I have recently received a number of emails from the “No on R” campaign, enclosing an “Official Impartial Analysis” of Measure R, authored by Malibu’s City Attorney. This “analysis” is not “official,” is certainly not “impartial” and its “analysis” is deeply flawed.
I base this statement on the 2006 California Court of Appeal decision Lisa Pope v. Superior Court (Real Party in Interest Richard H. Carrigan, et al.), Case No. B188885, decision filed on February 9, 2006. The relevance of this case to the present one is the majority of the appellate court — and the Supreme Court by not reviewing the decision — agreed that the City Attorney’s statement as to what the ballot measure meant has no relevance in determining what the ordinance means. The same result should hold here, and the City Attorney’s “official” analysis should be regarded as meaningless.
In addition, it is not “impartial,” as the emails obtained by the “Yes on R” folks show. The City Attorney was deeply involved in the “No on R” campaign and in the efforts to defeat the measure. The reference in the “analysis” to “loopholes,” “increases formula retail up to 83%,” “huge city liabilities,” “harm to Urgent Care” and harm to Whole Foods and the Malibu theater are just distortions or untruths.
I urge readers to check out Rob Reiner’s presentation on Measure R — sponsored by the Malibu Democratic Club (whose Board has endorsed Measure R) — on Oct. 15, 2014, which can be found online at malibudemocraticclub.org.
Ted Vaill
Vice President, Malibu Democratic Club