Item 1
December 17, 2024
Item 1
December 17, 2024
Item 1
December 17, 2024
Item 1
December 17, 2024
Item 1
December 17, 2024
Item 1
December 17, 2024
1 David Yakobson
From: David Morris <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2024 11:37 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Clerk Mailbox
Cc: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; David White; Douglas Sloan
Subject: public input item 1 – CityWatchLA opinion piece on Mayor Lana Fernandez Negrete
EXTERNAL
#AT-1
Should Mayor Pro Tem
Lana Negrete Be
Recalled?
#FollowTheMoney
John Alle and David Morris
December 16 2024
To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.
Comments
GUEST COMMENTARY - The relatively unknown music store owner Lana Negrete was appointed to the Council in June 2021 after a nomination by her friend, Council Member Christine Parra, who is a member of the Change Slate. During the vetting process preceding the appointment it is reported that Negrete expressed to at least one member of the Change Slate her support for the city switching from at-large elections to district elections where each district elects one council member only.
This was an important declaration by the candidate since it was in line with the Change Slate's platform. Negrete needed at least one vote from a Slate member to be appointed to the Council. If Negrete was appointed, the Change Slate would need her vote to be able to settle the California Voting Rights Act litigation against the City by the Pico Neighborhood Association that sought a switch to district elections.
However, once Negrete became a council member, with the help of the Slate, she clearly never voted to settle the lawsuit, or the case would have been settled by now, with the districts drawn and a new election system introduced. So far, the 8-year long lawsuit has Item 1
December 17, 2024
Item 1
December 17, 2024
2 cost the taxpayers a reported $14M. At a recent hearing the judge predicted the litigation in the lower court to continue for another four years, likely raking up millions more in legal bills to be footed by Santa Monicans. Then there is the possibility of an appeal after that.
The draining of taxpayers pockets does not seem to worry Negrete, nor does it seem to be important to her to support the plea of her own ethnic group for democratic elections in a city where political power has been consolidated in the hands of a small group of wealthy residents from white neighborhoods. Negrete recently stated to the press that she finds playing the race card to be silly. She also publicly insulted her constituents who were attempting to invite her to a neighborhood group meeting as harassers "coming out of the woodwork."
What Negrete does seem to be concerned with above all is her own pockets. Negrete's music store is staying in business largely thanks to the contracts it has with the School Board. The Board, in turn, is controlled by the developers, and more interested in accumulating a large real estate portfolio than delivering quality education. The developer lobby has its fingers deep in the political establishment of the City, which apart from the brief four-year-period ending now has had full control over the City Council for some four decades, making it virtually impossible for an independent non-monied candidate to win a seat.
When Negrete was appointed to the Council, some saw it as a dangerous compromise by the Slate, who voted for her apparently out of fear of the alternative which was a special election potentially to be won by an establishment candidate again. Negrete's voting record shows an inclination to support the establishment more often than not. Most clearly, Negrete has supported the interests of the School Board (and the developer lobby behind it), despite many publicly voiced concerns about the conflict of interest due to her store's contracts with the Board.
On one occasion Negrete stated from the dais that she had been cleared by the Fair Political Practices Commission whom she had contacted regarding the allegations.
However, a public records request revealed that while Negrete did write to the FPPC, the Commission requested more information from Negrete to be able to render an opinion.
Negrete never responded to that request. Instead, she misinformed the public that the FPPC had cleared her. When another Council vote was coming up regarding the School Board, an inquiry was made with the FPPC, and the Commission opined that Negrete did in fact have a conflict of interest which barred her from voting on the item. Currently there is a complaint pending with the FPPC which alleges that Negrete's music store received in excess of $87K in contracts from the School Board over a two-year period of time during which she participated in Council votes pertaining to the School Board.
