City
Council Candidates: The Four Incumbents
By Frank Gruber
There is no candidate running for the City Council with
whom I agree all the time, and I don't make endorsements in this column.
But in this and several other columns this week, I will give my evaluation
of the candidates' good points and bad points.
This is an opinion column, so be warned: if you disagree
with my opinions, adjust your pro and con filters accordingly. I hope,
though, that my evaluations fairly describe who the candidates are and
what they stand for and are helpful whatever policies you believe are
best for Santa Monica. If you disagree with my evaluations, I am sure
The Lookout will be happy to publish your letter.
To save me some writing and you some reading, let me say
that I have met all eleven major candidates, and I like them all. They
all believe in themselves and in good faith want the best for the community.
So with that out of the way, I will start with the incumbents.
First, those endorsed by Santa Monicans for Renters Rights, Richard
Bloom and Ken Genser.
The best parts of Richard Bloom are that he is a regular
guy who tries to do right, and who speaks from the heart. As often as
I have disagreed with Bloom on policies, I relish the memories of various
times when his unadorned eloquence from the dais has neatly summarized
my own feelings about important issues -- for example, K-12 school funding
and fluoridation.
As mayor, Bloom has also presented to the world a friendly
image of Santa Monica, and he runs a meeting fairly and with good humor.
All right, what you see with Bloom is what you get: a
hard-working family man who cares about his community. So far, so good.
But my complaint about Bloom is the lack of that "vision thing."
What I don't see in Bloom -- or, rather, what I don't see in his votes
because I do see it in his person -- is an understanding that there
is a community beyond the one he wanted to protect when he formed Friends
of Sunset Park years ago. Santa Monica is not mostly people living in
a faux suburb of single-family homes, for which traffic is the most
grievous gripe in otherwise rather good lives.
Anyone who reads this column knows that I disagree with
Bloom when it comes to development. But beyond jobs and apartments,
it perplexes me that Bloom opposed the Madison site theater, because
of the exaggerated fears of a few close neighbors, and the 2003 College
bond issue, and is not supporting this year's bond issue either. Our
quality of life and our future depend more on culture and educational
opportunities than on parking.
* * *
If Bloom's strong suit is his heart, then Ken Genser's
is his head. His head and his 16 years on the council; there is no one
on the council, and there may never have been anyone on the council,
with Genser's grasp of the issues and the subtleties of an argument.
One can count on Genser, at a council meeting, to ask the most relevant
question, often based on his encyclopedic memory of more than two decades
of local politics and policies.
But Genser's strengths are also his weaknesses.
Just as there is no one better to have on your side --
and I remember with pleasure what it was like to be on the same side
with Genser when it came to the Civic Center plan or Target -- Genser
will use his intellect to rationalize decisions that don't make much
sense, such as fighting state law on second units or voting against
fluoridation, or to justify his almost automatic reflex to accommodate
any resident's complaint, no matter how selfish and what the bigger
issues are. (As with Bloom, consider Genser's opposition to the Madison
site theater.)
While Genser's knowledge base is huge, he also can be
fiercely defensive about his long record. He's just as fierce about
his friends, too: Genser's record cannot be evaluated without noting
that he has been the major political patron of Kelly Olsen. To the extent
-- great, in my view -- that the City adopted a high-handed attitude
toward residents and local businesses in response to prodding from Olsen
when Olsen was on the Planning Commission, and to the extent the Planning
Department became demoralized because of Olsen, Genser bears major responsibility.
Then there is the vision thing, and Genser, like his friend
Bloom, has never articulated a philosophy of governing beyond constituent
service. I never had any problem with Genser's legal position on the
Levy playhouse case, but it was indicative to me of a bigger problem
when he instinctively sided with the neighbor who was complaining rather
than take into consideration the reality that the other neighbor was
building a playhouse -- not a two-story addition.
Both Genser and Bloom, in their answers to the "vision
for the future" question at the end of The Lookout's
questionnaire, said they identified most with the present, and that's
what they want to preserve. I'm sure their love for the city is heartfelt;
but to me, since Santa Monica has always been about change, it's more
than a little wishful.
