By Michael Feinstein. Interior/Exterior. October 2024

My dear former colleague on city council Bob Holbrook always said that “once election time arrives, it seems like the rules no longer apply and anything goes.” This year is no different.

Lightning strikes wrong

As I predicted in my Chronicle of September 6yes/no “flash” questions during the controversial September 8 City Council candidate forum (hosted by most, but not all, Santa Monica neighborhood organizations) would be overly simplistic and potentially misleading – and could “open the door” lends itself to political manipulation, creating images that can be used in attack pieces that do not accurately represent the candidates.

Surprise, surprise. Misleading graphics doing exactly that are now circulating on Santa Monica social media, particularly around the Los Angeles County Drug Prevention and Harm Reduction Program, as well as other topics.

Imagine if the co-hosts of the US presidential debate decided their questions in advance, with the aim of providing content to a political action committee opposing one of the candidates. That’s what seems to have happened here: “decide how to ask questions and artificially constrain answers by requiring yes/no answers, when precise, informative answers deserve depth and nuance, so you can use constrained responses for partisan purposes. »

For many years, the City of Santa Monica has sponsored nonpartisan programs in concert with the League of Women Voters, broadcast on CityTV and YouTube. Tragically it’s goneis no longer funded, leaving an uncontested place for misleading messages – and the influence of big money.

Rental security is security for tenants

In May 2023, the Douglas Emmett Company filed a historic mass eviction petition under California’s Ellis Act, ordering 577 tenants in West Los Angeles to vacate their buildings. Fortunately, a judge found the evictions illegal.

This year, Douglas Emmett, owner of the Shores Apartments in Ocean Park, is trying to influence the Santa Monica City Council elections. They have already put $100,000 in a political action committee supporting incumbents Phil Brock and Oscar de la Torre, against candidates supported by Santa Monicans for Tenants’ Rightslocal tenant rights organization: Dan Hall, Ellis Raskin, Barry Snell and Natalya Zernitskaya.

Very problematic past decisions by the United States Supreme Court have allowed large corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money on elections. If I’m a renter, I’d worry about what Douglas Emmett wants from his money.

Lawn Campaign Signs

In the Internet age, campaign signs still have value. They build name recognition and, seen outside the homes of people you know, make their vote known, which is helpful for those who rely on their friends for voting advice.

But in a city where 71% of housing are occupied by tenants, most tenants do not have the ability to post campaign signs, either because they do not have their own lawn or because they are not permitted to do so in accordance with to their lease. The result is that many campaign signs in front of many rental properties are actually from landlords, not tenants.

On public property, installation of campaign signs is illegalconsidered a public nuisance, and occupies public space for private political purposes. Candidates and committees who do so should be considered as such. Under Code Enforcement, citations can be issued, with fines varying depending on the severity of the violation – and candidates and committees are responsible for them. City staff are doing their best to remove these signs as soon as possible. Community members can contact 311 on the City website or his 311 appor the City Clerk’s Office at (310) 458-8211, to have them removed.

It is also harmful for people to remove campaign signs of candidates they oppose. Doing so without permission is against the law and a misdemeanor. This can also be considered an intrusionsubject to enforcement by the Santa Monica Police Department. This is why cowards who take down signs usually do it late at night.

Playing politics with public security

On October 5, a Santa Monica police officer was victimized an unprovoked attack in front of our police station by an attacker armed with a knife. Fortunately, the officer survived and recovered.

On October 6 — identifying himself as our mayor but not as a 2024 city council candidate — Brock posted a video on his Facebook page, saying the attack demonstrates that “we cannot continue to tolerate the lack of lawlessness caused by mental illness, drug addiction and the lack of sanctions in our country.”

In Santa Monica, one of the traditional roles of the mayor is to speak on behalf of the city. According to the Santa Monica Police Department, the investigation into the attacker’s motive — and whether he suffered from mental illness and/or substance abuse — is still ongoing. This means that Brock made premature conclusions about the incident that were not based on known facts.

As for Brock’s claim that the incident exposed the lack of punishment for crimes, the attempt to kill a police officer in California is considered attempted first degree murder. All accused guilty of first degree murder “shall be punished by death, by life imprisonment in a state prison without parole, or by imprisonment in a state prison for a term of 25 years to life” .

As a candidate, Brock has every right to promote his own narrative on crime and safety. But as mayor, he has no right to privatize this role and distort facts for partisan political purposes.

Violating the public trust

The new city council majority established by Brock, de la Torre et al. set the bar low in terms of competence and violation of public trust. Come to meetings unprepared and without reading staff reports is beyond disrespectful to the community. Leaking confidential information during closed sessions is a possible criminal action under state law – but the new majority blocked the investigation in publicly reported leaks. Their stance against state law has led to a non-conforming local housing feature, allowing developers to build out-of-scale projects well in excess of our local height limits.

But their final blow was when the new majority ordered city manager to violate state law and closed the county Substance Abuse Prevention and Harm Reduction Program in Reed Park — even though the state Constitution gives the state Legislature the ability to delegate authority to counties to locate such programs and preempt local control of cities.

When the newly elected members of the Santa Monica City Council take their oath of officethey must declare “I do solemnly swear…that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California…” Of their vote for illegal actions in violation of the State Constitution, de la Torre said “it’s for public consumption”, while Brock said he supported it “for fun”.

Demagoguery in the exercise of public office does not replace the act of governing. It’s your choice this November.

———————-

Michael Feinstein is a former mayor of Santa Monica (2000-2002) and city council member (1996-2004). He can be reached via X/Twitter @Mike Feinstein. “Inside/Outside” is a periodic civic affairs column that Feinstein writes for the Daily Press that draws on his experience inside and outside of government.

Related