Your last editorial was mean-spirited, ill advised and simply unnecessary. It is indeed true that if the food supply is reduced, population (be it kangaroo rats, a protected species) or humans (an unprotected species) will decline. This sage axiom has been followed by our civic leaders ever since Malibu became a city. For example, if you reduce available housing, those unfortunates who cannot get permits from the city or Coastal Commission, will be reduced to living like the Chumash and will experience a reduced longevity. Similarly, by reducing food producing land, the supply of food will correspondingly decrease. Thus we will have fewer children and no need for ball parks; yea, verily, we will have no need for any recreational land and, therefore, those who cheer on the current bond proposal will, if successful, be able to acquire more open space, presumably where the coyotes can happily munch on the few remaining neighborhood cats and dogs, now reduced to a feral existence because the populace, to avoid starvation, will have either moved to Ahmanson Ranch or commenced eating Mighty Dog to satisfy their now depleted protein requirements. Or they could all be living in pre-1980 communist style high-rises, forced there in order to preserve the likes of the belding savannah sparrow, the El Segundo blue butterfly and the tidal goby.
You see, the logical failure of your editorial is that it does not think locally as Malibu has done under the reign of Walt and Carolyn. But let’s put it all in perspective. If we eliminate those marginal creatures who currently live north of PCH–which runs east to west and west to east for the uninitiated–we’ll have more land for those truly valuable members of our society to build, with Coastal Commission blessing and chicanery, triple lot hotel-like mansions on Carbon Beach. Another method of population reduction can be achieved by the Coastal Commission when it seeks to place beach access on blind corners and dangerous curves. See for example the unfortunate accident on the west end of La Costa to which another of your first page articles refers.
With all this open space, the bond money can be applied to paving over large tracts of Malibu so that the beach will become public (except where the worthies live, of course) and we can invite every Crip, Blood, Playboy and Homie over for the day. They can all have access to the beach, thus fulfilling a joint State Lands and Coastal Commission erotic dream, for whatever rumbles they desire. This, too, may have the salutary effect of a minor decrease in population. The parking fees can be used to reduce the bond indebtedness, and to pick up the multifaceted trash, examples of which can be seen in the parking lots on the Santa Monica beaches each Monday morning and as food for the seagulls.
Under this scenario, we should all, fatalistically, ignore those grumblings emanating from Lily’s Caf, vote for the bond proposal and be done with it. On the other hand, we could . . . .
To quote a member of the Lily’s Caf curmudgeons, “and that’s all I have to say.”
Todd M. Sloan