Ballot dispute explained

In my law practice representing injured victims, I thought it was important to take Mary Hubbard’s case pro bono. This is an important public issue and I was appalled at the attempts to squelch the voices of those attempting to be heard in this process against the millions of dollars of resources of the developers.

There were no substantial changes to any of Mary’s arguments against the Malibu Valley Inn & Spa. The court agrees that they are reasonable conclusions to draw from the evidence. The court merely inserted the words “may” and “coastal” to clarify the statements.

Our point was vindicated: The developer doesn’t have the critical permit needed to develop in the Coastal Zone.

The argument in opposition is evidenced-based and court-tested. The courts also held that the developer and proponents can’t reply on a draft environmental impact report.

There was only one significant change to the ballot argument. The judge found a hyper-technicality in the 30-year-old by-laws and removed the Las Virgenes Homeowners Federation from the endorsement list in spite of the fact that they had voted twice to oppose the project.

The day after the court’s decision, the federation voted 12 to 1 to stand opposed to the Malibu Valley Inn project. They also voted 13 to 1 to recommend a no vote on the project. The federation has unambiguously reaffirmed its opposition to the Malibu Valley Inn. Truth does prevail. Steven Gambardella Calabasas