the City to make decisions when it is both the landowner and the regulator. It is time to sell that property. It would be valuable. A city-owned, 25-space surface parking lot in downtown Santa Monica sold for $6.2 million in 2018. Based on that, the much larger property at 4th and Arizona could be worth at least $100 million at its current zoning, and more if permitted to develop in accordance with the large site parameters set in the Downtown Community Plan.

The City also owns properties that it leases to commercial tenants who pay ground rent, sometimes at below market rents. Some of the city’s properties aren’t even in the City of Santa Monica. The City should determine whether the market values of these properties are greater than the present value of the future rents: it may be advantageous to sell. The City would receive a one-time infusion of cash by selling any of these holdings, either to investors or to the long-term land lease holders, which include the Windward School in Mar Vista, the Viceroy Hotel, and Kite Pharmaceuticals. Other properties the City owns are not developed, such as a parking lot near the City’s water treatment plant in West L.A. that is conservatively worth $15 million.

Even if the market for commercial real estate drops 20% from its recent peak, the City should be able to generate at least $80 million by selling just a portion of these properties, which generate about $4 million a year in land lease payments. We don’t know if a one-time infusion of cash in exchange for a perpetual reduction in lease revenues is prudent, but now is the time to explore such trade-offs.

Santa Monica can hope that future revenues exceed current projections. It can hope that a higher power (the federal government) grants it a proportional share of a proposed federal stimulus ($142 million). But if it needs cash, the City has substantial assets from which to draw. Santa Monica’s motto is “a fortunate people in a fortunate place”. We are indeed fortunate that the City has accumulated substantial wealth.

Thanks for reading.

A Local New Deal for Santa Monica

By Frank Gruber & Juan Matute

The City of Santa Monica is experiencing a financial crisis unprecedented in living memory. If left as is, planned expenditures are likely to exceed revenues by $200 million over the next two years. To close the gap between now and the end of the fiscal year (June 30), the City has already committed to spending its operating reserves and the City Council has approved hundreds of layoffs. 

But Santa Monica is not broke. It has cash, securities, and other assets worth billions of dollars. The City has the second-best ratio of assets to debt of its peer cities in Los Angeles County (justifying its triple-A bond rating). Many of these assets are, of course, essential for the City’s purposes—think City Hall, or parks, or the City Yards—and can neither be disposed of nor borrowed against. The City has, however, about three quarters of a billion dollars in relatively liquid assets, mostly government bonds. (The details on the City’s assets are set forth in the City’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the year ending June 30, 2019, which was delivered to the City Council last December 16 and which is available on the City’s website. For ready reference, the summary of all accounts, the “Statement of Net Position,” is reproduced below.)

The City amassed its liquid assets over the past two decades of (nearly continuous) prosperity, by nearly always spending less each year than it took in as revenues. These assets are above and beyond the City’s explicitly denominated operating reserves (which are tiny in comparison). The City is wealthy.

One should ask: for what purposes does a City amass wealth? We can think of only two: for either (i), investing in capital improvements, something not relevant to this discussion, or (ii) the proverbial rainy day. With respect to the proverbial rainy day, what we are experiencing now, with Covid-19, is a Biblical deluge. There is no reason for the City not to tap these assets, prudently, to get the City through the coronavirus crisis.

Although the current crisis is extreme and dramatic, it’s not the first time the City has faced economic difficulties. When Douglas Aircraft left Santa Monica in the late ’60s, Santa Monica entered two decades of economic decline. Businesses, visitors, and residents were no longer attracted to Santa Monica as the public realm was increasingly blighted and unsafe. The City’s decline seemed to be epitomized when our famous Pier was badly damaged by storms in the winter of 1982-83. 

Yet the City picked itself up. Enlightened leadership and an engaged community not only invested to rebuild the Pier, but the City turned the dead zone of the old Third Street Mall into the bustling Third Street Promenade. The Northridge Earthquake clobbered downtown Santa Monica in 1994, but the City responded proactively and emerged stronger not only economically, but also socially, as our city supported sustainability, equity, education, housing, and social services at higher levels than did other California cities.

