Should Malibu borrow $15 million through a bond issue to buy open-space land, and if so, how should the land be used?

Ostensibly, the city would use the land–as yet undesignated–for public use. But a debate is brewing over whether there should be a cap on how much can be used for improvement.

In a City Council subcommittee meeting Wednesday, councilmembers Tom Hasse and Jeff Jennings, city staff members, and Malibu Coalition for Parks and Land (MCPAL) members Mona Loo and Nidra Winger wrestled over the precise language to be used for the ballot measure. They were fine-tuning language that had already been written by a MCPAL bond measure steering committee.

As being drafted now for the November ballot, the bond measure would have ambitious goals. It will say the land is to be used “for such public purposes as parks, playgrounds, playing fields, trails and community centers in order to serve children, teens, families, adults and seniors with recreation, social and education programs.” It also will be used “to protect natural areas and wildlife habitat; and to limit sprawl and traffic congestion.” All to be paid for with the $15 million.

Both sides, the city and MCPAL, agreed on that part of the language.

But a bottom line, insisted upon by MCPAL, says that “not more than 10 percent of these funds shall be used for improvements or construction.”

Both Hasse and Jennings objected to that restriction. “All politics aside,” said Jennings, “I think that cap is a very bad idea for all sorts of reasons,” adding that “it is sowing seeds for future horrendous problems later on and will probably end up in litigation.”

“I don’t support a 10 percent cap,” said Hasse. He noted that the current council will change in the 2002 election and said that putting a cap on the money for improving the land would be an unfair restriction on future councils, which will have the task of building the ball parks, recreation centers and other uses mandated by the bond measure. “Get rid of the limit, let future councils decide what to do with the land,” he told Loo, chair of MCPAL.

But Hasse also said he was willing to compromise on a cap figure.

However, MCPAL–which includes long-time slow-growth activists such as Ozzie Silna, Steve Uhring and Patt Healy–is not. Those three have said, in fact, that they feel 10 percent usage of the land is already a compromise.

That was revealed in an e-mail sent out by Loo to other members of MCPAL and distributed by her at the council subcommittee. It said: “Steve, Patt and Ozzie feel they have already compromised on the bond–Ozzie’s offering to change the focus of the bond to parks and ballfields and community center usage, and away from pure open space, and then setting up the original 10 percent improvement money when they had always wanted 100 percent for land.”

And to emphasize MCPAL’s firm stand, Loo said she had suggested a compromise of a 15 percent cap to members of the bond measure steering committee. But the MCPAL steering committee voted 10-2 in favor of the 10 percent cap.

Also, at the council subcommittee meeting, consulting firm Public Resources Advisory Group presented details of how Malibu taxpayers might be asked to repay the $15 million general obligation bond.

The tax bite would be apportioned by assessed valuation (AV) of taxable property. Since, as Public Resources pointed out, single-family properties account for 75 percent of the city’s total AV, homeowners will carry the load.

A bond acts basically as a loan by investors, which may include Wall Street investors, banks and private parties.

The Malibu bond might be offered on a repayment schedule over 20 or 30 years. There are three options for repayment. Level Principal pays off the principal early and costs less overall. Level Debt Service pays off both principal and interest at a level rate. Deferred Principal pays more on interest at the start and costs most over the life of the bond.

Property owner taxes vary with each option. Looking at a median AV of $605,460 for a Malibu home and using interest rates in the range of 6.38 percent to 6.61 percent, the average increase over a 30-year bond would be:

• Level Principal–$102 yearly for a total $3,065. Payments start high at the beginning–$244, and end low at the back end–$34.

• Level Debt Service–An average $112 yearly. Total $3,379. High payment of $212 in front. Low payment of $79 at the end.

• Deferred Principal–$120 yearly. Total $3,614. Low payment at beginning of $115. High payment at end of $193.

The Hasse/Jennings subcommittee plans to present these options as well as optional language on a land-usage cap to the full City Council by September.

