Demonizing Homeowners and Blind Assertions

March 12, 2003

Dear Editor,

A two-fer! On the same day, I draw attention from Ken Breisch and Bea Nemlaha -- I think that must set some kind of record.

1. Response to Ken.

My fundamental point in response to Ken's original letter ("LETTERS: A Little History," March 10) was that there is a significant difference between the constitutionality of a law and its wisdom or fairness. The fact that Santa Monica's landmarks ordinance may be constitutional does not in any way mean it is wise or fair; it simply means that under current constitutional standards, the courts will not interfere.

When the courts rule that a law violates free speech rights, there is no longer any point in arguing over its wisdom or fairness -- the courts have held the law to be impermissible no matter what anyone thinks about it, at least until the courts change their opinion.

However, when the courts rule that a law is permitted, such as the Supreme Court did in Penn Central, there is still room for argument about its wisdom and fundamental fairness -- the fact that a law is constitutional does not mean it is required.

To bring the point closer to home, the courts have, at least so far, held the City's attempt to ban certain ATM fees to be unconstitutional as a violation of federal laws which, under the supremacy clause of the Constitution, prevail over conflicting state and local laws.

If this decision holds, there will no longer, at least at the local level, be any point in debating the wisdom of the City's ordinance. In contrast, if the courts uphold the City's recent ordinances dealing with the homeless, such a decision will in no way preclude community debate over the wisdom and fairness of those laws.

Proposition A is not about the legality of the City's landmarks ordinance or even the merits of preserving historic buildings; it is about the wisdom and fairness of allowing the City to override the wishes of individual residents with respect to their homes in the manner permitted under the current law.

2. Response to Bea.

While the exchange between Ken and me is on a slightly higher plane, Bea's letter simply perpetuates a fabrication regarding comments I am alleged to have made last year at a meeting of apartment owners.

Despite her claims (and maybe her wishes), I never advised landlords or anyone else that Prop A is important, or even relevant, to apartment owners, the Ellis Act or anything else related to apartments. As a cursory reading of Prop A will show, it applies only in single-family (R1) districts.

3. Response to Ken and Bea.

This notion that Prop A supporters believe renters should not be able to vote on Prop A is a complete red herring, apparently being introduced in an effort to discredit our campaign. This has never been our position and to suggest otherwise is yet another effort to demonize the opposition rather than deal with the issues.

Tom Larmore
(Ed's. note: Larmore is the author of Prop A and a longtime Santa Monica homeowner)

March 12, 2003

Dear Editor:

I am writing to respond to Ken Breisch's letter to editor ("LETTERS: On the Point and Tenants & Prop A," March 12, 2003).

Mr. Breisch asserted that a New York Supreme Court decision justifies our city's current landmark law. Mr. Breisch failed to note that there is a day and night difference between the Santa Monica law and the New York law. Under Santa Monica's current law, the city can steal hundreds of thousands of dollars of property rights from a homeowner without paying one penny in compensation.

Under the New York law, the public must pay reasonable compensation for property rights taken for the "public good." Proposition A merely gives homeowners the right to say no if the city is unwilling to provide reasonable compensation for the property rights that they take.

The Opponents of Proposition A have repeatedly made blind assertions that a landmark designation does not lower property values. If those assertions were true, Proposition A would not impact the current landmark law. Proposition A does not interfere with the City's ability to impose a historic district, and landmark status, on a homeowner through condemnation.

If none of the homeowners endured a loss, than the city would not have to pay anything when they acquired property rights through condemnation. Proposition A opponents' militant attitude against providing homeowners with reasonable compensation is extremely strong evidence that they expect homeowners' losses to be huge.

It is no secret that conservancy groups have provided the majority of the funds to oppose Proposition A. Conservancy groups are the organizations that cities turn to purchase historic property. It should not be a surprise that they would be excited about the future prospect of saving millions of dollars in promoting their agenda in Santa Monica.

Sincerely,