Santa Monica City Council to revote on housing amid conflict of interest allegations

SANTA MONICA, Calif. — The Santa Monica City Council is preparing to redo a series of housing decisions passed in 2025 after state regulators identified a conflict of interest involving a sitting councilmember.

The California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) determined that Councilmember Jesse Zwick’s employment at a housing advocacy organization created a conflict, prompting a mandate for his recusal from similar matters.

A separate complaint also alleges that Zwick, Mayor Caroline Torosis, and Councilmember Natalya Zernitskaya violated ethics rules during a December 2024 housing agreement. The filing claims the officials engaged in undisclosed private communications and accepted campaign contributions from direct beneficiaries of the deal.

City officials stated they are taking a "cautious" approach to clear any doubt regarding the legitimacy of the previous decisions.

While the FPPC did not conclude that Zwick engaged in intentional wrongdoing, its advisory guidance serves as a directive for future council actions. The City Council is scheduled to hold the re-votes on Jan. 13.

The controversy unfolding in Santa Monica is more than a localized political scandal; it is a microcosm of a broader friction defining California politics: the tension between an acute housing shortage and the state’s rigorous ethical and transparency mandates. For years, pro-housing advocates have targeted local officials for falling under the sway of "Not In My Backyard" (NIMBY) interests. Now, as these activists successfully pivot into elected roles—as seen in the case of Councilmember Jesse Zwick—they are finding themselves subject to the same intense scrutiny they once leveled at their predecessors.

At the core of the issue is the Fair Political Practices Commission’s (FPPC) application of the "nexus test," which signals an increasingly stringent standard for public integrity. The ruling underscores that a direct financial gain is no longer the sole threshold for a conflict of interest; rather, any municipal decision that provides an indirect benefit to an official’s private employer can be disqualifying. This creates a systemic challenge for city councils, which typically rely on part-time officials who maintain private-sector careers often inextricably linked to the very industries they oversee.

For the electorate, the optics of this case erode confidence in the legislative process. Revelations of private email exchanges during public hearings, coupled with campaign contributions from developers, foster a perception that decisions regarding public land and taxpayer funds are being made behind closed doors rather than through impartial deliberation. Ultimately, the Santa Monica incident serves as a cautionary tale of the governance hurdles that continue to complicate California’s efforts to resolve its housing crisis.

While this story unfolds in Santa Monica, it reflects a systemic crisis weighing heavily on Vietnamese-American communities throughout California. From the heart of Little Saigon in Westminster to the neighborhoods of San Jose, skyrocketing housing costs have become a primary hurdle for families and small businesses alike. This case highlights how local political infighting and bureaucratic red tape can stall new development, indirectly driving up rents and home prices for everyone—from the entrepreneurs running our nail salons and phở restaurants to families sponsoring relatives on F2B visas or professionals arriving on H-1B status. Ultimately, these local hurdles sustain a cycle of financial pressure on a community already balancing the rising cost of living with the cultural importance of supporting loved ones through remittances.