Some final thoughts about the City Council election. There have been some disturbing social media postings by at least one non-BH resident far rightwing so-called Republican setting out a barrage of false and defamatory comments about candidates who do not happen to be registered Republicans and providing an indiscriminate endorsement to a candidate who claims to be a Republican. Facts seem irrelevant to the poster who has made clear that the only real requirement for her support of a specific candidate is that the candidate claim that he is a “Republican.” Ignore the fact that the candidate is wholly unqualified for the non-partisan office; ignore the fact that the candidate is an angry creator of Board of Education dysfunction; ignore the fact that the candidate is a blunder machine with no claim to a

single constructive accomplishment. Partisan party politics have no place in our City. City Council elections are non-partisan for a reason and should stay that way. On a related subject, I read with interest an interview that Russell Stuart gave to Ana Figueroa of the Beverly Hills Courier. Now I know why Mr. Stuart would not talk to me. With almost every comment, Mr. Stuart revealed that he doesn’t understand or doesn’t care about the problems that he has created during his short term on the Board of Education. Particularly revealing was his comment about the litigation brought because the Board disregarded its bylaws to elect Dr. Stern as Vice President due to personal animus against her. This litigation has been very costly and continues to cost the District substantial legal fees. I doubt that these fees are covered by insurance and am certain they are not being paid by the three Board members

who caused it. Mr. Stuart’s justification for continuing to spend the District’s resources was as follows: “They [presumably District parent Daniel Lifschitz] are pursuing what they believe is a righteous fight to install Amanda Stern back to her rightful place. Unfortunately, our lawyers and our board do not agree with his standing on it.” The plaintiff has offered to settle the case if the Board will simply comply with its own bylaws and install Dr. Stern as Vice President. In fact, the contrived standing issue and virtually every other legal issue has been resolved by the court against the District. The Board prefers to continue the litigation at District expense solely out of vindictiveness. *** The 52d Beverly Hills Art Show, took place over the weekend of May 16–17 — in Beverly Gardens Park along Santa Monica Boulevard between Rodeo and Rexford Drives As it’s one of the best-known and well-attended outdoor art festivals in Southern California I thought that I should spend a few paragraphs talking about it. The Beverly Hills Art Show began in the early 1970s as a small local “arts and crafts” fair occupying just one block of

Beverly Gardens Park along Santa Monica Boulevard. Over time it expanded into one of the best-known juried outdoor art festivals on the West Coast. Today the show stretches across four blocks between Rodeo and Rexford Drives and typically features artists from California, the rest of the U.S., and abroad. The event is held twice a year — spring and fall — and has reportedly attracted more than 40,000 visitors over a weekend at its peak. The weather was perfect and the more than 40,000 visitors were treated to a great show and, my favorite part, the beer garden with an abundant selection of meat pies. Those meat pies are a favorite of Fire Chief Greg Barton who was introduced to those pies when his baseball team barnstormed through Australia. The Art Fairs occur twice a year, on

the third weekend of May and the third weekend of October. They are well-attended fabulous events that attract many visitors to the City and show off our parks and Business Triangle very well. This year, there were a record number, 251, exhibitors. There were 535 applicants for the 251 slots. The selection process is managed by Juried Art Consultants who define an extensive list of criteria and qualifications for the 251 10’ x 10’ slots, grade each applicant and select the best 251. Numerous awards are given out during the Show. The most significant one to me is the Mayor’s Purchase. The Beverly Hills Mayor annually selects a work of art from the many many on display at an all in cost not to exceed $10,000 including sales tax and any installation costs. The City purchases that work and will display it in the City. Mayor Corman se-

lected a photograph purchased for a cost substantially less than the $10,000 limit. The location of the installation will be announced at a later date. Prior Mayor’s Purchases have been installed at a number of different locations including City Hall, Roxbury Park, the Public Works Building and the main Library. The event has grown substantially since its beginnings in the early 1970s, when it occupied only a single block of Beverly Gardens Park. Today it spans four blocks along Santa Monica Boulevard and features roughly 250 juried artists from around the country. The admission to the show is free and is our gift to the southern California region. It occurs to me that there is room to monetize this event further. The 535 applicants each paid a $35 application fee; once selected the 251 pay an entrance fee of $435 each. In addition,

the artists must purchase a City Business Tax Certificate for $79 that covers up to $60,000 of sales annually within the City. These fees generate approximately $130,000 which covers the City’s out of pocket costs. It does not cover the costs of staff time for administering and managing the show or, as I understand it, the costs involved in providing security and closing off some of our streets. As more than half of the applicants are not selected, it would seem that there is substantial room for raising the entrance fees. The City provides the premises for the beer garden and does not charge for that or for the spaces made available for the numerous food trucks who park in the closed streets and sell food and beverages to the show visitors. Sales of the original artwork exhibited and sold are taxable at the customary state and local

tax rates of 9.5% to 9.75%. However, most of the transactions are cash and it is reasonable to infer that the vendors do not collect or pay sales tax. The City does not monitor the sales that occur and has no way of knowing what sales have taken place, whether the vendors collect sales tax and, therefore, whether applicable sales taxes are paid. I suggest that the City institute a small charge, say 1%, on each sale and use that as a means to monitor all transactions and ensure that the applicable sales taxes are paid which also results in increased revenues for the City. *** Anne and I spent the last few days in San Francisco. This was our first visit in several months and it was apparent to us that the City by the Bay is really bouncing back from the COVID related issues that have harmed many big cities. On our first night, we had dinner at the recently reopened iconic Big IV restaurant in the recently reopened Hun-

tington Hotel on Nob Hill. Both had been closed for six years. The place is magnificent and packed with welldressed locals and tourists. The next day, I took a long walk down California Street to the Embarcadero, then north toward Fisherman’s Wharf, then back through the food shops and other stores in the Ferry Building, then down Market Street to Powell Street through Union Square and then back to Nob Hill. This was an eye-opener. The day was beautiful, as was the City. The Embarcadero was crowded with runners, bike riders and strollers. The Ferry building restaurants were full on a Wednesday mid-afternoon. The financial district was bustling. Market Street was crowded and had newly opened businesses. Union Square once again is an attractive front door to the City. I do not pretend that things are perfect. Homelessness and affordability remain an issue. But things seem to be moving in the right direction.