Now the public health and economic crises threaten our local economy. City Council has voted to reduce the size of local government by about 25 percent, a major disinvestment in services that will lead to a decline in what makes Santa Monica a good place to live, work and visit. In our opinion, although budget cutting is needed, the drastic cuts the council approved threaten to turn Santa Monica into a place that would not be in a position for an economic recovery when the pandemic ends—whenever that will be. 

The City needs a local bailout. The City cannot avoid the downward spiral of disinvestment without expenses exceeding the City’s lowered revenue projections over the next two (and we expect three or four) years. The City will ruin itself if it reduces expenditures to the dramatically diminished level of revenues. Not only because of the degradation of services, but also because of the knowledge and expertise that will be lost when experienced employees are let go.

Of course, municipalities, unlike the federal government, cannot run deficits. But they can sell or otherwise turn to account the assets they own. Santa Monica needs to analyze its portfolio of assets and determine how much can be tapped over three or four years to maintain as much in the way of necessary services as possible. 

No, this doesn’t mean we sell the Pier. The assets that the City could sell are government bonds it is holding or various real properties the City owns, some not even in Santa Monica, which serve no municipal purpose. This will require a close look at the City’s future obligations, both fixed and contingent. In our opinion the CAFR makes it clear that the City’s liquid assets far exceed its liabilities, especially considering the timing of when those liabilities are due.

To begin that analysis, we suggest that the City’s own analysis is far too conservative about what assets are available. Looking at the Statement of Net Position (copied below), you’ll see that while by the City’s accounting its net assets total $1.602 billion, of which $703 million is in the form of cash and investments (i.e., liquid, not operational assets), only $171.9 million is available, without restrictions, to be spent. (How the City reaches the $171.9 million is set forth on page xxii of the CAFR.) While $171.9 million is, itself, a lot of money, and spread out over three or four years could save many City services, it is an understatement of the City’s available funds. 

It’s an understatement because to get to that number the City not only deducts from its assets $850 million of depreciation on fixed assets (an accounting requirement that does not reflect the value of the property being depreciated), but also deducts long-term liabilities that are never meant to be paid dollar-for-dollar from the City’s accumulated assets, but rather paid over time.

The biggest number in that regard is the often discussed $447.8 million net liability for pensions. This is a big number, but the pension obligation is payable over time to CalPERS according to an actuarially determined schedule, not all at once. Indeed, the City has been reducing its long-term pension liability by pre-paying the debt voluntarily from the City’s annual surplus cash. In accordance with the City’s current plan to deal with the crisis, those payments are being suspended for two years, but there’s nothing that requires the City to hold hundreds of millions of dollars of assets hostage because of its future obligations to CalPERS.

In upcoming articles, we will discuss other possibilities involving how the City can monetize assets that are not used for municipal purposes and possibly borrow against assets and receive support from the Federal Reserve to do so.

The Pier’s bridge and famous sign were built in 1938 by the federal Works Project Administration, a program of the New Deal. In 2020 Santa Monica can tap into its long-term assets to access the revenues necessary to avoid the vicious cycle of disinvestment and smooth the fiscal curve. Santa Monica can fund its own New Deal to help Santa Monica during a deep recession.

Thanks for reading.

Here is the City’s Statement of Net Position, as of June 30, 2019:

Apocalypse Now?

The 19th century saw a great expansion of global connectivity and vast increases in productivity. The century didn’t begin in 1800, but at Waterloo in 1815; and it ended in 1914, in Sarajevo. What then followed were three catastrophic decades of destruction, a reckoning for contradictions embedded in 19th century progress. In 1945 a new period of expanded global connectivity and increased productivity began: the “post-War era.”

I hope I’m wrong, but I suspect that the post-War era ended in Wuhan late in 2019.

How does it feel, living during a historical moment? The Covid-19 pandemic looks to be the defining moment of the first half of the 21st century. Future historians will study us. How will we, the people of the world, deal with the contradictions embedded in post-War progress?

My son is getting a Ph.D. in ancient history, focusing on the last years of what’s called “Late Antiquity,” meaning when the Roman world fell apart. He has professor who makes the point that around the fifth century people in the western Mediterranean and western Europe grew up in a world that had not changed from a material perspective for a thousand years, but their grandchildren lived in a completely changed world. And not a better one.