* * *
There are two other incumbents running, Michael Feinstein
and Herb Katz.
I could write a book about Michael Feinstein. Maybe someday
someone will -- or perhaps Feinstein will do it himself. Feinstein acts
like he believes he should have a place in history. I don't begrudge
him that, but it's unfortunate that he chose to seek that place through
the Green Party and the Santa Monica City Council: the one doesn't look
like it has much of a future, with Feinstein or without him, and the
other is a rather small pond compared to Feinstein's ambitions for the
bigger world.
I admire Feinstein's courage, but I wish he had more judgment.
Feinstein started out in Santa Monica politics as an extreme no-growther,
opposing even the building of a new school in Ocean Park. He's grown
since then.
In part Feinstein grew because Green Party ideologies
grew to accept urbanism, but Feinstein broke with the other no-growthers
on the Council in two key votes: not to reappoint Kelly Olsen to the
Planning Commission and to certify the EIR for the Boulangerie mixed-use
developments. That took courage, because he disappointed former no-growth
supporters, and that is the kind of courage (and judgment) that the
City Council will need when redoing the land use and circulation elements
of the general plan.
But Feinstein also tilts at windmills. His extended tantrum
two years ago against SMRR and SMART, when his former patrons wouldn't
support his own Green Party candidate for City Council, was silly, and
probably lost the election for a genuine progressive, Abby Arnold --
shades of Nader and Gore, for which Feinstein is still unrepentant.
And Feinstein's tirade against Community for Excellent
Public Schools and the school funding agreement went way beyond appropriateness,
no matter how much better he thought his funding plan was.
Alienating SMRR and SMART, attacking CEPS; Feinstein may
be running hard for reelection, but Freud would wonder if he wants another
four years. And why should he? Feinstein's old comrade from Civic Center
battles, Tom Hayden, has shown there is life after elective office;
maybe Feinstein should take a page of Hayden's book, and then write
his own.
* * *
Herb Katz calls himself the "voice of reason,"
but for somebody so reasonable, he is rather sure of himself. (But then,
we who consider ourselves reasonable tend to be sure of ourselves.)
The good parts about Katz are his votes, or at least most
of them. If you review his votes on the "Matrix," and if you're
a liberal, you're going to like most of them. Fluoridation, school funding,
the College bonds, reasonable development, he's usually there on what
I consider the right side. I don't know if Katz's recent idea of a tent
city for the homeless near the beach would work, but I admire him for
suggesting something more specific than a "regional solution."
Okay, okay, I know a lot of left-wing people who think
the litmus test should be the living wage law, but in retrospect it's
hard to look at that complicated piece of legislation, which was designed
to get the hotels to the bargaining table more than anything else, as
an appropriate test. I mean, I was for the ordinance, but one has to
ask if it made sense to put all those living wage eggs in that ungainly
basket, given that it had so many features that made it susceptible
to attack, and ultimate defeat at the polls (regardless of hardball
politics).
So I'm not going to hold his vote against the living wage
against Katz, although I hope if he is reelected that he will come around
to support a municipal living wage in its ultimate form. I do hold Katz's
vote against Target against him, however, because it ran contrary to
every other position he's taken regarding land use, and came out of
nowhere except misplaced sympathy for downtown property owners.
Katz justly advertises the fact that he's an architect,
a qualification that is good to have on the City Council dais. But what
I don't see is that Katz has read up on newer theories about urban planning;
judging by what he says about traffic, for instance, his thinking is
stuck in a 60s suburbia 101 traffic-engineering class.
As advertised, Katz is a reasonable person who has the
right instincts to say no when the Council is bent on increasing its
meddlesome factor. However, Katz is wrong to say that he opposes a Council
that thinks it knows what's best for the city. We elect our representatives
precisely to act on what they think is best; at issue is how they will
vote.
This is the first of several columns this week evaluating
the candidates in next week's election.
|