Opposition to the development deal cites “tough battle” ahead because of millions the Malibu Bay Company has at its disposal to run its campaign. Both opposition and supporters say they will use ‘truth’ in their campaigns.
By Jonathan Friedman/Special to the Malibu Times
At least three independent campaigns are gearing up
for the two-sided issue of
the Nov. 4 election on the Malibu Bay Company (MBC) Development Agreement. Opposing the agreement is the Malibu Community Action Network (CAN), a group of environmentalists and slow-growth advocates who have spoken against the agreement during planning commission and city council hearings this year. Campaigning for the agreement are the MBC itself and a yet-to-be-named political action committee that Mayor Ken Kearsley said would be citizen-driven.
“(MBC President) Mr. (Jerry) Perenchio is not going to be putting money into it,” Kearsley said. “We’re not associating with him. It’s an independent citizen campaign for less development.”
CAN member John Mazza said he wouldn’t be surprised if the MBC is funding the committee, but he acknowledged that he didn’t know and that the committee could be independent. But he added that it would be a team effort whether or not it was official.
“They’ll have the political action committee people going around door-to-door trying to convince people that a ‘Yes’ vote is a vote for parks and ball fields, while the Bay Company will be taking out large ads in newspapers,” he said.
CAN members met last Thursday to determine how it would run its campaign. Group leader Steve Uhring said a tough battle lies ahead because they are fighting what will be a multimillion-dollar campaign by the MBC. MBC spokesperson David Reznick did not return phone calls for this story to confirm how much the company plans to spend on the campaign.
At the beginning of the meeting Uhring played a video he had made that depicts his arguments against the agreement. Included in the video is a segment from a June CAN meeting at which Kearsley called the agreement a “crap shoot.” Uhring played that segment during a recent City Council meeting as well, with Kearsley responding that his comment was made during the opening stage of the renegotiations, and was no longer relevant to the final agreement. But several CAN members said they should avoid using the Kearsley statement in their campaign, since the opposition is expecting them to do it and because it would give the appearance of negativity.
CAN member Bob Carmichael said in a telephone interview Sunday that a negative campaign will be avoided. Rather, he said CAN will present Malibuites with an alternative to the agreement.
“We are going to show conceptualized drawings that show Malibu can create something that shows it cares about the environment,” he said.
Carmichael said the drawings would show a plan in which the Chili Cook-Off site is turned into a wetlands area and will not hold a wastewater treatment facility, which is one of the possibilities the city has in mind if it were to buy the property. Carmichael said a better idea would be to put two smaller facilities on other Civic Center sites.
But Kearsley said the agreement that is on the table right now is the best idea, with the only other option being that MBC builds on its properties under the city’s current zoning code.
“The issue is we are going to have 114,000 square feet more development if we don’t do it and we won’t have the amenities,” he said. “And the other important thing is we are going to clean up the creek, lagoon and ocean.”
Kearsley said the political action committee would be creating fact sheets about the agreement, including ones that rebut the arguments by the opposition.
At the CAN meeting last week, Uhring said the group has to have a plan ready by Sept. 1 on how it will conduct its campaign. The group will meet again next week to further its discussion. Several of the members said the best asset the group has is that it has the truth on its side.
“I would vote for what the city says the deal is,” Mazza said. “So you have to figure out a way without being too negative to tell people what the real agreement is.”
But Kearsley said the truth is exactly what his side is going to campaign with. When told that the opposition said the same thing, he responded, “Well, truth is the way you look at it.”