A Little History, Signs and What Uncertainty?

March 9, 2003

It has been with some amusement, but much more a sense of extreme consternation, that I have been watching the proponents of Proposition A, almost all of whom represent the interests of a development community that has no interest in the history or character of our city, paint the current Santa Monica landmarks ordinance as some type of radical and un-American aberration.

The truth is that the first landmarks ordinance in America was established more than seventy years ago in Charleston, South Carolina, a city probably not primarily known for its liberal politics at that time.

And twenty-five years ago, in June 1978, the question of the legality of this act, and the more than 500 similar landmarks ordinances that had been subsequently enacted in this country, was affirmed by the United States Supreme Court, a fact that land-use attorney Tom Larmore, who wrote Proposition A, is certainly aware of -- or so we would hope.

In ruling that New York City's landmark ordinance -- which was and still is essentially the same as the ordinance in Santa Monica that is now being threatened by Proposition A -- was constitutional, Justice William Brennan wrote for the majority:

"Over the past 50 years," he noted "all 50 States and over 500 municipalities have enacted laws to encourage or require the preservation of buildings and areas with historic or aesthetic importance. These nationwide legislative efforts have been precipitated by two concerns.

"The first is recognition that, in recent years, large numbers of historic structures, landmarks, and areas have been destroyed without adequate consideration of either the values represented therein or the possibility of preserving the destroyed properties for use in economically productive ways.

"The second is a widely shared belief that structures with special historic, cultural, or architectural significance enhance the quality of life for all. Not only do these buildings and their workmanship represent the lessons of the past and embody precious features of our heritage, they serve as examples of quality for today."

Brennan concluded his opinion with a quote from Robert Stipe. "Historic conservation is but one aspect of the much larger problem, basically an environmental one, of enhancing -- or perhaps developing for the first time -- the quality of life for people."

I have always assumed that is what the people of Santa Monica wanted as well. If so, they should certainly vote NO on Proposition A.

Ken Breisch
(Ed's note: Breisch the Director of Programs in Historic Preservation at the USC School of Architecture and a former member of the City's Planning Commission)

March 8, 2003

Dear Editor,

My wife and I watched the debate on Proposition A that was on the Channel 16. ("Prop A Backers, Opponents Square Off," Feb. 28)

It seems that the major argument of the people supporting Proposition A is that there is uncertainty under the current law, and that this uncertainty will cause property values to fall.

They argue that people will be uncertain about whether or not their houses will be declared
landmarks, and that this uncertainty will deter people from paying top prices for their homes.

This argument made sense to me, until I thought about it for awhile. The existing law has been in place for over 25 years. But property values certainly aren't falling in Santa Monica! If this uncertainty has existed for more than 25 years, why hasn't this drop in property values occurred?

The more I think about Propositon A, I don't think it makes sense for Santa Monica. The television debate has convinced me to vote against it.

Patrick Berger

March 6, 2003

In response to Alan Toy's observation (LETTERS: "Signs and Hypocrites," March 5).

I would like to go on record saying that I would gladly display a No War and a No on Prop A sign on my front lawn if someone could tell me where to get the signs.

Lori Nafshun
North of Montana Home Owner