There was token opposition from the public on July 9 when the City Council unanimously approved a ballot measure for next November calling for a $15 million bond issue to purchase land for ball fields, community centers or other public facilities.
But opposition is gearing up, and what now seems like a simple proposition to buy land for noncommercial use is likely to turn into a vigorous debate over what the priorities for the land should be and how to pay for whatever recreational amenities are built. The opposition can kill the bond with a mere one-third no vote.
One opponent of the bond is John Harlow, former city councilmember and longtime Malibu activist. Gathered with other opponents at Lily’s Cafe in Point Dume one recent morning, Harlow and others talked about what they think is wrong with the bond measure.
For one thing, they said it promises too much for the money.
“I can no longer support the bond to buy park land,” said Harlow, “I would like to see specifics about the projects involved.”
He reiterated what he had said earlier before the City Council: “Will the priority be for parks, playgrounds, playing fields, trails, community centers? If so, how many of each do they plan on? Or will it just be to protect natural areas and wildlife habitat?”
All of those things are listed on the ballot measure as “such … as” projects the land is to be used for.
But critics say there will not be enough money in the bond measure to accomplish many of those things. That’s because there is a $2.25 million cap on the amount of money that can be used for construction of any recreational facilities listed in the bond’s ballot measure. But just one 15,000 square foot community center, as envisioned by a city parks and recreation plan, would cost an estimated $4.5 million, twice the cap.
Ball fields are estimated at up to $200,000 each. Add parking at $2,000 per space (250-300 spaces for a 15,000 square foot recreation center), picnic tables and a playground for tots, and the building costs could exceed the cap by $3 million or $4 million dollars. And that doesn’t include money for trails and the protection of wildlife habitats, which are also written into the ballot measure.
“It does not promise to build all of that. We cannot do everything,” said Mona Loo, chair of a citizen’s steering committee that helped draft the language of the measure and a strong backer of the bond. The important thing, she said, is to buy as much property as possible now and build on it later.
“I don’t believe the City Council has the will to build all that,” said Tom Fakehany, a former children’s soccer coach. “I’m not arguing against money for park land, but I don’t want to see periodic taxing of ourselves for whatever it is they or their backers want.”
Loo and most other supporters of the bond, including the entire City Council, say that the city will have to raise more money to build out recreational uses.
That is where the issue becomes more complicated for voters to consider. Will they be asked to dig into their pockets once again?
Raising money
City Treasurer Pete Lippman said there are several possibilities for raising more money, none of them guaranteed. They include:
- Floating another bond issue. “But that means we’ve got to go back to the voters who are going to say, ‘My God, we just voted for a bond’,” Lippman said. “It is risky politically and chancy, requiring a two-thirds vote.”
- Grants from county, state or federal agencies. The city often gets matching grants for highway safety, sewage abatement and other projects affecting the general public. But money for parks and recreation centers is generally marked for inner city locations. “Those grants are very competitive, especially with the economy cooling off,” said Lippman. Also, as noted by City Councilmember Tom Hasse, “They look at Malibu and say why don’t they get some of their rich citizens to pay for those things.”
- Donations from wealthy benefactors. Malibu is graced with many rich and famous residents. Often they give generously and often they lend their fame to fundraising efforts. This is one of Lippman’s favored approaches. “I would much prefer it if the city came together with some of our famous people helping raise the money,” he said.
- Special allocations. This is money earmarked for special projects through the efforts of state legislators. But money for a soccer field in Malibu might have the same stigma attached to it as grant money.
- An “amenities” tradeoff. A developer or contractor would donate land or construction money for recreational development in exchange for permission to develop other land parcels in the city. An example is the Malibu Bay Company’s offer, which includes 19 acres and $5 million toward the construction of a recreation center and three sports fields. Strong opposition to the Malibu Bay Company proposal exemplifies the difficulty with this option. “This is the perfect solution,” said bond opponent Doug O’Brien. “This gives us everything the bond promises. But there’s a group of people that just hate the Malibu Bay Company.”
Eminent domain
Another question that comes up is what land to purchase, and how.
“There are no apparent sellers, which means the purchases will have to be litigated,” said Harlow. The city does have the right of eminent domain, which means it can force a landowner to sell at a fair market price, but probably not without a legal challenge.
City Parks and Recreation Director Paul Adams said there is “more than enough” empty land suitable for sports fields and recreation centers in Malibu, but he couldn’t say offhand how much was for sale.
The many uncertainties surrounding the implementation of the bond measure are what drove Harlow and the others at their Lily’s Cafe hangout to oppose it. Their position, as Harlow told the City Council, is that “voters have a right to know and determine how their taxes will be committed and spent by this council or by a future council who may have a different priority than yours.”
He said he would favor a subsequent bond proposal that would include the details.
“I’ve seen bond measures that actually had line items, listing each thing to be done with the money, right down to the exact figure to be spent on the item.”
It is hard to gauge just how strong a campaign these opponents will wage in the weeks and months to come. At the very least, they say, they plan to write an argument against the bond for the voters’ pamphlet.
At the July 23 City Council meeting, the group declared themselves as the Lily’s Cafe Malibu Steering Committee “in keeping with the tradition established within the city of self-appointed and self-selected steering committees.” That was a tongue-in-cheek reference to the citizen’s steering committee that drafted language for the bond measure and strongly backed a cap on construction.
Meanwhile, city councilmembers, the diverse group that made up the bond measure steering committee, and other activist groups will be marshalling their own arguments in favor of the bond.