School Politics, Living Wage, Madison Theater

May 11, 2001

Dear Editor,

(Re: Frank Gruber's column "Politics Without Power")

I can't agree with everything you wrote but overall, a fine, thoughtful essay. Education and educators could use more of the same.

Too often the dialogue begins with, "Everybody knows schools are failing" just like everyone once "knew" the world was flat. It isn't and they aren't.

Thank you for your attention to this issue.

Marc Sanschagrin
V.P. SM-MCTA

May 12, 2001

Dear Editor

After having been personally assured on more than one occasion by Mayor Michael Feinstein that he would not be prepared to vote on the so-called "living wage" ordinance until there had been an opportunity for significant public discussion, I was startled to hear Bayside District Board member Patricia Hoffman assert at the Bayside board meeting last month that the Council was "committed" to vote on the measure on May 22.

Just so the status is clear:

1. There have been four public hearings on the proposed ordinance -- one in September, 1999, two last summer and one on March 27. Each meeting has allowed members of the public to speak for exactly 2 minutes and it appears that we will get one more 2-minute opportunity. It is outrageous for the Council to adopt an ordinance of this importance and complexity without more discussion.

2. The Chamber has prepared and submitted to the Council extensive comments on the economic report prepared by Professor Robert Pollin; there has never been a response or an invitation from a single Councilmember to discuss the issues. The Chamber hosted a meeting with Professor Pollin last summer and 4 Councilmembers attended.

Before the meeting had to be abruptly terminated due to Pollin's childish conduct, we were able to discuss a few of the issues the Chamber had raised. Based on brief discussions after the meeting, I was under the impression that the Mayor realized that serious issues were involved which could have a significantly negative impact on the community. However, it now appears that no meaningful discussion will be permitted before passage of the ordinance.

3. As flawed as it is, the Pollin report assumed that there would be a substantial "tip credit" built into the ordinance. Now, the Council is proposing to adopt a law without any sort of credit or exemption for tipped workers. The economic consequences of this change is staggering for restaurants and the Council, apparently, is not planning to request Professor Pollin, or anyone else, to consider those consequences.

Restaurants typically have a labor cost of around one-third of their total revenues with waiters and waitresses being paid, by the restaurant, a salary close to minimum wage (today $6.25 per hour) because they make a substantial amount in tips (perhaps another $15/hour). Therefore, if the restaurant must pay these workers another $7.00 per hour or so, as is proposed by SMART, its labor costs will increase by at least 50 percent to around half of total revenue, or even more.

Since a restaurant's profit margin is usually around 5 to 8 percent of total revenue, an increase in labor costs from 33 percent of revenue to 50 percent of revenue will obviously more than eliminate all profit, putting the restaurant in serious financial jeopardy. Does the Council care about this enough to permit a fair discussion?

4. The Chamber has, over the last two years, made repeated efforts to meet with SMART representatives to discuss the important issues involved here, and been met with a steadfast refusal to do so. Even the Council has refused, despite a series of requests, to appoint a bipartisan committee to consider the issues, an approach which has been successful in addressing a number of controversial topics over the years, such as the homeless.

Irrespective of one's views on this measure, it is obviously one of potentially great significance. Already, businesses have elected not to come to Santa Monica because of the threat of this measure, and others will surely leave as its economic significance becomes clear. (Even Pollin's study showed that over 25 percent of affected businesses consider it likely that they will close.) A refusal on the part of the Council to permit a reasoned discussion, rather than one more 2-minute sound bite, is irresponsible and personally disappointing.

A final vote on an ordinance that no one will have an opportunity to review until a few days before the vote is taken will demonstrate the political power with this Council of organized labor without regard for local businesses or the public.

Tom Larmore, Chair
Chamber of Commerce Living Wage Committee

May 12, 2001

Dear Editor,

Recently, there has been a lot of talk of building a 500 seat theater at the Madison School between 11th and 10th Streets at Arizona.

The proposed playhouse would be built and operated by and for Santa Monica College. Although specific plans for the venue have not yet been announced, it would most likely be a facility to house the College's drama/music/fine arts department in addition to also possibly being a "community theater" with a small resident company of professional and/or semiprofessional artists.

It all might seem like a wonderful idea, but has one big drawback. The Madison School location is smack-dab in the middle of a residential neighborhood. Such a facility would be in use up to 18 hours a day and 7 days a week. The parking and traffic problems generated by such a venue would not be in keeping with the needs and desires for a quiet residentially oriented neighborhood.

With the likely possibility of a greatly expanded College arts curriculum and accelerated use of the Playhouse by its associates in the years to come, this Playhouse could be a very busy place indeed -- with significant, negative neighborhood impacts.

On the other hand, there is a movement afoot to preserve the decades old Santa Monica Civic Auditorium, near Pico and Main Street as a landmark. I think the Civic should be saved and deserves landmark consideration, but at the moment, it sits empty most of the year. This City does not need another very large white elephant even if it has a landmark designation.

What would be better than for Santa Monica College to either build their proposed 500-seat playhouse adjacent to or within existing space at the Civic Auditorium? Then we could have a true arts complex: a 3000-plus seat, multipurpose facility with a fully equipped stage for dance recitals, opera, concerts and theatrical events next to a smaller 500-seat playhouse for drama and performance art.

The centrally located Civic Center is much more appropriate location than the Madison School residential neighborhood for a 500-seat theater because of proximity to major streets and the freeway. Almost round-the-clock operation would not negatively affect the quality of life of its neighbors, either.

A Civic Auditorium Arts Complex could also include rehearsal space, scene docks, related production space, office, storage and classroom space for both venues. The site could even include gallery space (in the present adjoining meeting rooms) to turn it into a true center for all of the arts.

With an attached 500 seat Playhouse, the Civic Auditorium could once again become a useful and revenue-producing venue for the arts and provide a focus for the proposed revitalized Civic Center. Think of the possibilities. With support from Santa Monica College, The City, the entertainment industry and concerned citizens, the Civic Auditorium Arts Complex could be a terrific community asset and the "jewel in the Civic Center crown."