If some of you have the feeling that this is deja vu all over again, you’re absolutely right. We did have a City Council election earlier this year and we did elect House, Jennings and Kearsley, and to prove it, we’re reprinting the returns.
The reason we were back at the polls again so soon is that the council decided to call a special election to fill the City Council seat formerly held by Harry Barovsky, who died while still in office, which created a vacancy. Initially, the council appointed his widow Sharon Barovsky to fill his seat, but only until a new election could be called.
We also had something else on the ballot this year, and that’s three initiatives. Proposition P (Right to Vote on Development Initiative) which was put on the ballot by a group of citizens who want to take control over future development away from the council. The council, in turn, put two measures onto the ballot. Proposition O is an Advisory measure to find out if citizens are willing to pass a $15 million bond issue for parks, open space and wetlands. Proposition N was put on the ballot by the council to give people a chance to decide if they want to vote on the Malibu Bay Company development deal.
City Council Election
2000 Winners (3 elected)
Joan House 2,565
Jeff Jennings 2,484
Ken Kearsley 2,473
Walt Keller 1,314
John Wall 1,255
Carolyn Van Horn 1,248
2000 Summary
Ballots cast 3.962
Turnout 46.12 percent
1998 Winners (2 elected)
Harry Barovsky 2,040
Tom Hasse 1,869
Jeff Jennings 1,843
1998 Summary
Ballots cast 3,632
Turnout 41.40 percent
For the first time, a Malibu Municipal election was combined with a general election. Although, typically in municipal elections, Malibu voters go to the polls in greater numbers than the rest of the County of Los Angeles. In a presidential year, such as this, everything is different. Voters were expected to turnout in much larger numbers.
In past Malibu council elections, where two council seats were at stake, as they are now, typically, about 3,600 voters cast their ballots, which is a turnout of about 40-42 percent of the registered voters. This is significantly better than most other cities with populations under 50,000, where a 25-30 percent turnout is more typical. However, in a presidential year, Californians go to the polls in much larger numbers, and turnouts are typically in the 70 percent range, although it dropped a little in the last presidential election to 65 percent.
What happens next?
The poison pill.
Both Proposition N and Proposition P have a poison pill in them, which means whichever proposition gets the most votes, will knock out the other proposition. For example, if the voters approve both Proposition N and Proposition P, it’s still winner takes all. Whichever proposition has more votes, becomes the law, and the other one disappears, as if it never existed.
If Proposition N passes and Proposition P fails
Let’s suppose Proposition N passes and Proposition P fails, then things go on pretty much as before except the proposed Malibu/Malibu Bay Company Development Deal goes onto the ballot for voter approval.
If Proposition N fails and Proposition P passes
This is one that gets interesting because it has the most complications. A court is ultimately going to have to decide this one because it raises a bunch of legal questions.
1) Who does it apply to?
For example, does it apply to the proposed Adamson Hotel at the corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Malibu Canyon, or just prospective projects?
2) Is it constitutional?
Our city attorney thought not in his opinion letter, and the drafters of Proposition P say yes, it is. The question is, does this proposition give the Malibu voters power that they’re constitutionally prohibited from having — which is the power to approve a specific project. Ultimately, an appeals court will decide that question.
3) What happens when someone comes in with a specific project, meets all of the requirements, and then is refused a permit because the city says it has to go to a ballot, then they sue claiming the city has no right to put this on the ballot?
4) How long and how expensive will this all be?
Estimates are that these cases will most certainly have to go to the Court of Appeals and perhaps the California Supreme Court. At a minimum, we’re looking at litigation that will freeze everything for at least two years, possibly four to five years if something has to go on the 2002 ballot.
5) What happens if we lose and what will it cost us?
That’s a great unknown. The mobile home litigation ran $2.5 million (combination of attorneys fees and damages) and this most certainly will be significantly larger. So how much, is anybody’s guess.