Members of the Measure M opposition group say pertinent information is being withheld by Yes on Malibu, a group in support of the Malibu Bay Company Development Agreement.
By Jonathan Friedman/Special to The Malibu Times
Some Measure M opponents are upset about a recent meeting, which took place last week at Lilly Lawrence’s castle off Malibu Canyon Road, held by Yes on Malibu, the citizen’s group favoring the measure, which would approve the Malibu Bay Company Development Agreement. In addition to the meeting being an invitation-only event, Malibu CAN (Community Action Network) President Steve Uhring said the event did not allow those in attendance to get all the information about the Malibu Bay Company Development Agreement. Malibu CAN is against the measure. Councilmember Jeff Jennings, who spoke at the meeting, said CAN does not need to be invited to every meeting.
“It was an invitation event intended to be informational to try to get the basics out because there had been so much disinformation put out,” Jennings said. “There’ll be plenty of opportunities for the two sides to meet together and each present their arguments.”
Various homeowners associations are in tentative talks with Malibu CAN and Yes On Malibu about events at which the two would present their arguments. However, Uhring said that is not a good enough reason for excluding CAN leaders from the meeting at the castle, noting that all of his group’s meetings have been open to everybody.
“Our (CAN’s) position has always been to let everybody come in and say whatever they have to say,” Uhring said. “We let people get a perspective of both sides and make the proper decision. What you had there (the Sept. 23rd meeting) is a group saying, ‘We’re going to tell you what we think and we’re not going to make sure that the public is really informed about all of the issues and all of the decisions they need to make to decide on this agreement.'”
Although some of the people among the nearly 200 who gathered at the castle are at least skeptical of the agreement, most of them were proponents. They heard from various community leaders who spoke about various aspects of Measure M, and why they were appealing. One speaker was Georgianna McBurney, co-chair of Yes on Malibu.
“When this thing came out (the development agreement), I was so excited I could hardly stand it,” she said. “One of the greatest dreams we’ve ever had is to get a park in the crown jewel of Malibu. And that is the Chili Cook-Off [site]. And we’re having an opportunity to do that. And the opportunity’s never been there before. And I say to you it never will be there again.”
A major feature of the agreement is the city would be able to purchase the Chili Cook-Off site for $25 million. There it could build a park and possibly a wastewater/stormwater treatment facility, which some say could help clean Malibu’s polluted waters.
“I want to show my children that I’ve taken a positive total step in cleaning up Surfrider Beach and the creek,” said former Parks and Recreation Commissioner Laureen Sills, who also mentioned the MBC’s agreement to build a new urgent care facility as a reason to vote for the measure.
Lloyd Ahern spoke at the meeting about how the Yes on Malibu campaign would function. He said the group must be prepared for CAN member Ozzie Silna to spend about $100,000 to spread misinformation on the issues.
“Ozzie is ready to do battle,” Ahern said. “We need everybody when you hear these things … to call [the councilmembers] before you start believing stuff that we know is not true.”
Silna told The Malibu Times he is spending money on the CAN campaign, but declined to specify how much. Uhring, who watched the event on television, said he was disappointed with Ahern’s comments.
“Lloyd’s a friend of mine,” Uhring said. “He has always been a rational individual. His comments were not characteristic of the man that I know. I would have expected more from Lloyd.”
Also at the event, Jennings spoke about the various arguments against the agreement, providing a rebuttal to each one. He went on to say that CAN has not provided an alternative that is better than the agreement. Jennings said CAN’s proposal to transform the Chili Cook-Off site and some of the surrounding Civic Center area properties into a wetlands presented enormous legal and technical problems. He added that, regardless of whether the agreement is approved, the MBC still has the legal right to develop its land.
“The question is whether we want to have a role in how that development takes place,” Jennings said. “Do we want to get the amenities that the agreement provides? Or do we simply want to get the development without the amenities?”
As of Sept. 20, the Yes on Malibu campaign statement filed with the city revealed that the group has received $2,495 in contributions. Malibu CAN has not filed a statement.