I am confused and troubled by the City Council’s attacks on the Coastal Commission’s definition of ESHA and the protection afforded to it. When I first moved here, I experienced what I believe is the single unifying experience that every other citizen of Malibu (including council members who oppose the LCP) must have felt too; an utter joy that I was living in a place of such beauty and open space. A beauty that is not static because there is open space. I think most people would like to protect our community if they only knew how. Are the Malibu city Council persons better at coastal protection than the Coastal Commission? I also believe that Malibuites, in their heart of hearts, would agree that some change is inevitable, and I might add, even natural. Realistically, there will be and should be some development. The way the Coastal Commission has defined ESHA and its protection, is one excellent way to protect against uncontrolled development. Why then is our council opposing them? This is no time to play games.
If I had wanted to live in a developed community, I could have moved to Beverly Hills or the Palisades (nice towns, too) and avoided the morning drive. I don’t want Malibu to become similar to those places. Since the ESHA conditions only apply to new development, somebody please explain to me, who, besides the developers benefit from the mass hysteria that the City Council has generated against keeping the city rural. They only talk and complain. I urge all citizens to get their hands on a copy of the latest LCP and read it. Don’t let the Council think for you. Malibu’s a pretty smart place, so as a city, let’s start using our brains.
Bruce Arlen