Apocalypse is not inevitable. We are not helpless. But history teaches that when unprecedented environmental, economic or social stress coincides with a lack of world order and leadership, calamity happens. Bad luck can be a factor, too. What were the odds that the pandemic that scientists (and popular culture) predicted, would arrive when America had its first president in nearly a century who didn’t care about the rest of the world?

Many civilizations have fallen since Sumerians and Egyptians and other ancient literate peoples began recording history, but if it happens to us, we’ll be the first to have been aware it was happening and why. (This goes for global warming, too.) We have the knowledge, and the resources, to confront epidemiological and environmental crises, but we will we have the will and wisdom?

Will and wisdom. That brings us to the situation in Santa Monica. Our little city, because so much of its economy and wealth is based on globalization (tourism, entertainment, technology), has abruptly felt the impact of the pandemic. When tourism collapsed about two months ago, the city’s tax revenues, of which about 25 percent come from visitors, collapsed.

Social distancing customers outside Bob’s Market this week.

The first impact, once the scope of the disaster became evident, was that City Manager Rick Cole departed. I don’t know whether Cole voluntarily quit or was fired. His departure did remind me, however, that when he took the job five years ago, leaving a Deputy Mayor position in the City of L.A., Cole said he wanted to work in a city where there was enough money to pay for the kind of programs he thought a city government should deliver. Speaking of Santa Monica, he said at the time, “it has the resources to do some incredible things.”

Incredible things. Many Santa Monicans felt the same way. Tuesday evening, I listened to much of the nearly eight-hour City Council meeting, the one where the council voted to cut nearly 500 jobs (about 20 percent of the City’s total) (and including non-permanent positions). Many residents spoke. Most of them politely pleaded to the council not to cut the City programs that they believed were most important.

Like everyone else, I could rank City programs on a scale from essential to “what were they thinking, and why the hell are they paying so much for it?” I won’t go there. Let’s face it, we were all willing to drink from, or have the thirsts of our favorite programs quenched at, the public trough. Nor was it irrational to expect that the water for the trough would continue to flow from tourism. Hotels and restaurants, and stores where tourists shopped, were not, after all, like factories that could be moved to China or Mexico.

The City should have screened Contagion or Outbreak on the Pier every summer.

What I did not hear Tuesday night was anyone (although I’ll admit I didn’t hear everyone who spoke) giving any credit to the tourism industry or the people who work in it for generating the money that once filled that trough. Over the years I’ve heard many disgruntled residents appear at council and commission meetings to complain about tourists. Many of these residents would complain that UNITE HERE, the union that represents hotel workers, had too much influence over City policies. Some of those same residents appeared Tuesday night to plead on behalf of the programs they like.

How about a word of appreciation for those workers? They are now unemployed, and not likely to go back to work for a while. They never made much money, and few could afford to live in Santa Monica, yet it was their labor that underpinned extensive services that benefited the residents of Santa Monica and the city employees who provided the services.

And I know this will be hard for some, but how about a little sympathy for the owners of and investors in the hotels, too? Let’s recall now the many times some council members said that the economy of Santa Monica would always be booming and profitable for (always greedy) investors.

But I don’t want to be tough on residents. Santa Monica voters have rarely turned down a new tax or bond issue. There have been some scrooges (I used to call them right-wing nihilists), but, like Rick Cole, Santa Monica residents for the most part have appreciated a city with the resources to do incredible things, and they have been willing to tax themselves. What many perhaps didn’t realize until now was how much of those resources came not from them, but from somewhere else in the world.

Thanks for reading.

Main Street during the pandemic

During the coronavirus quarantine, I’m lucky for many reasons, including that I can take walks from my house to the beach or up and down Main Street in my Ocean Park neighborhood. On Friday and Saturday, March 27-28, I used my iPhone to take photos of all the signs announcing business closings or adjusted services. Each photo represents lost jobs and livelihoods; lost community. Yet each photo also shows a bit of resilience. You can view the photos at this Flickr album.