On December 10, 2024 the out-of-her-depth Mayor Pro Tem Negrete might be elevated to the leadership position of mayor by her six fellow council members, all of whom are supported by the entrenched establishment. Optics-wise it is advantageous for the establishment that Negrete, who is Hispanic, becomes mayor, as it superficially appears to build a case against the Pico Neighborhood's position in the CVRA lawsuit. One might fall for these optics if they don't know that Negrete would never have had a chance to become a council member if she had run as an independent candidate instead of being appointed through the establishment's blackmail tactics. And while Negrete likes to call herself an independent voice on the Council, it is clear to anybody who has been watching that her main concern is which side her bread is buttered on.
Now the Santa Monica establishment politically owns all the seven council members, the California Voting Rights Act lawsuit will continue draining the taxpayers pockets for the foreseeable future. Negrete will likely be rewarded with a mayorship as a thank you for staving off the CVRA settlement and keeping at bay the constituents who have tried contacting her since the most recent court hearing. She will continue using her Council Item 1
December 17, 2024
Item 1
December 17, 2024
3 seat as a way to preserve her ability to make a living by voting in a manner that satisfies the establishment interested in continuing the status quo. Being used as a tool while disregarding her fiduciary duty to the taxpayers and selling out her own ethnic community will not bother Negrete at all.
Well, unless the taxpayers draw the line and use the one process available to them against unethical, opportunistic, and manipulative public servants: a voter recall.
More information on the CVRA
lawsuit: https://www.democratsabroad.org/paulamatos/discrimination_in_santa_monica (John Alle and David Morris wrote this opinion piece and it reflects the personal views of the authors. All claims and interpretations are based on publicly available information and are not intended as statements of fact. Readers are encouraged to verify information independently and consider all perspectives. The authors and publisher make no representations regarding the accuracy of any claims made. This article was first featured in Santa Monica Observed.)
-------------------------------------------
Source: https://www.citywatchla.com/neighborhood-politics/30023-should-mayor-protem-lana-negrete-be-recalled-followthemoney Item 1
December 17, 2024
Item 1
December 17, 2024
1 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2024 7:41 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: For Public Comment -- Council Meeting 12/17/2024 Attachments: GSCC Letter.pdf
EXTERNAL
Item 1
December 17, 2024
Item 1
December 17, 2024
1 To: Santa Monica City Council
From: Bruce Wessel, Santa Monica Resident, [email protected] Date: December 13, 2024
Request that Santa Monica Implement Measure GS
This letter requests action by the City Council to implement Measure GS. Adopted by Santa Monica voters in November 2022, this measure imposes a 5% tax on property transfers over $8 million with the goal of raising tens of millions of dollars each year for homelessness prevention, aƯordable housing, and schools.
Over the past 20 months, Santa Monica has collected about $46.3 million from this tax.
Inexplicably, nothing has been spent on homelessness prevention or aƯordable housing, nor has the City Council set up the required Measure GS Resident Oversight Committee.
In May 2024, Santa Monica did transfer $10 million to the Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District (SMMUSD) as the measure requires, and the City has likely set aside another $10 million for the payment due SMMUSD in May 2025. That leaves at least $26.3 million unspent in Measure GS’s “Homelessness Prevention and AƯordable Housing Fund” (Fund).
I write to urge that the City Council: (1) establish the eleven-member Measure GS Resident Oversight Committee; and (2) begin spending from the Fund to address the immediate housing needs of low-income Santa Monica residents.
The City of Los Angeles oƯers a roadmap. In the same November 2022 election, Los Angeles voters adopted Measure ULA, imposing a similar transfer tax. Los Angeles has already paid out $30.4 million in ULA funds to over 4,300 households with an average payment of $7,066. These payments have helped tenants avoid eviction and landlords collect back rent. Los Angeles established the ULA Citizen Oversight Committee (ULA-COC) in early 2023. The ULA-COC meets monthly and reports to the public at www.ulacoc.org.
