In the last two issues of this paper, the proxy letter writers for the City Council pro Proposition M campaign, Anne Hoffman, Lloyd Ahern and Georgianna Mc Burney, have morphed into the proxy letter writers for the City Council pro-development candidates, Jeff Jennings, Ken Kearsley and Pamela Connelly Ulich. I am all in favor of the use of letters to the editor to express one’s opinions on issues, but I don’t believe they should be used for personal attacks or a coordinated misrepresentation of the facts.
The claim that somehow Ozzie Silna is going to buy the election is ludicrous. As Lloyd Ahern stated last week, Malibu has a $100 limit on contributions to candidates and Ozzie Silna is no exception. The pro-development camp outspent the No on M campaign by two-to-one, and yet they now claim there is big money against them. Ahern asked us to remember “he who pays the piper calls the tune.” I think when this campaign is over and the candidates’ financial reports are filed, the voters will find that Jennings, Kearsley and Ulich received ample support from pro-development and real estate interests, but that is pure speculation at this point.
I am glad that Ahern admitted that Walt Keller is qualified to serve on the City Council. I do, however think it is beyond the pale to claim that an investment banker from Goldman Sachs who has negotiated billions of dollars worth of deals with some of the smartest businessmen in the world (Winokur) or a regional shopping center developer (Liebig) are not qualified. Is it possible that if they had been on the City Council last year, they could have negotiated a deal with the Malibu Bay Company that included some ball fields or traffic mitigation for Pacific Coast Highway? I also assume that experienced businessmen would not have fired planning commissioners for giving them the bad news about the inadequacies of Proposition M.
The biggest distortion of all is Anne Hoffman’s statement that “Liebig, Winokur and Keller endorse a coastal plan that can fine you $10,000 a day for painting your house blue instead of brown … having a horse … refusing to cut down all your trees … (or) never to allow cats, dogs or horses on your property.” She knows these candidates have never endorsed the Coastal Commission LCP. She knows that every candidate in this election has major problems with the Coastal Commission’s plan. She does not really believe that any candidate who wants rational growth in Malibu would endorse a plan that turns the Civic Center into a tourist trap. The difference between the pro-growth candidates and Winokur, Liebig and Keller is that instead of resorting to the courts and forcing the present building moratorium that is hurting hundreds of residents, these candidates favor some kind of negotiation and amendment to the plan.
Let’s use the letters to the editor to delineate the differences between the two groups of candidates, not distort the issues. We should decide in this election whether we want rational professional planning for Malibu or continue a pro-growth property rights crusade that is doomed to failure.
John Mazza