What Say
You? David Finkel. Diversity.
Pluralism. Harmony.
SUSAN
CLOKE
Columnist,
Santa Monica Mirror
January 24, 2013
David
Finkel is an attorney who has served as a Judge on the Santa Monica Court, a
Rent Control Board Member, a City Council Member and, most recently, a College
Board Member.
 |
| David Finkel photo credit Bruria Finkel |
David
Finkel is the fifth Santa Monica public leader in this series of interviews
with Santa Monica political thinkers.
Previous
columns featured Patricia Hoffman, Co Chair of
Santa Monicans for Renters Rights; Patricia Bauer, Co-Vice Chair of the North
of Montana Organization; former Planning Commissioner Gwynne Pugh; and former
Mayor Nat Trives.
Susan: The political leaders columns started
because I had been hearing from people all over the City that there was a “disconnect”
between the Council Members and City residents. Do you agree?
David: No, I don’t think we have a
disconnect. I think what we
have is pluralism.
In the old days, and by old days I mean late
‘70’s and early ‘80’s, everyone was on the same page because there was an
overwhelming interest in protecting renters and stopping the rush to demolish
apartments and replace them with condo developments.
The general concern of most people to protect
tenants hasn’t changed but
by dint of the changes in value of land and
changes in state law a lot of tenants were driven out of the city. Mandated by the State, Vacancy
Decontrol started a pattern of change where tenants were driven out and that
resulted in a change in the population as the new people who came to Santa
Monica had higher incomes and were able to afford the new rents. The difference in income levels
increased disparity of interest between the changing populations.
For example – a young couple moving into a
market value apartment in Santa Monica are paying a high rent. They are protected by rent control from their rent increasing
unrestrictedly. But they want a
high-end life. So they support
rent control and also support the new stores, new restaurants and new
industries we’ve seen come to Santa Monica.
I say this in an effort to describe the changing
dynamic of the population whose interests coincide with both the old and the
new.
This new population came to Santa Monica for the
stimulating environment of the City. They liked the political alertness, the physical
environment, the high tech image, the commitment to sustainability. They wanted to be a part of a city with
thinking, intelligent, on the move people.
At the same time you have a lot of folks who have
lived here a long time and are holding on. Each of these two groups, different as they are, have an
interest in rent control. For that
reason you can understand why SMRR endorsed people keep getting reelected even
though there may be significant differences on many other issues.
Rent control has become a value that is part of
the fixed constellation in Santa Monica.
Susan:
For many reasons - a change in the
overall market, the new population you are describing, the completion of the
LUCE – there are now great development pressures on the City. When people speak of a disconnect
they almost always are speaking of development issues. How do you feel about the new
developments proposed for Santa Monica?
David: I do think that the Miramar plans that
I’ve seen are just too big.
The Gehry proposal is also too big and yet it’s stimulating. Frank’s building is the one I think
about the most because it is a classic example of the good and the bad
together. It is both interesting
and disturbing to me at the same time.
I can’t talk too much about development because
it’s not my area of expertise. But
I don’t understand why we can’t both have architectural gems and keep the values
of our City.
Susan: You talk about the issue being
that the proposals are “too big.”
What does “too big” mean to you?
David: Too big is a state of
mind. If we allow these projects
to be built as they are proposed it may be fine but it will change the
character of the city. We have to know that. If we allow some to be built we can’t
deny others.
If the projects as proposed are developed we
will attract a different population and we will not be a progressive community
anymore. Because the change in
character assures it will become a more standardized and conservative
city. It will be a change in the nature of the City. Those of us
who are here because of the values and the stimulating environment won’t like
it anymore. It is a question of
keeping the values of the city alive.
Susan: You are a SMRR member, you sat on the
Rent Control Board, and you were a SMRR City Council member. There are now six SMRR endorsed
Council Members. Why do you think the Council hasn’t been holding the line on
development?
David: The SMRR members are
pluralistic. Different Council
Members became part of SMRR through different constituencies. Pam, Gleam and Terry will frequently vote with the
developers. But all of them will hold the line of
rent control issues because all the SMRR members and, in fact, most of the City
supports rent control.
Pam came to SMRR through friends who were
already on SMRR. Gleam came through
her work with the public school community. She is an articulate lawyer and a very nice person and she
tends to moderate. She’ll listen
and then she opens the door to developers and places limits on them at the same
time. Terry came through his
excellent work on environmental issues. Kevin gives a hold the line analysis on development
and votes that way. Kevin
and Tony and Ted are the three SMRR Council Members who consistently hold the
line on development.
SMRR itself is divided on the issue of
development. Their divisions are usually on where to
draw the line rather than being pro the development point of view. Although I must say that development
issues were vigorously discussed at the most recent SMRR meeting.
Susan: Tell us a little bit about yourself and
your history in Santa Monica.
David: I graduated from the
University of Chicago and then went on to USC for law school. From law school I went on to work
with the progressive law firm of Margolis and McTernan. I was still practicing law when my
wife, the artist Bruria Finkel, and I moved to Santa Monica in the 1960’s. I became a member of the Rent Control Board
in 1981 and was a member for 5 years.
In 1986 I was elected to the City Council on the SMRR ticket.
I left the Council and ran for an open seat on the
Santa Monica Municipal Court. I
sat on the Court until 2002.
While I was there we decided that the Courts would be both fairer and
more efficient if we merged the Santa Monica Municipal and Superior
Courts. We began with a test
period during which we could monitor our results. Our model was successful and as result the entire State
followed our example.
Susan: You just recently resigned from the
College Board. What
interested you about the College?
David: When I was on the Council I came to
realize the differences between the College, the Council and the School Board
were harming the City. They didn’t
cooperate and they were at odds.
I decided to make it my job to change that. We’ve worked hard to develop harmony
between the three groups. This has
benefited the City. Two
obvious examples are: the Civic Center development will have a pre-school and the
College will run it; we have high school students taking college classes, as
they are ready. When the
three groups work together it’s wonderful and it injects power and strength
into the City.
Susan: What is your vision for the future of
the City?
David: I want the city to be a small gem. I want all the exciting new stuff and I
want it to be small in size. I don’t want the City to fall victim to what happens to
other cities where money talks and ideas leave and the city becomes rich and boring.
What Say You?