The City of Santa Monica itself also oƯers a roadmap. Measure CS, an increase in the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT), was approved by Santa Monica voters in the same November 2022 election that Measure GS and Measure ULA passed. Measure CS has raised close to $5 million, and those funds have been spent to expand homeless outreach teams, among other uses. In 2023, the City Council appointed a five-member Transient Occupancy Tax Advisory Committee, which held meetings in January 2024 and June 2024, issuing status reports on Measure CS revenues and expenditures in connection with each meeting.
The impartial analysis of the Measure GS transfer tax that was provided to Santa Monica voters in 2022 explained two important provisions of the law: (1) “The measure establishes an eleven-member committee that will recommend to the City Council guidelines for eligible expenditures, local priorities and preferences, award procedures, budgeting, program evaluation, and public reporting procedures;” and (2) “The measure allows [funds] to be used to provide ongoing or emergency income assistance, acquire and rehabilitate existing rental properties as deed-restricted aƯordable housing, create new deed-restricted aƯordable housing, and fund programs and services designed to preserve and improve aƯordable housing for lower income Item 1
December 17, 2024
Item 1
December 17, 2024
2 households.” The City Council should now implement these two provisions as well as the rest of the measure.
I obtained financial information about the Measure GS collections of $46.3 million, and the lack of expenditures other than the payment to the SMMUSD, through a Public Records Act (PRA) request to the City. As for the unspent funds, the City’s response to the PRA request stated: “no funds . . . will be analyzed or budgeted until . . . after February 2025.” The other information discussed in this letter is from publicly available documents, including HR&A Advisor’s comprehensive 33-page Impact Report on Measure GS, dated July 21, 2022, provided to the City Council as part of the agenda packet for the Council’s July 26, 2022 meeting (PDF pages 183-215)(HR&A Report or Report).
Delivered to the City Council two-and-a-half years ago, the HR&A Report foresaw what it called “implementation risk.” The Report warned that: “Current City staƯ are unlikely to capably manage the scale of new and expanding homelessness prevention and aƯordable housing programming tied to the potentially large increase in revenues from the Ballot Measure.” Report at p. 31. The Report explained that Measure GS would unleash a “dramatic increase in . . . funding dedicated to homelessness prevention and aƯordable housing.” Report at p. 23. Beyond that, the Report twice told the City that “caution is warranted about the City’s ability to deliver eƯective programs and new aƯordable units.” Report at pp. 4-5 and 33. Finally, the Report explained: “Should the City be unable to impanel the necessary 11 residents for the [Oversight] Committee, there are concerns that this may delay progress . . . .” Report at p. 32.
The City Manager’s message in presenting the FY 2023-2025 budget explained that decisions about how to spend Measure GS receipts “requires a longer horizon” and that “planning and organizational adjustments can begin as early as FY 2023-2024 for what will likely be a multiyear Measure GS implementation strategy.” The new City Council can decide that there has been enough delay and can appoint the Resident Oversight Committee now and begin spending some of the $26.3 million in the Fund, at least to help low-income households facing economic emergencies and possible evictions. $46,327,100 in Measure GS Collections
Measure GS’s 5% transfer tax became eƯective on March 1, 2023. Information provided by the City in response to my PRA request indicates that the City has collected $46,327,100 from this tax through the end of October 2024.
In the first 12 months of the Measure GS tax (March 2023 through February 2024) the City collected $27,997,450. During the first 8 months of the second year of the tax (March 2024 through October 2024) the City collected $18,329,650.
For the first 12-month period, the Measure GS transfer tax applied to17 property transfers over the $8 million threshold. The smallest transaction was $9.7 million and the largest was $165.5 million. The Measure GS tax on the $165.5 million transaction was $8.275 million, about 30% of the total for the year.
Item 1
December 17, 2024
Item 1
December 17, 2024
3 For the first 8 months of the second 12-month period, the Measure GS tax applied to 17 property transfers over the $8 million threshold. The smallest transaction was $8.8 million and the largest was $130.4 million. The Measure GS tax on the $130.4 million transaction was $6.521 million, about 36% of the year-to-date total.