In yet another brutal dog attack, a Malibu resident was recently chased down and mauled by two large dogs while walking her own dog along the shoreline of a local beach.

The victim suffered significant injuries to her leg and face, receiving approximately 60 stitches. She suffered six wounds in all, one that penetrated all the way through muscle to the bone on the back of her leg, and which caused loss of skin and will require reconstructive surgery.

Eventually, a passer-by beat the dogs off the injured party with a tennis racquet.

The fate of the dogs and their owners remains confidential, though the victim asserts this could have all been prevented if the people had their dogs leashed and muzzled.

After the fact, the recovering Malibu resident was told that, in the instance of a dog attack, one should contort into a fetal-like position, in order to protect the throat, eyes and neck.

Although the resident, who chose to remain anonymous, was unsure as to whether protection is possible if the situation were to occur again.

“The bottom line is, when it comes the time for something to happen, you go into shock. You just freeze,” said the victim.

This recent attack is one of many that have occurred this past year. A fatal dog attack occurred in Oakland, Calif. in June, leaving its 10-year-old male victim with two ears torn off and severe bite wounds on his face, arms and upper body. Dogs bite an estimated 4.7 million people in the United States each year, according to the Humane Society of the United States. Children are the most common victims of severe dog bites, while approximately 2,500 victims are mail carriers.

Such dog-maulings raise pertinent questions and concerns about training dogs that are prone to attack other dogs and their human owners.

And with the arrival of summer, it also the prime time for taking man’s best friend out into the public for summer outings, officials say.

Sgt. Frank Bongiorno from the Agoura Animal Shelter, which also serves as animal control for the Malibu community, said the time around the Fourth of July is one of the busiest times of the year where calls reporting stray dogs and attacks are at a peak.

Though it all depends on the situation, Bongiorno claims that often owners of unattended dogs will simply receive a citation for a leash law violation with the maximum fine running up to $250. The average fine in Malibu, according to Bongiorno, is approximately $50.

In the event of an attack and proof of a bite, the owner can be issued a misdemeanor ticket.

In order to avoid such an attack, Bongiorno cautions against petting any animal you are not familiar with [because] it might bite out of fear. Owners of canines can curb hostile behavior by looking into obedience training, advised Bongiorno.

Carlos Banuelos, of the Canyon View Training Ranch for Dogs in Topanga Canyon, who specializes in abused and abandon dogs, concurs with Bongiorno, in saying that training can always help.

Aggressive or belligerent behavior amongst dogs is caused by a series of factors, said Banuelos. Being improperly socialized amongst other humans and dogs or having a natural defensive or fearful behavior can all serve as contributors to hostile behavior. Banuelos has worked with dogs that have been involved in attacks in socialization training.

Although a puppy at four months old is about the premium time to start obedience training, Banuelos said that older dogs are not at all difficult to train.

At home, Banuelos said to start socializing the puppy at a young age, by getting it used to noise and places in which there are a lot of people and stimuli.

“We’re all very distrustful.”

It was the first time tenants of Lower Topanga Canyon had ever met in significant numbers (about 75 of them) with the people who plan to relocate them from their longtime homes. And they vented.

“Some of our homes go back 50-70 years. Would it not be possible to keep them and let them be part of the historical culture of the land?”

“What are you going to do with some of our 80-year-old citizens? A move will kill them.”

“We’re meant to be here. We’re the keepers of this land. My children have spent their whole lives here. Where am I going to take them?”

“Will you replace us with park rangers?” (Answer: “It’s premature to talk about what we might do with these structures.”)

“You want to bring people here from all over California. They will bring their trash here, trample the grounds, create fire hazards and cause more traffic congestion. We’ll keep the land the way it is, the way we always have.”

“How can you compare living somewhere else to this paradise we’re living in now?”

“You’re going to have to arrest me and handcuff me, because I’m not moving.”

But officials of the California Parks and Recreation Dept. had few answers to the tenants’ emotional outbursts. The parks officials came prepared to talk about process and procedures, not personal heartache. Timelines, not anxieties. Relocation, not dislocation.

