In response to, “Controversy reigns as Council accepts petition signatures,” June 26, 2014: This initiative is very confusing. A basic requirement of a ballot initiative is to be clear and straightforward. This initiative is not—not even close.
We are constantly hearing that Malibu is being overrun with out of town interests and not representative of whom we are, so the irony of this whole situation is comical in its hypocrisy. I’m not sure if it’s the San Francisco law firm, the consultant from Beverly Hills or the funding from a part-time resident rarely seen in our town, but I can’t help but feel that longtime Malibu citizens like myself are being fed a bologna sandwich by the very outside interests that Preserve Malibu advocates against.
In regards to Mr. Felix Schein’s statements about why they filed a “revised” draft of the initiative, in short, we don’t believe you—you’re moving the goal post all the time. I sincerely hope Mr. Schein or someone from Reiner’s PR team attends the July 14 City Council hearing and does better than “we got feedback from the community.” Who in Malibu suggested to you that they want to change the initiative to virtually exempt an entire commercial center? Who in Malibu suggested to you that they want one side of Cross Creek exempted, while the other side gets heavy restrictions? Tell us who. Please explain to us!
If Reiner and his team are so confident that this initiative is legal and good for Malibu, then why don’t they indemnify the city?
Lloyd Ahern