Projecting forward, if the first 8 months are indicative, revenues from the tax in the second 12-month period will be around $27 million, comparable to the $28 raised in the first 12-month period. Receipts over the first 20 months of the tax demonstrate that the total raised each year might swing up or down significantly depending on the number of large nine-figure transactions.
The City should consider full transparency, listing Measure GS receipts each month and the type of property transferred that was subject to the tax—oƯice building, single-family home, apartment building, or vacant land.
The HR&A Report analyzed the potential for receipts from the Measure GS tax based on property transfers during the ten calendar years from 2012 to 2021 and calculated that the City would have realized $490 million had the tax been in eƯect during that period. “Based on a review of historic data, qualifying property sales would have [generated tax revenue ranging from] a low of $16 million [in 2014] to a high of $123 million [in 2016].” Report at p. 20. Based on the HR&A Report, the impartial analysis of Measure GS told voters: “According to a financial report requested by the City Council, based on historic sales trends the measure is estimated to generate new annual tax revenues of about $49 million.” The HR&A Report recognized that that the additional 5% transfer tax imposed by Measure GS could cause what the Report termed “tax avoidance behavior” leading to lower receipts. Report at p. 30.
Measure GS requires that “on an annual basis” the first $10 million in receipts be set aside for schools. Santa Monica Municipal Code section 4.90.010(c)(i). Thus, at the start of each year, the City does not know when during the year there will be receipts in excess of $10 million. When the $10 million threshold is reached, all additional receipts for that year are allocated to the Fund for homeless prevention and aƯordable housing.
Measure GS’s “Findings and Purpose”
The “findings and purpose” section of Measure GS identified the pressing problems the measure was designed to address and told voters how the receipts might be spent. Those findings include: “nearly one out of every five Santa Monica renter households . . . are both low income and suƯer severe cost burden,” paying “more than half their limited incomes as rent and utilities” and these cost-burdened households “are potentially just one financial shock away from homelessness.”
Additional findings were that “pilot programs have demonstrated that a local rent subsidy to low-income seniors in rent-controlled apartments is a . . . cost-eƯective way to eliminate rent burden, prevent homelessness, and allow our low-income senior neighbors to age in place with dignity” and “new revenues are needed to allow Santa Monica to expand its local rent subsidy.” If this is accurate, there are existing rent subsidy programs that could easily absorb transfers from the Fund and there are many deserving households.
Item 1
December 17, 2024
Item 1
December 17, 2024
4 Emergency Assistance – The HR&A Report and LA’s Use of ULA Funds The HR&A Report section on “Illustrative Expenditures” identified spending on existing Santa Monica programs for emergency assistance as potentially appropriate for 30% of the Fund.
Report at pp. 22-24.
Los Angeles has used Measure ULA funds for emergency assistance, spending $30.4 million of ULA collections for a Short-Term Emergency Assistance Program that pays up to six months’ rent for tenants with economic hardships. Los Angeles sometimes makes payments directly to landlords as part of an eviction diversion program intended to preserve and maintain tenancy. Draft guidelines for the program considered by the ULA-COC explain: “A landlord’s claim of unpaid rent is the most common reason tenants are displaced or evicted. . . The Short-Term Emergency Assistance Program is intended to prevent the potentially disruptive consequences of Economic Hardship by providing emergency rental assistance to qualifying lower-income households.” Santa Monica should follow the lead of Los Angeles and start spending Measure GS money to help cost-burdened households avoid eviction when they face economic hardships. This program would benefit tenants and landlords; the landlord receives back rent, and tenants are given breathing room to address the economic hardships they face. This type of spending is sanctioned by Measure GS (Santa Monica Municipal Code section 4.90.030(b)): “No less than thirty percent [of housing funds raised by Measure GS] . . . shall be used to provide ongoing or emergency income assistance to Low Income Santa Monica households that are both rent burdened” and meet the low-income qualifications in the law.