The confrontation had been building for months, ever since it was announced the state had allocated $48 million to acquire 1,659 acres of Lower Topanga property owned by the Los Angeles Athletic Club through its parent company, LAACO, Ltd. The property stretches up through Topanga Canyon from Pacific Coast Highway.

Forty-nine tenants and their families have been renting homes on the property for several years. Many have lived there for 20, 30 and even 50 years. There are also 10 small businesses on the property.

The state hired a go-between, the American Land Conservancy (ALC), to broker the deal and relocate the tenants, hoping to avoid a direct confrontation between the state and its constituents. But the ALC and a company it hired to do the relocating, Pacific Relocation Consultants (PRC), angered many tenants, who felt they were being railroaded.

“They gave us a week’s notice of a hearing (last April),” said one tenant. ” The notice said we ‘will’ be relocated, giving us no options. They told us we would have to vacate our homes by the end of the year.” And she added, “The ALC and the PRC have been very, very, very heavy-handed.”

Perhaps because of that the state parks officials were forced to jump in and face the tenants before they would have liked. “State Parks has just been thrown into this,” said Mark Schrader, deputy director for Acquisition and Development. And he admitted they were not fully prepared to answer all the questions they were getting in the meeting Thursday night at Topanga Elementary School. But manager of acquisitions, Warren Westrup, said, “We are now mobilized to catch up.”

Here’s the view from the podium, as seen by different speakers, including Westrup, Schrader and Barry McDaniel, vice president of PRC:

“There are just as many people on the other end of the issue–the Sierra Club and others–who are asking us, ‘What’s wrong, why haven’t those people been moved out?’ “

“This land has been on Parks’ wish list for a long, long time.”

“We will look at buildings that might qualify as National Registry historical structures.”

“We’re in the business of clean water, parks, preservation. We aren’t in the business of providing housing.”

“We do understand the value of visitor-serving businesses.”

“There is a definite potential for keeping some businesses on the property.”

“We are not going to get into a debate over 1-2-5-year delays as an artist’s community.”

“We’ve used them before and they are very good. They will look out for you.” (On why PLC is being retained to carry out relocation despite hostility against it.)

“Our commitment is that you will get everything you are entitled to under state law.”

“With the payments you’ll get, some of you may be able to make a down payment on your own home somewhere else.”

“I want to make it clear that State Parks is interested in the preservation of natural resources and historical culture.”

Most of the questions and answers over 2 1/2 hours seemed to be at cross-purposes. But some concrete information got through.

Residential tenants will be given rental assistance in any new location they choose of up to $5,250 over 42 months. They will also have their moving expenses paid.

That was little consolation for those who have been paying rents as low as $450 a month and who want to stay in the Topanga-Malibu-Santa Monica area where rental space is scarce and expensive.

“What can you do,” said a tenant. “I’ll be forced to move to Barstow.”

Some visitor-serving businesses may be considered beneficial to public use and could be allowed to stay. Otherwise, they will be given a $20,000 relocation fee and possible compensation for loss of goodwill, that is, loss of regular customers and name recognition that has been built up over the years.

State Parks’ timeline is to complete acquisition of the land by the end of the year. In the meantime, it will conduct research into historical structures, water quality, archeological significance (especially Native American) and ecological balances.

Then a plan will be drawn for clearing the site and turning it into a public park.

Tenants will be gone by June 2002.

In the end, State Parks left the field of battle knowing they had finally gotten the process of relocation started on their terms.

Tenants had to be sobered by the fact that State Parks made it clear it is determined to get them off the land as soon as possible, even if not as soon as they had earlier been told.

“We hoped the guys at State would be smart enough to negotiate something fair,” said Scott Dittrich, co-chair of the tenants group Lower Topanga Community, “but we never really believed that would happen. They were just as arrogant as we figured they’d be.”

What’s next, legal action? “I hope not,” Dittrich said.

Another public meeting is scheduled for the evening of July 9 at Topanga Elementary School.