Winning the Fight Against Soka Proposal

Aaron Curtiss’ article detailing the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy decision to forgo a proposed “deal” with Soka University (Nov. 23) notes that fighting the Soka project “will cost the public millions of dollars regardless of which side wins.”

In actuality, one of the reasons that the proposed deal was opposed by virtually all of the policy-makers representing the area on national state and local levels, as well as most residents, was that the Soka development will be far more costly to the taxpayers than the zoning and parkland blueprint worked out by the public over decades.

Soka ill-advisedly bought a parcel in a small canyon and made plans to build a project that is totally out of proportion with the area, by any yardstick.

Who would be on the hook for paying for bringing in enough roads, fire service, sewers and so on into this rustic area to support such a massive development? What about all of the other service-demanding growth that this project will spawn? The nonprofit, non-taxpaying Soka?

The average taxpayer will be far to the good by supporting the conservancy’s effort to compel Soka to be reasonable and move its project to any of several more suitable areas than they will if the Soka project is allowed to bring massive urbanization and up-zoning to this special area.

DAVID N. PEVSNER

Calabasas

Pevsner is past president of the Monte Nido Valley Property Owners Assn.

* The mandate of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy is to preserve the natural beauty of the Santa Monica Mountains--not collect acreage, save money or provide facilities for other government agencies. If these things happen as a side effect of pursuing the mandate, fine. But they must not be the primary goal.

They were primary in the recently rejected “compromise” between the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy and the Soka Corp. To preserve does not mean to accommodate a mountain development that is 175% bigger than Topanga Plaza. Much talk about who gets what does not address the destruction of the environment, the mass negative effects on wildlife, destruction of the natural flow of water and major impacts on flower and fauna. In addition to major traffic-related problems, there would be the resurrection of the Malibu Canyon Freeway.

This would all be for the sake of building a mass urban development that could be built in dozens of other fine locations in Southern California. It can be built elsewhere, but another large meadow cannot be created in these mountains. Mother Nature has none left.

These mountains must be preserved so that all Americans and visitors to our country will have the opportunity to enjoy and glory in their natural beauty.

On Nov. 23, an L. A. Superior Court judge agreed that the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority has the power to condemn property and he found in favor of the MRCA. All that remains now (after what would seem like endless appeals) is for a jury to establish the price of Soka’s Gillette Ranch. This was a fight that The Times said couldn’t be won. We won, and The Times was wrong.

WILLIAM P. WELLS

Calabasas

Wells is the chairman of the Coalition to Preserve Las Virgenes.