April 15, 2025

Dear Editor,

A recent Santa Monica announcement provides rich insight into why the City has become a magnet for transient criminals (“New Program Gives Homeless Offenders Alternative to Jail,” April 4, 2025).

In short, the City embraces too many policies that permit homeless and drug-addled lawbreakers to avoid punishment. So it’s not enough to have:

1) The “Alternatives to Incarceration” Program, which allows arrestees to avoid jail if they “self-report experiencing homelessness, substance abuse, or mental health issues,” and

2) STEP Court, where homeless, disturbed, and drug-abusing offenders can have criminal charges dropped if they complete a social services curriculum (“City Launches 'Diversion Court' for Minor Offenses,” January 11, 2024), and

3) The “Permanent Supportive Housing” Program, which provides housing to “high utilizers” of City services, including such “services” as arrests by SMPD and/or prosecutions or diversions by the City Attorney’s Office.

Nope, those three programs are not enough. Santa Monica has announced a fourth: The “Samo Bridge” Program, which offers both an alternative to incarceration and a downtown “respite hub” that supplies free food, clothing, and shelter to homeless individuals who commit what the City terms “low-level” crimes.

The program is intended to “build on” the Alternatives to Incarceration Program by likewise excusing Assault & Battery, Burglary, Loitering to Commit Crime, Indecent Exposure, Possession, and Petty Theft (according to the City’s response to a records request).

Tellingly, Santa Monica’s chief criminal prosecutor (and Deputy City Attorney) defends the City’s approach by lamenting that jailed criminals might have to “wait to be connected with services.”

You read that correctly: Our City’s lead prosecutor is essentially channeling failed DA George Gascon, carping that criminals can’t get perks fast enough if booked for their crimes.

Think about it: If you were a criminal, would you commit crimes in a jurisdiction devoted to punishing them or would you ferret out a “soft target,” like Santa Monica, with myriad programs that not only allow you to escape punishment, but reward your crimes with a “respite hub” or even free housing?

Duh . . .

And while our top prosecutor bemoans even delaying freebies to criminals, penny-wise City Council members had to be prevented from shutting down a library and are considering nailing homeowners with a record-shattering bond expense, despite one of the highest sales taxes in the region and an approved 20 percent hike in City water prices.

City officials are quick to point out that their crime-forgiveness programs are largely funded by grants. But that’s no reason to keep adding more of them while collecting ever-higher taxes and fees from residents and exploring how to cut City services (“Council Floats Bold Moves to Balance Budget,” March 10, 2025).

That's especially true since the “partners” providing grants are failing audits and/or under investigation, and considering Santa Monica’s own suspect track record in spending millions on homeless programs (“New Federal Task Force to Probe Homeless Funding,” April 11, 2025).

Far worse, of course, is the cost of crimes themselves, both to the individual victims and to Santa Monica generally. As a reminder, homeless lawbreakers comprise a consistent two-thirds of all arrests SMPD makes, while businesses here, including tourism-related ones, have long reported Santa Monica’s vulnerability to deranged homeless derelicts and malicious street criminals.

What is the cost of all that?

Sadly, it seems City officials ignored the message when a majority of Santa Monica voters helped oust County DA George Gascon and pass Proposition 36 (“How Santa Monica Voted,” January 6, 2025).

Perhaps it’s time to expel hug-a-thug criminal enablers infesting Santa Monica City Hall too.

Sincerely,

Peter DiChellis
Santa Monica