LETTERS : Petition Drive on Santa Monica Civic Center

Q. When is a vote not democratic?

A. When the result destroys a democratic process.

Such is the case with the petition for a ballot initiative to vote down the Santa Monica Civic Center Specific Plan. This seemingly democratic effort might look like a good idea. A group for a “Better Civic Center” asks you to sign a petition to put the present council-approved plan (which, they may or may not mention, they feel will result in more traffic and overdevelopment) up for a vote because, after all, it’s your city; you should decide. It seems harmless enough, you say, and how could a vote hurt, anyway, let alone signing a petition.

This is where it gets strategic for the opponents of the plan. They know that recent elections have overwhelmingly been decided by people voting against something. Bad development and traffic have angered almost everyone in Santa Monica. And so, with a few well-placed pamphlets arousing everyone’s worst fear of a city out of control, they can be fairly assured that enough voters will vote against this plan if only because it’s not perfect enough to silence such opposition and thus must deserve to be studied more.

But what they don’t dare tell you is how much this plan has been studied. Nor are you likely to hear how many hundreds of thousands of tax dollars have been spent by a very socially conscious and politically careful City Council and staff to ensure maximum public participation. There have been well-publicized open forums and workshops, and responsive design changes to public concerns at numerous meetings over the past five years.

And so the plan gets the required signatures, is placed on the ballot, and enough not-too-optimistic, recession-weary voters in a low-turnout local election overturn the unanimity of the City Council because they feel we should wait until we have something better. The efforts of hundreds of participants and award-winning professionals and of impassioned and fair public debate all go down the drain--and we get five or more years of more talk and plans and, of course, acres of Tarmac heating us in the summer, cooling us in the winter.

This is how a vote can turn a democratic process into dust by a disgruntled minority--a minority that in this case cannot argue that it was not invited. Nor one that can argue that it did not take part and wasn’t listened to with sincerity. But most notable in this case, it is a minority with no alternative to offer in its place.

This is the real tragedy, where NO is the only policy left to us. There is no radical plan to take its place. No other vision. In fact, by doing nothing at all, the area’s traffic problems will remain the same or become worse, than with the plan and its improvements. The proposed density of the plan is also much less than its surroundings and with a much greater abundance of parks and plazas and open spaces between buildings. This is not likely to get better as the area’s economics deteriorate further for another five or more years. So what will we get if we start this process all over again? Unanimity on the City Council? Another “ballot box master plan” by the inevitable opponents? More funds for the elderly, children, or the poor?

Ironically, not signing the petition may actually be the best way to preserve a truly remarkable bit of community-based “town hall” planning.

GREG SPIESS

Santa Monica

Spiess is a Santa Monica architect and lecturer in urban and regional planning; he is a member of the board of directors of the Bayside District Corp., which administers the Third Street Promenade.