 Following widespread public concern—and a pointed letter from community members urging the Santa Monica Bay Foundation to hold the line on its core environmental and equity commitments--the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission's Executive Committee met to deliberate over revisions to its annual work plan. What transpired was a striking display of institutional contortion, as board members and staff repeatedly tried to find ways to avoid saying “climate change” or “disadvantaged communities”.
The conversation centered on multiple action items in the draft plan where references to “climate change” had been struck through, replaced with more vague or sanitized language like “recurring extreme weather events,” “sea level rise,” “changes in ocean chemistry,” or the ever-flexible “coastal adaptation.” The reason for this? Fear that even mentioning climate change might trigger rejection of the work plan by the Trump administration’s EPA, despite no legal mandate requiring such deletions—and federal court injunctions already blocking the administration’s spending freeze related to climate and DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion). The board members debated alternatives to the term “climate change” with almost painful precision. One member suggested rephrasing “ocean acidification” as “changes in ocean chemistry,” while another questioned whether “acidification” might itself be a trigger word. Staff suggested compiling a list of climate-related impacts (like sea level rise and harmful algal blooms) to include in the plan’s introduction so they could avoid repeating “climate change” in each action item—essentially saying the same thing, but buried under euphemism. The same pattern emerged around references to equity and disadvantaged communities. Entire action items related to investing in underserved areas were struck from the work plan. In one particularly revealing moment, staff confirmed that a reference to “disadvantaged communities” in connection to L.A. County’s Safe Clean Water Program had to be removed entirely—because they were told by the U.S. EPA that such language could result in the work plan being rejected. Instead, board members proposed vague alternatives like “community benefits” or “green spaces and parks,” without specifying where those benefits are most urgently needed. Some members acknowledged how “ridiculous” this self-censorship was—yet the discussion quickly returned to how best to comply with federal instructions rather than how to stand on principle. Notably, no board member challenged the core premise: that a decision-making body should rewrite its commitments to equity and science in order to protect a funding stream that isn’t even definitively at risk. Multiple federal court rulings have already blocked Trump’s attempts to freeze funding for DEI or climate initiatives. And under the Clean Water Act, EPA does not have unilateral authority to reject local work plans without cause. Even more troubling, staff openly admitted that in some places, striking “climate change” made the action items less coherent or meaningful. Yet the instinct remained to self-censor, despite the fact that the Clean Water Act grants significant discretion to local entities like the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission, and the EPA cannot reject plans unless they violate the law, applicable regulations, or the NEP’s own strategic plan—all of which the original language clearly aligned with. This meeting made one thing abundantly clear: the Commission is tying itself in rhetorical knots to appease a president who has no constitutional authority to demand such changes. By scrambling to avoid “trigger words” instead of standing behind its mission, the Commission risks not only its credibility, but also the long-term health of Santa Monica Bay. What’s especially alarming is that this capitulation is coming from a commission and nonprofit that exist to protect public resources in one of the most progressive corners of the country. If the SMBRC won’t say “climate change” or “disadvantaged communities,” who will? This decision also sends a disheartening message to marginalized communities: that a governing body lacking in diversity itself is willing to dilute or even abandon its equity commitments at the first sign of political risk—even when the risk is speculative and the legal standing of such directives is shaky at best. As Yale historian Timothy Snyder has warned, “Most of the power of authoritarianism is freely given.” If the Commission caves to climate denialism now, it teaches those in power that intimidation works—and invites further attacks on science, equity, and environmental protection. The Board still has a chance to correct course and restore integrity to this process. But that will require courage—and a willingness to speak plainly about the climate crisis we are all here to confront.
0 Comments
For much of her tenure, Mayor Karen Bass has taken a strategic, if not puzzling, approach to her relationship with Councilmember Traci Park. Despite their stark ideological differences—Bass, a progressive leader focused on housing and social services, and Park, a former Republican and one of the Council’s most conservative voices—the mayor has gone to great lengths to court Park’s support.
Bass’ outreach has included backing Park’s hardline stance on homeless sweeps, tacitly supporting her efforts to block the Venice Dell affordable housing project, and appearing alongside her at various district events. The rationale seemed clear: building alliances across the political spectrum to advance her broader agenda. But that alliance may have hit a breaking point. Park was one of only two councilmembers who voted in favor of reinstating former Fire Chief Kristin Crowley, whom Bass had fired in February over what the mayor described as failures in the city’s response to the devastating Pacific Palisades Fire. With her vote, Park directly challenged Bass on one of the most controversial personnel decisions of her administration. The question now is: will Bass finally break from Park, or will she continue to accommodate her conservative policies? Bass’ approach to Park has been pragmatic, if not frustrating for progressives. By extending an olive branch to a right-leaning councilmember, the mayor likely hoped to neutralize opposition to her broader agenda. But in the process, she appeared to give Park political cover for policies that disproportionately harm vulnerable communities—most notably, her aggressive stance on encampment sweeps, which have displaced unhoused Angelenos without providing long-term housing solutions. While some saw Bass’ strategy as a necessary evil in a divided city, others viewed it as a betrayal of the progressive values she championed during her campaign. Park’s vote in favor of reinstating Crowley may be the moment that forces Bass to reconsider whether this alliance is still worth maintaining. By supporting Crowley’s appeal, Park has positioned herself in direct opposition to Bass. The former fire chief, backed by the firefighters’ union, claimed she was fired for speaking out about the department’s budget shortfalls and resources. Park, whose district includes Pacific Palisades—one of the hardest-hit areas in the January fire—aligned herself with Crowley’s assertion that she was punished for honesty rather than incompetence and argued that significant personnel decisions should wait until all the investigations have concluded. Bass, on the other hand, painted Crowley’s dismissal as a matter of accountability. She argued that the former chief failed to adequately prepare for the fire and did not communicate urgent risks to city leadership. The overwhelming 13-2 vote against Crowley’s reinstatement suggests that most of the Council agreed with Bass. Park’s decision to break ranks raises an obvious question: If Bass was willing to go out of her way to work with Park before, will she still feel the need to do so now that Park has publicly opposed her on such a high-profile issue? This could be a moment of recalibration for Bass. If her strategy of engaging with Park was aimed at securing cooperation, it may have run its course. The mayor no longer needs to win over Park to govern effectively—she has strong support from the majority of the council and a mandate from voters to implement progressive policies. And Park has shown little willingness to reciprocate Bass’ goodwill. Time and again, she has taken positions more aligned with business interests and law-and-order conservatives than with the mayor’s vision for a more equitable Los Angeles. Bass could use this moment to pivot back toward her base and draw a clearer contrast between her administration’s goals and Park’s agenda. That means rejecting Park’s obstruction of affordable housing, pushing back against her punitive approach to homelessness, and making it clear that her administration will not be dragged to the right in the name of political pragmatism. Bass has long positioned herself as a leader who can unify Los Angeles, but unity cannot come at the cost of core values. Park has now demonstrated that she is not a reliable ally—and rather than continuing to accommodate her, Bass may finally have a reason to distance herself. The fire chief vote may be remembered as a turning point. Will Bass take it as an opportunity to reaffirm her progressive agenda and build stronger coalitions with councilmembers who share her vision? Or will she continue trying to win over a councilmember who has made it clear she is more comfortable obstructing than collaborating? Los Angeles voters—particularly those who backed Bass on the promise of meaningful progress—will be watching. |