Presidential Race
Normally, I don’t comment on the presidential race, figuring you don’t need me to tell you what to do, but this year has some peculiar twists. For one thing, the Nader candidacy, which started out as a relatively free protest vote, may turn into a deal breaker in several critical states, including California.
The reality is, no matter what Ralph Nader intended initially in a race as close as this, a vote for Ralph Nader has become a vote for George Bush.
I find myself with a choice between Bush, an affable guy with not very much content, and Gore, a guy with a lot of content and not a hell of a lot of affability. I suspect I’d rather have a beer with Bush, but I have this very uneasy feeling that this is not a guy I’d like to depend on for a life or death call.
Also, my Republican pundit friends tell me they think that when the dust settles, the Reps are going to keep control of both the House and the Senate. This means, if Bush wins, the Republicans will control all three branches of government, which scares the heck out of me.
I believe in divided government because it provides an internal check and balance that keeps any one party from running roughshod over another.
So I’m going to punch in a vote for Al Gore and I urge you to do the same.
Closer to home are several Propositions on our local ballot that have turned Malibu upside down and caused no end of confusion. Since it’s difficult to remember which is which in this alphabet soup, I’ve made a little chart of my recommendations and then I’ll give you my reasons.
Yes on N ( Final say on the development deal)
Yes on O ($15 million bond advisory)
No on P (Development Initiative)
Yes on Y ( education parcel tax)
Yes on Proposition N — A yes vote on this means the proposed deal between the City of Malibu and the Malibu Bay Company will go on a later ballot for voter approval. The voters will have a final say on whether they believe this particular deal is a fair deal and whether tradeoffs, like ball fields for a certain amount of development, is the way to go.
Yes on Proposition O
This is sort of a put up or shut up advisory proposition. The City Council is asking Malibu voters directly, if they’re willing to tax themselves with a $15 million bond issue for parks or other public recreation purchases. If voters say Yes (and it takes a 2/3 vote), then they’ll put a bond issue on a future ballot. If they say “No,” the issue is dead, and I suspect so is any chance we might have of raising money from outside sources. They’re going to think that if we’re not willing to put up any of our own money, for our own community, why should anyone outside kick into the pot.
As they say, “It’s time to put our money where our mouth is” and vote Yes on O.
No on Proposition P
This is the highly controversial “Right to Vote on Development Initiative.” In my view, it is bad news and I would strongly urge you all to vote No.
What this proposition is intended to do is to take away from the City Council the right to make decisions on land-use matters and, instead, put it all on the ballot for voter approval, project by project. The reason proponents are pushing this measure is they don’t trust this City Council, or any future City Council, so they want to tie their hands with this proposition.
Will it work? Our city attorney thinks not. He says it’s filled with legal problems and all it guarantees is that we will spend a lot of time, and even more dollars, in litigation, with a judge ultimately deciding our fate.
There are a number of slow-growth initiatives in this state that have passed constitutional muster. So what’s wrong with this one? The problem is, rather than just copying another initiative that has already been tested in the courts, the proponents decided those other initiatives weren’t strong enough, and they wanted to write their own initiative. That’s apparently what they did. A committee of P proponents got together and wrote the initiative. They insist highly reputable law firms wrote it, but those highly reputable firms have yet to come out of the woodwork and offer up an attorney’s letter standing behind the proposition.
I believe if it passes, it will take us into uncharted legal waters. If there is one thing I know about, after spending 20 plus years as a litigant, it is that uncharted legal waters are always dammed expensive. Our last big legal mistake was the rent control ordinance, and that one ended up costing us $2.5 million. This one is infinitely larger. There is easily $100 million plus dollars worth of land in play, and that guarantees lawsuits — lots of them. This proposition is silly and unnecessary. If you don’t like what the council is doing, vote them out of office. It makes no sense to give them a job to do and then take away the power to do the job. If all five councilmembers unanimously agree this is a bad proposition, and they do, then I believe them and so should you. Let’s send P back to the scrap heap where it belongs.
Yes on Proposition Y
We’ve had a school parcel tax for years and it’s time to renew it. If this fails, it means our schools will lose about $3.1 million per year. That translates to no nurses, major cuts in physical education, major library cuts and no music program. This parcel tax, which is under $100 per year, is spent right here in our community and goes into our local schools. However you may feel about the statewide measures, like vouchers or the 55 percent bond rule, this one is purely local and a no brainer. But it requires a 2/3 vote, so every vote is essential. Vote Yes on Y for kids.
Sharon Barovsky for City Council
I strongly urge all voters to vote for Sharon Barovsky for City Council. Sharon is smart, energetic, knows how to listen and is tough when she has to be tough. She, along with her late husband Harry, has long been active in Malibu civic affairs. Sharon was a member of the General Plan Task Force, the Civic Center Specific Plan Task Force and president of the Malibu Road Homeowners Association. She is highly qualified to sit on the council.
Her opponent, Robert Roy van de Hoek, is a newcomer to the Malibu political scene. When he pulled his council papers, it was the first time I had ever heard of him. He appears to be a one-issue candidate and that is as an environmental candidate. To put it charitably, he’s on the extreme end of the environmental continuum. By his own words he’s clearly more concerned about eagles having a place to roost in Malibu than children. There is nothing in his background or career that would equip him, either by knowledge or temperament, to sit on the City Council.
School District and Jr. College Board
I can’t help you much on this because I simply don’t know the people running, except for one, and that’s Mike Jordan running for the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School Board.
We need someone from Malibu on the school board to articulate our concerns, and, unless Mike wins, there will be no Malibu representative on the board. We’re fortunate, not only because Mike is a Malibu guy, but he’s also a highly qualified and capable Malibu guy. He’s a professor of communications at Pepperdine, a former editor of the Riverside Press Enterprise Newspaper, faculty advisor of the campus newspaper The Graphic, an author of several books, a husband, a father, a family man deeply involved in education. Also, along the way, in his spare time managed to pick up a law degree. I strongly endorse Mike Jordan for the school board.