I feel compelled to respond to the letter in your July 17, 2003, edition entitled “Property Rights Valued.” In my experience, corporations and people that are well connected with plenty of contributions to elected officials, and who have expensive lawyers, never get shafted on property rights, and I think that group could include the Malibu Bay Company.
What about the public’s right to keep the general plan zoning that was agreed to when they purchased their property? Case in point-right up Malibu Canyon, Ahmanson Ranch, zoned for no more than 21 homes by the General Plan. Now, it has been approved for 3,050 homes, two golf courses and 300,000 square feet of commercial space. What is the “fair market value” of that upzoning? What is the “fair market value” for all the negative impacts it would create, including water pollution, air pollution, lung disease and cancer?
I can tell you the costs are way more than $20 million or so Washington Mutual contributed, along with the $28.5 million we taxpayers had to pay to purchase the property associated with that land deal, which was a big rip-off. Jordan Ranch was landlocked, and yes, “undevelopable” Corral Canyon was denied zoning for 10 homes and a golf course because it was too environmentally sensitive; Runkle Ranch is very rocky-hard to develop; and Liberty Canyon is next to the toxic dump.
If you want “full market value” for the chili cook-off site, then pay dollar amounts credited to the public for all the upzonings and building rights Malibu Bay Co. is gaining, as well as dollar amounts for all the negative impacts they are creating with the development agreement. We can count the water treatment facility and park as mitigation for some of these negative impacts. It is time to be completely honest about the repercussions of development and the costs associated with it.
Mary Altmann