Councilmembers, residents and community activists give their final say on a long-debated bond that will designate funds for purchase of open land, parks, ballfields and maybe a community center.
By Sylvie Belmond/Staff Writer
The hotly debated $15 million open-land bond, called Measure K, will go before Malibu voters on Tuesday.
Malibu residents will show that either they trust the City Council to spend the funds from the bond according to their wishes, or not.
Opponents to the bond, however, argue that the priorities on how to spend the money are not the same for everyone.
Measure K asks voters for their approval on a bond intended to acquire land for public purposes, such as parks, playing fields and community centers, and to serve Malibu residents and protect natural areas. Fifteen percent of the funds would be available for improvements or construction. The bond would be funded by a tax assessment averaging $22 per $100,000 assessed value over a 20-year period.
Opponents argue the measure is too broad.
They are distrustful about putting a blank check into the council’s hands. “You cannot go to the bank and borrow $15 million to build a dream without collateral,” said Tom Fakehany, chair of the Lily’s Caf Steering Committee, which opposes the bond. “But that’s exactly what they’re asking us to do.”
However, supporters believe the goal is clear. The bond does two good things at once, explained Deirdre Roney, a children’s activist who supports the measure. “It lets the city create parks and helps to decrease traffic and development.”
But as the arguments draw to a close for supporters and opponents, City Council members also came to have a conflicting opinion about the bond. On Monday, Councilmember Tom Hasse, who took a neutral stand about the measure this summer, decided to oppose the bond. He justified that the bond cannot deliver all that it promises.
“We’re happy that Hasse came out against the bond measure,” said John Harlow, another member of the Lily’s Caf committee.
The rest of the council responded that Hasse’s views are ill suited. His actions are a handicap to Malibu’s desire to work on recreation solutions. “He doesn’t represent this council,” said councilmembers.
In further support of the measure, supporters say the city will gain leverage with other state agencies. “A yes on the bond gives us credibility and power for Malibu’s future,” said Roney.
State Parks will let Malibu temporarily stay at Bluffs Park if the city proves it is trying to acquire parks for itself, said Roney.
Supporters believe that Measure K will help hold off over-development.
“If K is defeated, developers will develop all of their land instead of selling some of it to the city for open space,” said Roney.
Skeptics view the final results differently, especially if some environmentalists who are part of the coalition that supports the bond have their way with the money. Fakehany pointed out that 35 percent of the land in the city is already owned by government agencies and dedicated as open space.
Former Councilmember Harlow said the bond is poorly written. State matching funds should be committed before the bond measure is presented to voters, he said. What’s more, supporters should identify willing sellers, so voters know what properties would be bought with bond money. As of now, proponents have not mentioned any willing sellers, specifically in the Civic Center area.
Proponents disagree, saying they have not presented specific properties because they do not have the money yet.
“Buyers can’t target something before it’s for sale,” said Lloyd Ahern, bond committee member.
The open-land picture is different for proponents and opponents as well. Councilmember Ken Kearsley, an avid supporter of the bond, said the bond money would only be used to buy land for ballfields and parks.
“Wetlands are not supported by this council,” he said.
Mona Loo, bond committee chair, concurred with Kearsley.
“The only time wetlands would be built is if a new council gets elected that favors wetlands,” said Loo.
Even the wetlands activists agree, that’s why they’re doing their separate campaign, said Loo.
Opponents are skeptical. They said the bond language is a trap that requires open space to be kept as such, without recreational amenities.
Opponents are also concerned that the majority can change on the council based on quorum. If two councilmembers are absent, a quorum of three can decide on a matter, said Fakehany.
But Kearsley strongly disagreed. When a vote like that comes up, he, Jeff Jennings and Mayor Joan House will be there, he responded. “We will be there if they have to wheel us in on the way to the cemetery,” said Kearsley.
Some opponents felt double-crossed.
Doug O’Brien, a Lily’s Cafe committee member, who participates on the Parks and Recreation Commission, argued that, after 10 years of work, the council ignored the committee’s input on solutions to acquire land for ball fields and community centers.
“The whole thing is a sham,” said O’Brien, who thinks the city should have used the money it already has to pay for parks.
Also, opponents say that ball fields and parks could be obtained through current development agreements that are being discussed, such as the Crummer Trust and Malibu Bay Company. The latter would give 19 acres in the Point Dume area to the city in exchange for allowable development on its property.
In the end, voters will decide on the validity of these arguments and those who show up at the polls will determine the fate of the bond.