Measure GS Contains a Provision for Excess Funds
Measure GS allocates receipts to three diƯerent categories, but then creates a fourth category for excess funds. Santa Monica Municipal Code section 4.90.030 subsection (a) allocates up to 6% of receipts for administration, subsection (b) provides that no less than 30% and no more than 50% of receipts are to be used for income assistance, and subsection (c) provides that at least 50% of receipts are to be used for the creation of aƯordable housing. But then subsection (d) provides that any funds not used for the purposes set out in subsections (a), (b), or (c) in a year, “may be used to fund programs and services designed to preserve [1] the tenancies of or [2] units serving” low-income households. Examples given include “code compliance enforcement” and “loans or grants for landlord earthquake retrofit or other unit improvements.” The Measure CS Transient Occupancy Tax
At the same time Santa Monica voters approved Measure GS, they also approved Measure CS, an additional Transient Occupancy Tax (“TOT”) on hotels. The City Council has established the Transient Occupancy Tax Advisory Committee and has started spending Measure CS funds.
The five-member TOT Advisory Committee has met at least twice, on January 18, 2024 and June 12, 2024, issuing detailed public status reports at each meeting. The City has budgeted spending for about $5 million in TOT funds for: (1) security at the pier; (2) enforcement of the homesharing ordinance; (3) adding a multi-disciplinary outreach team for homeless; (4) redesign of interim housing for homeless to allow 24/7 intake; (5) increased security at parking garages; (6) park maintenance; (7) tree maintenance; (8) establishment of a public space maintenance team; (9) Item 1
December 17, 2024
Item 1
December 17, 2024
5 preparation of a Homelessness Strategic Plan; and (10) increased police staƯing for homeless liaison program.
The Homelessness Strategic Plan for the City, paid for with TOT funds, was scheduled to be presented to the City Council in May 2024 but according to the TOT Advisory Committee June 12, 2024 status report: “It was decided that the Homelessness Strategic Plan Project Team needed more time to further refine the Goal Statements, Objectives, and Performance Measures and include more stakeholders in the process so the plan will go to the City Council in early 2025.” Funding for this plan was awarded in January 2024 with the expectation that it would be completed four months later by May 2024. The delivery date was then delayed close to a year to early 2025.
This long-delayed plan, when delivered, could provide a helpful framework on how to spend Measure GS funds.
LA’s ULA Emergency Rental Assistance Program – ULA ERAP Los Angeles is ahead of Santa Monica in spending transfer tax receipts. Los Angeles’s ULA tax has been applied to 670 transactions and raised $439.4 million. The ULA Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ULA ERAP) has paid out $30.4 million (about 7% of ULA collections) in Emergency Rental Assistance to or on behalf of 4,302 households, an average of $7,066 per household. Tenants submitted 84% of the applications, while landlords submitted the other 16%.
Only landlords with 12 units or fewer are allowed to participate in the program.
Los Angeles explains the ULA ERAP program to prospective participants as follows:
The City of Los Angeles United to House Los Angeles (ULA) Emergency Renters Assistance Program will provide up to six months of rental arrears to low-income residential renters who are at risk of homelessness due to unpaid rent as a result of . . . financial hardship. To be eligible, a household must be obligated to pay rent on a residential dwelling and meet the following requirements:
1. Be a resident of the City of Los Angeles, regardless of immigration status.
2. One or more individuals within the household have experienced a loss of employment, reduction in household income, incurred significant costs, or experienced other financial hardship between March 2020 to the present.
3. Have unpaid rent due to their current landlord for any month(s) between April 2020 to present.
4. The current household income is at or below 80% of the area median income (AMI).
Los Angeles’s ULA ERAP provides a template for how Santa Monica might operate a comparable program.
