 |
|||||
|
Voters to wade through ‘conservation’ measure
by Dan Bialek
Condemned by many, favored by few and supported by unknown persons — the Manhattan Beach Coastal Conservation Act will be on the ballot on March 6 whether it makes sense or not.
The initiative petition for the act (also known as "Measure 2001A") was delivered to city officials June 2 along with 3,562 signatures, and the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder’s office verified 2,607 of them, qualifying the initiative for Tuesday’s ballot.
The initiative weighs in at just under 10,000 words with eight sections and numerous subsections. Its title reads "conservation act," but its contents take a very long time to read through.
If passed, the act would require the city to test the ocean off Manhattan’s beaches for human viruses and pathogens, require a total of four beach cleanup days a year, prevent advertising signs on the sand, and prohibit any beach event from charging admission.
The city council and staff members delivered a report earlier this year that said the act could potentially cost the city $800,000, and could prevent events such as the Manhattan Beach Old Hometown 10K run and the Old Hometown Fair from taking place on the same day.
The report also said that the initiative calls for water testing that is already being performed by Health The Bay, a volunteer environmental group, and the city already conducts beach cleanups during 13 weeks of each year without a mandate or law requiring them.
No one has come out openly to take responsibility for the measure, and its author remains a mystery. Local activist Bill Eisen delivered the document to City Hall, but Eisen claims that he is not a member of the committee or group responsible for the initiative. Local resident Mark S. Tucker wrote the ballot argument for the initiative, but he also denies being a part of the group behind its inception.
All five members of the Manhattan Beach City Council have come out to oppose the initiative, calling it "wasteful," "bad law," and a "wolf in sheep’s clothing."
Some residents such as Yury Gurvich said that they would support the measure because of its purpose to clean the beaches and water. However, nothing in the measure outlines cleaning the actual water or removing harmful viruses and pathogens. ER