Malibu residents have long been accused of NIMBYism, but recent editorials published by major news outlets stating that the city should be left to burn and reduced to ashes by the next fire have infuriated some residents, who say the accusations have gone too far.
The editorials appeared following a hurricane of dissent by Las Flores Canyon and Rambla Pacifico residents who last week railed against a plan proposed by the Los Angeles County Fire Department and the State Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to house as many as 100 inmate firefighters at a local fire station atop Rambla Pacifico, known as Camp 8.
Though county officials last week Tuesday announced the proposal had been eliminated because better locations had been identified, the uproar may have played a significant role in derailing the plan.
Since then, editorials have appeared on the Web sites of the Los Angeles Daily News and the Los Angeles Times suggesting that firefighters should allow Malibu to be burnt to a crisp in the next fire as karma for some of its residents who have long been charged with rejecting public access to land or beach near their homes.
“Southern California’s topography and climate guarantee that within the next few years, a major fire will threaten to destroy Malibu,” Jonathan Shapiro, a former federal prosecutor and an adjunct professor at the USC Gould School of Law, wrote in his Jan. 24 editorial on dailynews.com. “Rather than view this as a problem, I suggest we embrace it as a gift from Mother Nature, a wonderful opportunity to protect the environment, safeguard lives, protect consumers, lower taxes and strike a blow for fairness and justice. And the best part is, all we need to do is absolutely nothing. Next time the fire comes, let Malibu burn to the ground. It’s the right thing to do for so many reasons.”
The Los Angeles Times editorial, which was uns igned, was not as harsh, backtracking at the fact that not all think alike: “Malibu’s successful NIMBY campaign makes it tempting to suggest that the next time the historically fire-prone city goes up in flames, we should let it burn. Of course, that won’t and shouldn’t happen; not all coast dwellers are as irresponsible as the ones who halted the fire camp.”
“I’m outraged because it’s not true,” Malibu resident Kay Ferguson said. “It makes everybody in Malibu sound like a very selfish person.”
Numerous Malibu residents in letters to The Malibu Times this week said they supported the Camp 8 proposal.
“Having a Fire Crew in the neighborhood can only be an asset because of their training and because the response is almost immediate,” resident Valerie Sklarevsky wrote. “I hope that … Malibu residents who became hysterical over the prospect of a Fire Crew being housed in their neighborhood, never, ever, have a wildfire that they might think they can face with a garden hose. Or wonder about a missed opportunity!”
Some Las Flores Canyon and Rambla Pacifico residents also wrote letters expressing resentment toward the stereotype that all who live in Malibu or its unincorporated areas are wealthy NIMBYs.
“This community [adjacent to Camp 8] is not a rich, powerful and famous citizenry, as portrayed in the media, but a working family-oriented neighborhood with significant concern of having a prison with a criminal element open to other potential criminal visitors to our community considering our homes, children and school near by,” Alex Kaliakin wrote.
Ferguson said: “We’ve given so much already to public access. Certainly there are so many public beaches already in existence. Zuma Beach is one of the biggest beaches there is. Lots of accesses to residential beaches as well.
“I think [the authors of the editorials] certainly should be ashamed of themselves because they shouldn’t get away with telling such stories, and that’s what they are,” Ferguson continued. “They’re lying.”
Despite Malibu’s rank as one of the most fire-prone areas in the county, the proposal to house inmates at Camp 8 caused an uproar among many residents who claimed that doing so in their neighborhood would reduce property values, create an unsafe environment, increase road traffic, and inhibit fire response and emergency evacuation abilities, among other negative impacts.
At least 100 residents attended a meeting Jan. 15 at a Rambla Pacifico residence, and accused state and county officials of secretly plotting to carry out the proposal. The residents began outlining strategies to battle the plan, only to wake up the following morning to learn it had been terminated.
Malibu City Council members at their Monday night meeting commented on the issue, stressing they had no jurisdiction over the situation because Camp 8 and the surrounding residential neighborhood are located outside city limits.
Councilmember John Sibert reminded the public that fire stations like Camp 8 are assets.
“These are programs that have saved people’s lives,” he said at the meeting, adding that the matter was not meritorious of such “instant panic” when it was so quickly and simply resolved. “We end up looking like fools as a city when we start doing these things.”
Councilmember Pamela Conley Ulich also chastised those who fought against the Camp 8 proposal but didn’t attend any of the widely publicized, ongoing series of community wildfire prevention and action plan meetings that have been taking place in the city for the past few months.
“It’s interesting to me how everyone complains about Camp 8 … but only three people showed up at the one meeting I went to for actually planning for wildfires,” Conley Ulich said at the meeting.