He’d Just as Soon Lose Paradise : Politics: For Deane Dana, Malibu has been nothing but trouble. His opposition to cityhood has earned him widespread criticism. Redistricting plan would put area under Ed Edelman’s domain.

Rich and beautiful, Malibu may be some people’s idea of paradise, but to Los Angeles County Supervisor Deane Dana the area has been nothing but trouble.

Dana’s opposition to cityhood for Malibu has earned him the wrath of many residents of the posh precincts that stretch from the ocean beaches to the crest of the Santa Monica Mountains.

Crude signs along Pacific Coast Highway, the community’s heavily traveled lifeline, blame Dana for blocking a vote on incorporation. At every opportunity, cityhood supporters complain loudly about his pro-growth posture.

The sentiment runs deep. Although he won a landslide reelection victory last year in his vast coastal district, Dana lost Malibu to little-known challengers.

So it is not surprising that a new plan for supervisorial districts, designed in part by Republican Dana, would remove Malibu from his district. As envisioned, the politically volatile Malibu landscape would become the province of Supervisor Ed Edelman, a Democrat.

Although the plan was just the county’s opening bid to settle a federal Voting Rights Act lawsuit, Dana is confident that, when the redistricting process is finished, Malibu will no longer be in his territory.

“Unless there is something drastic that happens, it just could not happen” that he would continue to represent Malibu, Dana said in an interview last week.

The timetable for the changes is unclear, but it is possible that Edelman, who favors a cityhood election, could become the community’s representative as early as next year. If he does, the odds of Malibu breaking free from county control would improve.

Dana has steadfastly resisted a cityhood election, arguing that the question of a proposed Malibu sewer system must be settled first.

When the supervisors considered the incorporation issue again last month, Edelman was the lone vote in favor of an early decision on cityhood.

“There comes a point in time when one has to say that the interest of the people in cityhood is as important as the county getting the sewers,” Edelman said. “These people have been before us over and over, and I can’t in good conscience deny them their right to vote on the matter.”

Cityhood supporters are delighted at the prospect of having a new representative. “Edelman is the only guy with any degree of sensitivity with regard to issues in Malibu,” said Leon Cooper, past president of the Malibu Township Council.

Cooper and other Malibu activists said they would welcome a change in district lines, if it means an end to Dana’s representation of the community. “It’s like two people who despise one another,” Cooper said. “Malibu has no love whatever for Mr. Dana, and he must be tired of hearing from us.”

The supervisor has “so thoroughly alienated people in Malibu” that he has become a rallying point for cityhood supporters, Cooper said.

Critics blame Dana for throwing roadblocks in the path of cityhood. And they contend that the $43-million sewer system that the county is determined to install in Malibu will pave the way to intensive development along the coastline.

Cooper, like other cityhood supporters, criticizes Dana for accepting campaign contributions from “developers hungry to rape Malibu.”

Walter Keller, co-chair of Malibu Citizens for Incorporation, said Dana’s “whole attitude has been insulting.” He branded Dana the “sewer king.”

John B. Murdock, attorney for the Malibu Township Council, said he would assume Dana “would be very happy to get out of Malibu. He could still vote his conscience, accept campaign contributions from whoever he chooses and not face the wrath of the people.”

Despite the criticism, Dana said Malibu “certainly wasn’t anything I wanted to get rid of.” He said he has enjoyed having the entire Los Angeles County coastline from Point Mugu to the Orange County line in his district. “I like having all of the beaches in my district.”

But with 20,000 people in Malibu, compared to 1.8 million in his entire district, Dana said the opposition he has encountered there is “of no consequence really.” He joked that “if they spell my name right, it doesn’t make any difference.”

Allan Hoffenblum, a Republican political consultant, said Malibu has “less than 1% of the voters” in Dana’s current district “but gives you 10% of the headaches.”

The sudden prospect of a change in political lines stems from a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Department of Justice, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund alleging that the current supervisorial districts were drawn to preclude election of a Latino.

Dana said he has been working since January to help craft a new plan that would be acceptable to all parties.

The proposed district boundaries presented last week to a federal judge is just a beginning, he said. “It’s a very fluid thing. They wanted a proposal and we gave them a starting point for negotiations,” Dana said. “It’s a long way from being settled.”

The necessity of keeping intact the heavily black district long held by Supervisor Kenneth Hahn means that the boundaries of the other four districts must revolve around Hahn’s territory, he said.

Under the plan proposed last week, Dana would lose Malibu and pick up precincts in southeast Los Angeles County. There is also a chance that he would lose the Democrat-dominated coastal areas of Santa Monica and Venice as well.

Although the lines are far from final, Dana said there is “very little chance” that he will retain Malibu. “It isn’t going to happen,” he said.