My Incomplete (and Naive) take on Measure R

I don’t know what to think. This Measure R needs to be better understood (by me, at least). I certainly hope the upcoming debates can bring the facts and possibilities to see the full light of day. Below are my opinions ONLY..I represent no one and I reserve the right to be corrected upon further review.

I have no illusions that my opinions are important or worthy of respect...just thinking that the subject needs more venting.

Here is my general view on ”Preserving Malibu”.

I like the idea of Malibu being a unique and genuine place, at least partially defined by those who live here presently. I deplore the generic nature of so many cities and towns across southern california..it can all be so “cookie cutter” and cold. I love Carmel and Pacific Grove and the efforts they have taken to maintain their own ”signature”. I think we need to pay close attention to how development affects traffic and safety in a town that has one main thoroughfare (PCH). I like “mom and pops” much more than their generic counterparts. I’d easily pay a couple of dollars more to have a custom made pastrami sandwich, like the ones they make at Italia deli in Agoura or Malibu Kitchen over one made at Subway!!!! I’d much rather go to a Tra da Noi than an Olive Garden. It’s not even close.

But, the marketplace has forces that I can’t control...forces that influence strongly what goes where and for how long. If a ”mom and pop” store doesn’t have their costs under control or if they don’t run their operation particularly well enough to compete with Subway, etc., whose role is it to subsidize their existence?, and at what cost? Should the landlords subsidize a failing business? I would say...of course not. This town, in my opinion, should be thankful of the many developers, architects, and planners, who have given this town some of the civic conveniences that we all enjoy and appreciate. I fully appreciate the Pt. Dume Plaza. Someone took the private initiative to put this commercial center together. Someone took the risk to build it and support it. Hundreds of us enjoy it every day. We do yoga there, socialize, eat, shop, bank, etc.. It didn’t just pop up on it’s own.

I haven’t lifted much more than a (figurative) finger to help Malibu be a better place; others have done so much more. Malibu Farm (at the end of the Pier) took a lot of work to develop to what it is today...as did Cafe Habana, and Taverna Tony’s, and Nobu, Malibu Fitness, etc.. There is great risk to developing these properties and to be a tenant. We should be grateful.

I believe that the citizens have a right to have a great influence on how the city defines and maintains it’s character. I also feel that property owners have rights as well. These property owners, the ones who bring us Disneyland, and Dodger Stadium, and The Grove, etc., all purchased their land based on certain rules that were in place at the time. David Caruso could have revitalized another city other than Glendale when he put in The Americana. He chose Glendale instead of investing in the stock market, or race horses, or Oil Fields, etc.. If we are to render a property owner no rights to develop his property under the designated zoning codes (which he/she faithfully and legally purchased and to which he pays taxes on) then we are greatly devaluing the value of his property. Who among us would be comfortable with having our assets arbitrarily devalued by a vote of the citizens, or even city council?

And, if so, who would blame anyone for not wanting to invest in the city of Malibu due to unfriendly business practices? I would say...if the citizens don’t want a piece of property developed and the outcry is strong and organized, then it is incumbent on the city (or someone) to purchase the property from the land owner at fair market value...or risk legal recourse by the land owners. This is America and people can’t have their property ”de facto” taken from them, or utilized as perpetual “open space” at land owners expense. I don’t believe, however, that a land owner has the right to develop whatever he wants in a community, of course not. There are many criteria that need to be observed, both esthetic and functional. Should developers be able to build a civic plan that disregards the residents in favor of tourists? I think not, but we need to put our money where our mouth is if we want to take away property rights of an individual..in my opinion.

Now, after seeing the upcoming debate, I expect that my understanding of Measure R will become more complete. I am hoping this happens.

I hope someone takes this opportunity to poke holes in my assertions.

food for thought....