I’m pleased that your publisher, Arnold York, plans to provide an unbiased (at least I hope it will be unbiased) analysis of Measure M. Unfortunately, I believe, in his first report, he glossed over a key action in the process. He neglected to report that the Council-appointed Planning Commission unanimously rejected both versions of the Development Agreement represented by Measure M; also the Planning Commission was not given the opportunity by the Council to hold hearings and review the final Environmental Impact Report – as is their normal duty.
Why do you suppose this body, one member each appointed by a City Council member, rejected a proposal unanimously supported by those who appointed them? Is it because they did more homework? They brought a stack of reports a foot tall and sure spoke like they knew what was in them. Is it because they were not influenced by the City Attorney who cut the last deal? She certainly spoke to them often enough. Is it because they were not influenced by the Malibu Bay Company? They sure listened to a lot of Bay Company testimony. I wonder why.
I hope Mr. York elaborates further on this question in his next report. In any case, I hope the voters give serious thought to this discrepancy. I recommend they take the advice of the Planning Commission and vote “no” on Measure M.
Walt Keller
Malibu