This letter to the editor was submitted as a declaration to the City of Malibu
Madam Mayor and councilmembers, we, Doug O’Brien, John Harlow, Tom Fakehany and the City of Malibu citizens in the submitted declaration [to the City of Malibu] do herein appoint ourselves a non-compulsory steering com-mittee to advise the Malibu City Council on what moneys to tax the citizens of Malibu and how to spend the gathered proceeds. In addition, we serve notice that we do so without compensation or acknowledgement of the Malibu City Council in keeping with the tradition established within the city of self-appointed and self-selected steering committees.
It is our intent as the first order of concern to oppose the $15,000,000 General Purpose bond issue and ensuing property tax proposed by the Malibu City Council for the November 2001 special election ballot. We do declare our intent to write the opposition argument and rebuttal against the aforementioned ballot measure using the input of political scientists, CPAs and economists who serve as members of our steering committee. We register this action as the above individuals and as the Lily’s Caf, Malibu Steering Committee under election code 9287 effective this date, July 23, 2001.
The members of the Lily’s Caf Malibu Steering Committee have decades of political activism within the boundaries of the City of Malibu and have been visited by many of the Malibu councilmembers seeking election. Councilmembers House, Jennings and Kearsley have sought our steering committee’s support while candidates for public office. Like additional steering groups within Malibu we may not be united in one specific rationale for our action, but our membership will avoid the inter-hostility of the opposing group, as evidenced by Georgiana McBurney’s broken arm. We invite those interested in our steering committee’s observations to join our summits at 8 a.m. Monday through Friday in Lily’s Caf, located in the Point Dume Plaza.
We, the Lily’s Caf Malibu Steering Committee, are cohesive in that this $15,000,000 bond issue must be defeated as written. We believe that the proposed general bond is in fact, general, all-purpose, broad spectrum and does not reflect the wishes of Malibuites on Advisory Measure O on the November 7, 2000 election ballot as evidenced by the dissimilarity between the misleading argument in favor of Measure O and the wording in the ballot measure itself.
We believe that the desire of the citizens of Malibu is not to give the City Council an unbound hand in the spending of this general bond money based upon local politics and political influence. Finally, we question the availability of the Malibu City Council to use eminent domain in purchasing private property from an unwilling seller. Eminent domain is, to say the least, disquieting.
Tom Fakehany