'The Ozzie Silna Show'

By The Malibu Times · Thu Oct 26 2000

This is a letter to the editor at the Malibu Surfside News

Welcome to Malibu politics.

You reported on the Malibu Township Council's "Mini debate" held on Oct. 14 in the Oct. 19 issue of the Surfside News. This mini debate, however, seemed to David Kagon and me, who spoke in favor of Measure N and against Measure P, to be more like "The Ozzie Silna Show," as if MTC Chair Frank Basso gave only lip service to allowing a balanced presentation of both sides of the measures, especially Measure P.

Basso allowed Ozzie Silna, who spoke against Measure N and in favor of Measure P, to ramble on at length, and then told David Kagon and me that we had only a few minutes at the end of the debate to state our positions against Measure P. Unfortunately, although a picture of me with my mouth open (presumably speaking) appeared in your newspaper, none of what I was saying made it into your article. A copy of what I said is enclosed.

Instead, in your article, David Kagon and I found ourselves characterized as "sidestepping" or "bypassing" issues, trying to give certain issues a "positive spin" and "indirectly" agreeing with what you characterized were Mr. Silna's counter-arguments. We did not do any of these things. The key points we made were as follows:

• Measure N applies to the entire Malibu Bay Company Development Agreement, not individual MBC parcels included in that agreement, contrary to Mr. Silna's assertion;

• Measure P would tie the hands of all future Malibu city governments to negotiate deals beneficial to the city residents as part of development agreements, a position which, ironically, many of the proponents of Measure P have championed in the past"

• Measure P violates the Permit Streamlining Act and may result in exactly the contrary result intended by its proponents by requiring the permits submitted by property owners to be "deemed approved" as submitted by them to the city if not submitted to the voters in a timely fashion;

• The Permit Streamlining Act problem, according to its proponents, could be addressed by calling Special Elections every time a project would have to be submitted to the voters but with 15 or so projects currently in the permitting process, and with each Special election costing $35,000 or so, Malibu city government would be clogged with Special Elections (if they are permitted under the law) and its citizens inconvenienced greatly in the future;

• Measure P was cobbled together from measures presented to the voters in cities having totally different factual situations and the measure is fraught with ambiguities and drafting errors that would haunt the city for many years to come;

• Measure P is "likely unconstitutional" according to a well reasoned opinion by Malibu's City Attorney (yet if it passes, considerable city taxpayer money will have to be spent to defend its constitutionality);

• Measure P is an attempt by the forces who lost last April's election and by elements outside the city, to turn defeat into victory and tie the hands of the current City Council from doing what the voters of Malibu elected them to do; to negotiate the best possible development agreement with the MBC, and then to submit it to the voters for approval (if they are successful in doing this and if Measure N passes with more votes than Measure P); and

• Measure P will result in a "minefield of litigation,"

Measure P is opposed by the entire City Council, the City Attorney, by most of the members of the Planning Commission, and by many of the citizens of Malibu who are also attorneys, as a deeply flawed measure which will further adversely affect the city's already poor relationship with the State of California (which recently took away by statute Malibu's right to prepare its own coastal plan).

I would like to mention one additional thing: In your article, you stated that Mr. Kagon "reiterated the concern that the measure [referring in your article to Measure N] was weak legally despite it having been overseen by some of the state's leading law firms." In an election which has confusing enough ballot measures, you do not help things when you further confuse the issue by stating that Mr. Kagon was talking here about Measure N, when he was referring to Measure P. Please correct this error.

I appreciate the opportunity to set the record straight here.

Edward E. Vaill