Opponents and supporters—including members of the Malibu High School lacrosse team—were out in force at Thursday's Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District Board of Education meeting in response to rumors the board was considering settling a lawsuit over 70-foot tall athletic lights.
The Malibu Community Alliance filed a lawsuit in July seeking to prevent the lights from being installed.
Before the board went into its closed session portion of Thursday's meeting, some of the school's neighbors, including Malibu Park resident Cami Winikoff and attorney Stanley Lamport, presented their own compromise. They proposed allowing 32 lights until 10:30 p.m.
Their compromise also includes a request for community oversight for any increase in the amount of nights.
"We really actually ask you to look what we gave you," Winikoff said. "We’re prepared to defend this case."
The Malibu City Council approved 61 total nights in June. The lights were installed in the fall in time for the school's homecoming game.
Support
The lacrosse team, parents and Malibu City Councilwoman Laura Zahn Rosenthal spoke in support of the lights.
Rosenthal held up a stack of documents showing a large volume of letters in support of the lights and a smaller stack opposed.
"Come to the court. Finish it, and let’s see who is going to win," Rosenthal said.
Pete Anthony, a Malibu High School parent and member of the Bring on the Lights steering committee, said the school district has already compromised on the number of nights with lights.
"The litigants have continued because they see the district as a soft target," Anthony said, adding that the Shark Fund will continue to help financially.
Seth Jacobson, who is president of the Malibu High School Shark Fund, said he and others are willing to open a dialogue with neighbors, but not until they drop the suit.
Maria Flora Smoller, a mother of five athletes, said she is seeing a difference in her family's life as a result of the night games.
"Usually I’m paying for tutors by this time. My kids are able to do their homework, eat some dinner and play their games," Flora Smoller said.
Her son, Riley Smoller, who is one of several captains of the 8-1 lacrosse team, asked the school board to continue to support the lights.
"Most of the people in our community are supportive of these lights," Smoller said. "I also think the youth of our community all deserve the chance to play under these lights."
Opposition
Winikoff and others said they only want a compromise.
"While we applaud the students coming out, this issue isn’t about any one person, but how we find a compromise that is suitable for the entire community," Winikoff said.
Scott Grecko played a video of Rosenthal at a 2010 meeting discussing 16 nights of lights.
The video has shown up often during the discussion of the lights. Rosenthal has called it out of context because she was speaking about the possibility of temporary lights, not permanent ones.
Cost of the lights
During the Board of Education meeting, the district's Chief Financial Office Jan Maez said she felt she needed to clear up rumors about how much of the budget for the athletic lights have come out of the district's general fund.
"I can say there has been no general fund impact," Maez said. "The soft cost and the actual construction cost have been purchases made through the Shark Fund or district capital facility funds."
She said funding for the lawsuit has been taken out of the capital facility fund. The lights themselves cost $700,000, she said.
"Let me go on the record and clear up many of the wild comments we have heard all over the place that there has not been any general fund expenditure at all," Maez said.
In January, Winikoff called on the board to stop spending what she called a "ridiculous waste of resources."
During Thursday's meeting, several ssupporters of the lights called that characterization unfair, pointing to the fact that Winikoff and others are keeping the lawsuit alive.
Jacobson said the Shark Fund paid $198,000 for the cost and installation of the lights and an additional $250,000 for other administrative costs.
Officer: "Ma'am, you were going 100 MPH and WERE damaging the environment. And you could have killed someone." Laura: "So you don't like "Hybrids!"? How about some nuts ...
This “win all or die” approach is destroying us. The old, lower temporary lights were already a great compromise. Once they were found to be illegal, the two sides polarized into “no lights ever” and “screw you, we’ll get absurdly high permanent lights that ruin your property value and push for as many nights as we want.” What the hell is wrong with you people? People live in this neighborhood. Their life-savings and lifestyle are wrapped up in their homes. As a coach and parent I am also very aware of the value of athletics and fun of night games. Let’s drop the ego, stop putting our kids in the middle, and respect one another enough to sit down and compromise the way we should have done two years ago. Laura’s taunt of “let’s see who will win,” and Seth saying he won’t talk “until the lawsuit is dropped”—are inflammatory and not what is needed now. Is there really no sane leadership in Malibu? Are we really incapable of letting go of “winning at all costs” and instead doing what makes sense and is right for all of us? There is a smart compromise on the table. If it is not perfect, then let’s refine it. This lawsuit threatens more than bank accounts, it’s ruining our community, and that’s more permanent than any lights. TB
You know what's really funny? The school district held negotiations with the neighbors in 2010. I was there for the "compromise" discussions, in the room with the athletics director, and Steve Uhrig and the "no-lights" contingent. Their offer of compromise was ZERO now, ZERO next year, ZERO forever. They refused ANY offer of compromise. "Why should we compromise, when the Coastal Commission and City Council will never approve these" - Direct quote, from Steve Uhrig. Let the lawsuit play out. I can't wait.
