By Kevin McKeown

A virtually anonymous flyer circulated in single-family neighborhoods has inserted an existing state law, Senate Bill 10 from 2021, into the current Santa Monica Council election.  That flyer, headlined “Santa Monicans deserve the truth,” appears to misrepresent SB10. Voters may find it helpful to know more about the law.

I opposed SB10 as originally submitted because it seemed it could be used to override our local Proposition LC and our commitment to a great park at the former airport site, both of which I strongly supported.

While I can’t take personal credit, the final version of SB10 addressed those concerns. It specifically exempts “Any local restriction enacted or approved by a local initiative that designates publicly owned land as open space land… or for park or recreational uses.”

Whew.  So what DOES SB10 do?

SB10 preserves local control but encourages us to consider new housing options.  It authorizes local governments to allow rezoning and streamlined approvals for housing near mass transit if such housing is consistent with the local General Plan and Housing Element.

Why did the state step in to do this? According to the non-partisan Legislative Counsel’s Digest, “changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.”

Given widespread complaints about a housing crisis, California now requires what is called “affirmatively furthering fair housing.” For many decades, affordable and available housing was severely constrained in some communities by discriminatory restrictions like redlining and covenants (prohibiting ownership by families of color, Jews, and others).

If you’re fortunate enough to live in an exclusive neighborhood, well, who do you think got excluded? California is strongly encouraging local communities to rethink where and how housing is allowed, with requirements for “affirmatively furthering fair housing.” We in Santa Monica should readily agree that housing should be affordable and fair.

So, back to that locally circulated flyer. It claims that certain council candidates “will vote for Senate Bill 10.” That’s absurd, as SB 10 was a state, not local, measure, and was already passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor over three years ago.

The flyer’s claim appears to be based on one of the infamous “paddle questions” from a recent candidates’ forum. Candidates were allowed to answer only yes or no, with no nuance and no explanation. The question was not whether candidates would enact the maximum allowed under SB10, but rather, “Do you support implementation of the optional SB10 in Santa Monica?”

Note that implementation would mean acknowledging state law by conducting public hearings on whether and how to “affirmatively further fair housing,” not a blind adoption of SB10’s theoretical maximums.  Conversely, a “no” answer would mean denying the need for fair housing and willfully ignoring an adopted state law.

Santa Monica is in California. State laws apply here. How smart is it to simply disregard state law?

We got that answer three years ago when four Councilmembers submitted an inadequate Housing Element, and our neighborhoods were punished with multiple “builders remedy” highrises, far out of keeping with long-established local zoning laws.

We were warned about the dangers of ignoring clear state guidelines. A crudely phrased caution at the time was “F— around and find out.”  A bare Council majority chose to f— around, and we all found out. Echoes of those “builders remedy” projects are still bedeviling us with entitled highrises up to 34 stories.

It’s smarter, then, to acknowledge the state’s legislative direction by letting our local community consider how best to “affirmatively further fair housing.” By exploring our own options, we prevent Sacramento from stepping in and imposing theirs.

Note that implementing SB10 through local engagement does NOT mean allowing 14 units per parcel, which is the outside limit of where SB10 could allow streamlined approvals. That many units might be appropriate for other cities where parcel sizes are much larger, but not for us in Santa Monica.

As for affordability, Santa Monica has required inclusionary affordability in new housing projects for 25 years now.  Any local implementation of SB10 in Santa Monica would involve the maximum feasible inclusionary affordability, whether or not that’s mentioned in the state law.

So what is this scary flyer really about?  The four candidates on the “united” slate – the only four candidates endorsed by the Democratic Party – have indicated they will responsibly explore how SB10 should apply in Santa Monica. Other candidates are posturing, promising to ignore state law, no matter the consequences.

Besides avoiding more “builders remedy” punishments, voters need to ask themselves which response represents social justice. Do we believe in affirmatively furthering fair housing? A vote to ignore SB10 is a vote to perpetuate housing inequity.

Santa Monicans deserve the truth – and that’s the truth!

Kevin McKeown is a former Mayor of Santa Monica and 49-year renter in the city. 

Aerial Photo of Santa Monica by trekandshoot on iStockphoto.com