| What did I learn this
year? If the lesson from the first matrix was that our politicians
are not as ideologically consistent as I expected, the lesson
from this one is that they agree with each other more often
than you might think.
In this sample of the more newsworthy, and one
would expect more contentious, issues that came before the Council,
sixteen of the 34 votes were unanimous. Although some of these
unanimous votes masked differences that the council members
resolved before the final tally, only eight votes of the 34
were decided 4-3 or 4-2). Hundreds of other issues were dealt
with on the consent calendar or otherwise summarily.
Freud had a concept -- the "narcissism of
small differences" -- that explains a lot about Santa Monica
politics. Among the politicians who get elected, and who get
the endorsements and the campaign contributions and other financial
support essential to getting elected, there is remarkable agreement
over the big issues of homelessness, gang violence, development,
housing and traffic, although at times they will disagree about
tactics. There is also general agreement over support for the
schools and environmental issues like sustainability. Not to
mention agreement over spending and revenue issues.
But our politicians (and even more, their supporters
or detractors) sure can get narcissistic over the small differences.
These differences challenge their self/political images. They
all want to believe they represent the residents and their best
interests and values. But they get caught up in disputes about
what residents they represent and how best to represent them.
Preparing the matrix reminded me of two cases
on point. One was the contretemps in 2005 between Bobby Shriver
and Ken Genser over whether to extend the 2003 "emergency"
ordinance that restricted what owners of single-family homes
in Sunset Park and North of Wilshire could build on their properties.
Planning staff wanted another two years to come up with suggestions
for a permanent down-zoning.
The other was the 4-3 vote to allow the Unitarian
Universalist Church on 18th Street to add about 3,000 square
feet and convert an adjacent house into a church office. The
church needed a parking variance, and the Planning Commission
granted it. Nearby neighbors appealed the ruling to the City
Council.
I wrote part of a column about the Sunset
Park issue , but I never wrote about the church. It even
seemed too localized for me. |
But both cases show
how small differences in the definition of "residents"
leads to different votes.
In the Sunset Park/North of Wilshire case, Council
Members Genser, O’Connor, Bloom and McKeown voted to extend
the ordinance for two years; they wanted to protect the interests
of those residents who didn’t like what their neighbors were
building. Council Members Shriver, Holbrook and Katz voted against
the extension. They were responding to residents who claimed
that the uncertainty of the emergency ordinance -- which had
already been in effect for two years -- was making it impossible
for them to remodel and add to their houses.
In the case of the church, Council Members Genser,
O’Connor and McKeown reacted to the complaints about parking
-- it was the inconvenience of nearby neighbors that concerned
them -- and voted against the project. Council Members Shriver,
Holbrook, Katz and Bloom voted to approve; they had a different
view of the residents they served that included not only the
nearby residents who were complaining, but also the members
and other users of a church that had existed at the location
for 75 years.
Aside from the interesting fact that Richard Bloom
-- who has developed one of the more "attuned" ears
in Santa Monica -- was on the majority in both cases, what these
cases tell me is that there is no fundamental disagreement among
Santa Monica’s political class when it comes to their perceptions
about whom they serve. It’s always Santa Monicans. Sometimes,
however, they disagree about who are the Santa Monicans they
serve.
No doubt this is the source of the frustration
evident among those outside the mainstream who run for office
each election cycle, or otherwise rail about the injustice of
it all, and don’t get any traction. They damn all the council
members. I give them credit for understanding that, notwithstanding
the rhetoric, there isn’t a "dime’s worth of difference"
among them.
Of course, the smaller the denomination of difference,
the more the narcissism.
* * *
P.S. Isn’t it funny, though -- this year I haven’t
heard "dime’s worth of difference" used to describe
Democrats and Republicans running for Congress. No narcissism
either -- just real political conflict. |
