Malibu’s Future on Line in Election : Cityhood: Many feel the vote will decide if community stays semi-rural or becomes a full-blown resort on the order of Miami Beach.

From a corner booth at the Malibu Inn, where movie stars and just plain folks often congregate over scrambled eggs and coffee, retiree William Fried was holding forth on Malibu’s future.

“My ideal for this place,” he said, glancing across busy Pacific Coast Highway to the waves lapping onto Surfrider Beach, “is that it remain as it is.”

It is a sentiment often expressed in Malibu these days as residents prepare for a June 5 election to decide whether the seaside community of 25,000 becomes a city.

But the election is about more than simply cityhood.

It is, some say, a referendum on whether the community long famous for its celebrities and surf will remain a semi-rural enclave, or, as some fear, become a resort on the order of Miami Beach. The outcome is of critical importance to developers who own land in the area and environmentalists who want to preserve the slender stretch of Malibu coastline.

Los Angeles County supervisors, bowing to a judge’s order, last week set the election date, ending two years of efforts by cityhood backers to get the matter on the ballot.

“I think a lot of people look at this election and see their entire way of life at stake,” said Roberta Manning, an art dealer who moved her studio from Melrose Avenue to near Zuma Beach 12 years ago.

Like others drawn to the coastal community for its ocean views and open spaces, she fears that Malibu’s tranquillity will fall victim to high-rise hotels and sprawling residential development unless residents wrest political control from the county.

On the other hand, developers and property owners privately chafe at the prospect of a “radical fringe of no-growthers” preventing them from developing some of the most sought-after coastline in Southern California.

Since last week, the county has stopped accepting applications for subdivisions and conditional-use permits, as is its policy once supervisors have approved an incorporation election for a community. And developers fear that, should cityhood be approved and depending on who is elected to a five-member city council, a new local government could shut off development for up to another 2 1/2 years while drafting a general plan.

“There’s a tremendous amount of uncertainty out there that has people scared to death,” said real estate broker Kathy Merston. “I’ve already had a $1.7-million deal for some land fall through because of it, and I’m not alone.”

Others in the community, however, express a different concern.

“I have no doubt that the county Board of Supervisors would pave the whole place over if given the chance,” said Walt Keller, a veteran of two failed incorporation attempts, in 1964 and 1976.

This time, bolstered by general antagonism over the county’s handling of the matter, and supported by a cadre of celebrities who call Malibu home, cityhood boosters are convinced that voters will put incorporation over the top.

Michael Landon and Dick Van Dyke were among the guests at a recent fund-raiser sponsored by cityhood backers. Others, including Olivia Newton-John and Martin Sheen, until recently Malibu’s honorary mayor, have made public appearances on behalf of incorporation.

Until now, however, celebrity involvement has remained low-key. Some cityhood supporters, fearing a backlash from county officials prone to criticize Malibu for seeking special treatment, have privately counseled against trying to use the “celebrity weapon.”

Despite speculation that an actor or two might run for office, there was not a single star among the 30 candidates who this week entered the race to fill city council positions. The only show business personality to enter was Gene Wood, an announcer for “Family Feud” and other TV game shows.

“You’ve got the noes, the slows, and the pros,” said Mike Caggiano, a former consultant at the RAND Corp., and himself a candidate, in summing up the contenders.

The reference was to the no-growth and slow-growth advocates favoring cityhood who comprise most of the list, along with a few candidates considered to be pro-development.

The contenders include a veritable who’s who among leaders of the cityhood movement, including Keller and Carolyn Van Horn, who co-chaired the Malibu Committee for Incorporation; Larry Wan, president of the Malibu Township Council, another pro-cityhood group, and Frank Basso, the group’s former president.

But there are also several candidates who are considered to be more sympathetic to development, including retired Municipal Judge John Merrick, land-use attorney Paul Shoop, and real estate brokers Richard Idler and Jack Corrodi.

Although opposing cityhood, Merrick won enough votes to have been elected to office in 1964, had Malibu voters not rejected incorporation. Corrodi, another longtime foe of cityhood, finished eighth in a field of 19 candidates in 1976, when cityhood was defeated a second time.

“I don’t want to be elected, and I hope I even finish last,” Corrodi said. “What I aim to do is rouse the silent majority of this community, who, I believe, think incorporation is a bad idea.”

Hairdresser Edward Jones, who is not among the candidates, tries to keep his views against cityhood to himself, not an easy task in a community where passions over incorporation run high.

“I know all of my clients are talking about it (the election), taking one side or the other,” he said. “I try to stay silent. Bad for business, you know.”