You back up my point. Not enough compromise on EITHER side. Your frustration is understandable, but clearly a happy compromise has not yet been reached, or there would be less hostility. If by chance the homeowners win the suit due to the illegal way the matter was handled at city hall, or in the mounting separate cases over lost property value-- then it will be bad for the kids. If the school wins out as you wish, then it will be "ha ha, screw you friends, neighbors and fellow taxpayers." Either way, it seems like a hollow victory. How about instead we let go of our bitterness to this point, and protect the sports programs while also showing real fairness to the surrounding community? Even after all the crap, this is still possible.
It is unfortunate that we had to turn to legal means to negotiate a compromise but there is so much to be lost by these lights. Not only losing, our beautiful dark nights and our lifestyle, we are losing property value. As Tom said, many of us have our lifesavings tied up in our homes. But all said, this isn't only about us, this is about what Malibu has to offer for many generations to come.
The Planning Commission -- meeting in the dead of night -- approved a lighting plan for the badly-needed upper parking lot -- and slapped on a bunch of operational requirements for the lot that are completely unworkable. Did you read these? Under their ridiculous middle of the night plan, the security guard at the bottom of the hill will be needed to ask each student arriving at the lot -- all day -- how long they will be parking. "Will your team bus arrive back at school before sunset, before 8, or after 8? Please proceed to Lot A B or C." The district cannot possibly operate a parking lot that has zones that close at different times of the evening. This was not compromise -- it was a group of unelected appointees nibbling and picking this plan to death. The lawsuit is not going to succeed. The judge already told the neighbors that. Let's see the Planning Commission start regulating and enforcing which parking lot zones at City Hall wil be closed at sunset, 8 or 10. What total nonsense.
Tom is very correct, there can be no settling of this without one side feeling like they lost.
are your values to preserve malibu or for malibu to become another urban environment. i have just returned from china and believe me it isnt pretty. the people who are serving the voters, decided that they knew what was best for the community and they have decided thats what best for malibu is new shopping centers at trancas without any regard for parking, stadium lighting in malibu park, trading away a great natural environment like charmlee park and the total build out in the civic center. unfortunately we got what we voted for. i cant believe that there isnt a full call for a recall of our counsel.
You are a respected force. I too enjoy some night football games, but have also had my view and home value hurt by the lights. My urging for compromise is not based on the current lawsuit-- which despite your confidence could still swing the other way-- but there are also much more expensive, financial-based lawsuits already in the works. Unless we work together, the anger will fester, and the legal battles will drag on forever. And as I've stated, the "screw you" mentality on either side will only yield a hollow and temporary victory. Why is there so much hatred? Isn't it possible to be pro-student and ALSO work out a few details to make our neighbors feel included? I am trying to be a voice of reason here, and I'm afraid comments like yours are only antagonistic and add fuel to the fire.
What is an acceptable compromise to you guys? 16 Friday night games a year? You already got that! Oh, you want zero evenings during winter months, for soccer and lacrosse, up to 7:30? Well, we wanted 90 evenings up to 7:30. Some wanted more than that. Lots more than that. So the city's compromise is 45 evenings, no more than three a week, and only during four months a year. For all practical purposes, a late sunset means no evening lights during March, April, May, June, July, August, September, most of October. And December -- no lights in December due to testing and holidays. Make the school take down the light banks every spring and summer. That's where we are. That sure looks like compromise to me. But no. You want more "compromise." You promise lawsuits. You promise deep-pocket lawyers. So -- neighbor -- just whom is saying "screw you" here? You're right, there is enormous hatred here. That's really sad. One side lost at the school board, city planning, city council, Coastal Commission and Superior Court. That will brew resentment. I understand and regret that.
Of course I respect your opinion, but feel I need to respond. You say the original restrictions were enacted with little public input, when in fact they were put in place by a very inclusive process-- when it was proposed that a school and field be placed on this site, in consideration to the existing community, it was decided no lights like this would ever be constructed. I discovered this ten years ago when I was deciding whether to buy on the point or Malibu Park and got legal assurance. As to the rest of your points, perhaps you were not present at the Council meetings where I stated my love of football and night games. I have never been a "no lights" advocate, and there are many of us affected that have always been open to a common sense solution. Unfortunately, I've seen my friends and neighbors polarized into a bitter "all of nothing" war. Those most against the lights are long time residents who have had their views literally obliterated by the poles - never mind when the lights on are on. With some exceptions of course, the majority of pro-lights people are those with student-athletes who don't live within view. What I am urging for is, rather than the looking back with bitterness over the past four years (as you do in your response), that BOTH SIDES make the final minor adjustments (i.e. poles coming down for part of the year, etc.) that finally put this issue to rest. TB