In last week’s issue of your paper I was listed as a supporter of Measure M in one of your full page ads. I would like to clarify that not only do I not support Measure M, but I also did not give supporters of this advertisement permission to use my name. You will find my name, along with my husband Peter’s, included in ads against Measure M in this week’s local papers. We both share the same concerns about Measure M as the others opposed to it in this ad. I don’t intend to reiterate those points here. Instead, I would like to address the very upsetting manner in which this whole issue has been handled by our elected officials. Firstly, the detailed research and review was put in the hands of the Planning Commission, a government body appointed by the City Council. After an initial exhaustive and thorough review, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to reject the Malibu Bay Company agreement. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council bring in expert negotiators to represent the city because this was a complex deal with overwhelming long term consequences. They also advised not to proceed too quickly so that the public could be well informed with the facts before being called upon to vote on it.
The City Council of Malibu totally rejected and for the most part ignored most of the hard work of their appointed planning commissioners. Richard Carrigan, who was head of the commission for most of this time, is currently not only opposed to Measure M but is reported to have taken leave from his profession to devote his time to fight it. Other Planning Commissioners have followed suit.
The blatant arrogance of our City Council to ignore the recommendations of those they put in charge to research and comprehend the ramifications of this enormous deal on our behalf is shocking to me. It’s time we remind our elected officials that the fragile democratic process of checks and balances should never be ignored despite the fact that
it often moves at a painfully
slow pace.
Gina Burrell