(The following letter was sent to Gordon LaBedz)
I am addressing you as the Chair of the Sierra Club Angelist Chapter.
My wife and I have been residents of Malibu for 34 years and she and/or I have been members of the Sierra Club for many years. We are alarmed at the increasingly frequent partisan interjection of the Sierra Club in local Malibu politics to the detriment of the credibility and reputation of the Sierra Club.
In a recent article published in the Oct. 12 issue of the Malibu Surfside News entitled “Recent Committee Campaign Fillings, Etc.,” you are quoted as having said “Electing Roy Van de Hoek as a city councilmember and passing Measure P are essential in protecting Malibu’s unique character and natural beauty.” I do not know Mr. Van de Hoek or what he has done to protect Malibu. I am informed that he is a recent resident and has engaged in no civic activities.
Mr. de Hoek’s opponent for the City Council is Mrs. Sharon Barovsky who, along with her recently deceased husband, Harry Barovsky, who as Mayor Pro Tem of Malibu at the time of his untimely death, to my knowledge, have been at the forefront and active participants in protecting Malibu’s unique character and natural beauty continuously for more than 20 years.
As to your denouncing Measure N, which you state “favors unchecked development along our coast,” it is apparent that you have been misinformed.
Measure N, a copy of which I am enclosing, neither fosters nor opposes any developments. By its terms it gives voters an opportunity to approve any development agreement of 30 acres or more in the City of Malibu, if they choose to do so. If the voters elect not to take advantage of that opportunity, then the city council will have the option to proceed without further voter approval. It is up to the voters to decide.
As to Measure P, a copy of which I am enclosing, a close examination of its consequences, whether intended or unintended, will convince you, I am sure, that should it be adopted, it will result in precisely the kind of unplanned patchwork development that the Sierra Club has long condemned. Further, according to the Surfside article, the Sierra Club contends that “Measure N … includes a poison pill” that states, if it receives one more vote than Measure P, regardless of the number of people who vote for P, Measure N, and only Measure N will prevail.”
You are quoted as having said that this was “sneaky” and “… does not serve democracy and it does not serve Malibu’s natural environment.”
Apparently, your informants neglected to mention to you that an almost identical “poison pill,” to which you object, was first utilized in Measure P (see Section 9), which you support, long before Measure N was even prepared. Had you been so informed, I am sure you would be condemning measure P with the same vigor that you are condemning Measure N.
The Sierra Club, by taking a partisan position in Malibu, apparently without a full understanding of the facts and issues, is doing itself a great disservice. It can perform a very positive function by building
a bridge between what is becoming, regrettably, an ever-widening chasm of suspicion and distrust between parties who all claim they are seeking a common goal of protecting Malibu’s fragile environment. Toward that goal, if you would care to join me, I would be happy to arrange a meeting with you and other activists in Malibu to discuss our common aspirations for the benefit of Malibu and its citizens.
A. David Kagon, president
No on P Election Committee