Item 1
December 17, 2024
Item 1
December 17, 2024
1 David Yakobson
From: John Alle <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2024 9:14 AM
To: The Santa Monica Coalition Organizer
Cc: John Alle
Subject: Safety Wanted In Our Parks
EXTERNAL
Would more presence by Santa Monica's Police make you more inclined to walk through and use Tongva Park? This park is located between City Hall and the Police Station on the east, and the Santa Monica Pier and Palisades Park on the west. At the exact time (2 PM) this video was taken, Police were occupied making another criminal arrest a hundred yards away on Ocean Avenue in front of the 5-Star Hotels. Data released from the City show Police are called 8 to 13 times a day on a combined basis to Tongva, Palisades and Reed Parks. Santa Monica Police say their Downtown Operations unit now consists of only about 14 sworn officers, down from 36, which it was 4 years ago. "Ambassadors" the City pays $8 million for are there to watch and maintain the restrooms only, and are unarmed, even with gel mace. Would you approve of a 6-month trial period of Police walking or driving through Santa Monica's 3 Downtown parks throughout the day and night? Insta
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DDpYfaei_3o/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA== YouTube
https://youtu.be/Ell-AuqEH28
Item 1
December 17, 2024
Item 1
December 17, 2024
2 David Yakobson
From: John Alle <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2024 8:30 AM
To: The Santa Monica Coalition Organizer
Cc: John Alle
Subject: Safety or Danger
EXTERNAL
We are thankful for the quick response from the brave and professional Santa Monica Police in apprehending one of many transient addicts who assault and harm others, steal, and create an extremely unsafe environment on the 3rd Street Promenade and Downtown Santa Monica. How many tourists and shoppers who passed by will feel like returning to Santa Monica for their next shopping experience? Insta
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DDmu3tKCk7l/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA== YouTube
https://youtu.be/c7QLyLL3PIA
Item 1
December 17, 2024
Item 1
December 17, 2024
3 David Yakobson
From: John Alle <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2024 7:47 AM
To: The Santa Monica Coalition Organizer
Cc: John Alle
Subject: Tourists Do NOT FEEL SAFE in Santa Monica
EXTERNAL
These tourists and many more do NOT FEEL SAFE in Santa Monica on a warm Thursday afternoon at 1 pm. Many other visitors, their children and residents were ambushed and victims of crime this year in Santa Monica. In the 3rd largest state geographically in the United States, Santa Monica ranks in the top 2 1/2 percentile of unsafe cities in California. Heavily taxed residents, businesses and hotel owners sent a message on November 5th to City Manager David White (who announced his resignation), Mayor Phil Brock (who was fired by voters), City Council, and incoming (Council-appointed Mayor) Lana Negrete: They were complicit in underfunding Police, undermining public safety, and stood by while businesses closed, jobs were lost, and hotel vacancies rose.
Insta
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DDkCqZVCv_b/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA== YouTube
https://youtu.be/tbFtERi4sc8
Item 1
December 17, 2024
Item 1
December 17, 2024
4 David Yakobson
From: John Alle <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 13, 2024 6:26 PM
To: The Santa Monica Coalition Organizer
Cc: John Alle
Subject: Friday December 13, 2024
EXTERNAL
We're closing in on the end of the year. After $50 million spent on homeless services and grants, over 45 Santa Monica City Council meetings, Parks and Recreation meetings, Housing Commission meetings and Audit Subcommittee meetings, this is what we're left with. Santa Monica remains in the top two and a half percentile for crime of all cities in the state of California. Should we be surprised or upset? Oh, and a new Mayor who has been on the City Council for 3 years. But as she has said, " I wish the homeless would all die." Insta
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DDignkDCon-/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA== YouTube
https://youtu.be/MwghW-bBco8
Item 1
December 17, 2024
Item 1
December 17, 2024
5 David Yakobson
From: John Alle <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2024 2:46 PM
To: The Santa Monica Coalition Organizer
Cc: John Alle
Subject: Wednesday Afternoon 12/12/2025
EXTERNAL
Would you let your loved one walk home alone in the alleyway behind where you live? How about accessing your carport alone or emptying the trash after dusk?
Insta
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DDfflW4irvd/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA== YouTube
https://youtu.be/7HpqOIXHdlA
Item 1
December 17, 2024
Item 1
December 17, 2024