Proposition "S" OPINION Jim Jacobson Interviews Mat Millen on Proposition S

(The opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of Action Apartment Association, Inc.)

When I received my voters pamphlet, I noticed that your name is listed as an opponent against Prop S. Why are you opposed to it?

It is the third property tax increase in the past three years. This proposition adds another $135,000,000 to the largely unspent $160,000,000 we gave Santa Monica College just two years ago with Proposition U. Take a look at your last property tax bill to see what is wrong with this measure. Additionally, the list of proposed projects is much the same as were stated in the last bond measure.

Who is behind this Proposition?

This measure was proposed to the Santa Monica College Board of Trustees by Piedad Robertson, the Superintendent/President of the Board in August 2004. This measure is supported by those on a College Board which might be expected to support any proposal that gives the college more money, but the original proposal (for $165 million) could not get the five affirmative votes it needed. It should be noted not one trustee who voted to put this on the ballot has, as of September 30, contributed to the campaign.

I am not certain how this additional money will be spent. It seems to be directed to additional sports facilities, but are there are there any controls on that?

It is a big expensive mixed bag with little control over how the money is spent. Some of the proposed projects include purchasing more land for a women’s soccer field, buying land in Malibu for undisclosed sport’s facilities, repairing or replacing tennis courts and building new music and performing arts complex and “upgrades to existing and future District facilities,” which means remodeling executive offices. In summary, the College can spend the money on any capital improvement they want.

What is the College’s track record with the money that the voters approved in March 2002?

The College purchased buildings at Santa Monica Airport for classrooms. However, they are not using them, but instead, rented the space to the University of West Los Angeles School of Law. If the College cannot utilize the property it already owns, why should we be burdened with higher taxes so they can play Pac Man and acquire more land?

Who is contributing money to support the campaign?

The campaign is being run by SMRR co-chair Denny Zane who is being paid over $30,000.00. As of September 30, 2004 not one person has contributed to the campaign. It is being financed by the College approving the expenditure of $60,000.00 from the Associated Student Body funds, which are primarily for scholarships. There is a question about the legality of that campaign contribution. Also, over $100,000.00 from the Santa Monica College Foundation, Inc. was given to the campaign. People donated money for scholarships and now the money is being used for political purposes.

Where can our readers find out more about this?

We have a web site at www.notaxhike2004.com. In addition, the Voter Guide has arguments on the ballot proposition.

NOTE: The opinions expressed in this interview or on the above website do not necessarily reflect those of ACTION or its members.