I’m puzzled. Last Monday, when the City Councilmembers were discussing the Park Swap agenda item, they sounded quite conciliatory. They said they were still seeking information and were certainly looking into alternatives, like going directly to the state to obtain administration of Bluffs Park without giving away Charmlee Park. Councilmember John Sibert even began to make an alternative motion to that effect. At that point, Mayor Pro Tem Joan House interceded, and then the city attorney directed them back to supporting the motions as she had drafted for them: to rescind the motion of Jan. 14 under attack by the Malibu Township Council, and then to reapprove the motion they had just rescinded. In acting on these two motions, it appeared that they and the public were confused as to what they were voting for because the City Attorney refused to repeat the motions prior to the vote, as is the normal procedure. In any case, they did follow her orders and voted to reinstate directions to staff to “negotiate agreements and implementing document to effect land swap of Charmlee…” with the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy (SMMC).
Here’s what puzzles me. If the council had just voted to rescind the swap motion objected to by the Malibu Township Council, instead of immediately re approving it, the Malibu Township Council would probably not have pursued litigation. In her report, the City Attorney mentioned her desire to save the city the expense of litigation, but in pushing the council to vote as they did, she has pushed them into the litigation. The suit was filed last Wednesday challenging their actions.
Walt Keller