Sybert Wants to Make Sure Beilenson’s Never Out of the Woods

It has been proposed that some feature or area of the Santa Monica Mountains be named after U.S. Rep. Anthony Beilenson (D-Woodland Hills), the principal architect of the mountains recreation area who is retiring from office at the end of his current term.

A noble idea, indeed, but what makes it odd is who proposed it.

The architect of the idea is none other than Richard Sybert, who in 1994 ran a contentious, unsuccessful campaign to oust Beilenson from office and is currently suing the congressman, accusing him of having libeled Sybert during their campaign dust-up.

In a memo dated Nov. 9, Sybert, a member of the governing board of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, suggested to conservancy chief Joe Edmiston that the matter of honoring Beilenson should be taken up. “Could you please consider this matter and make some suggestions [of places to name]?” Sybert wrote. “After that discussion, I would like to introduce the matter before the board.”

Sybert made the gesture eight days after Beilenson announced he would not seek reelection and thus would not face Sybert, whose hat is in the ring again.

To find out if Beilenson would accept such an honor from Sybert, The Times called Washington, D.C. After checking with her boss, Beilenson press secretary Kay Davis reported that he had politely refused the offer. “He told [Edmiston] it was a thoughtful gesture but said, ‘No thank you,’ because he doesn’t believe in naming things after people,” Davis said.

Asked if Beilenson was aware that Sybert was behind the proposal, Davis said: “It doesn’t matter who was behind it.”

But Edmiston later said he believes that Beilenson knew Sybert was behind it. “But I don’t think that had anything to do with his decision. Tony is not a small-minded person,” Edmiston said by car phone.

Did he think it odd that Sybert had initiated the gesture?

Pause.

“There seems,” Edmiston shouted, “to be a lot of static on the line--goodby!”

Click.

Town Criers

It’s getting easier every day to predict a cross-town squabble among members of the Los Angeles City Council.

Just find a proposal that provides extra dollars or services to one area of the city without providing the same benefit to others, and you’ve got a feud.

For example, Councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas, who represents parts of South Los Angeles, delayed for one day a vote to seek a $200,000 federal grant that would fund a 24-hour domestic violence program for the San Fernando Valley.

Ridley-Thomas wanted to know why his district wasn’t getting the grant. After learning that the Valley has a serious domestic violence problem and few programs to deal with it, he agreed to let the grant move forward. But he also promised to seek an additional grant for his district.

Another scrap is looming over a plan to impose a $5 “extra capacity” fee for residents who use an extra 30-gallon container for trash. The city currently does not charge for the extra containers. The new fee is expected to generate up to $8 million annually.

One supporter of the fee is Councilman Richard Alarcon, who has waged a long battle to close the city-owned Lopez Canyon landfill in his northeast Valley district, saying the dump breeds odors, dust and noise.

But sanitation officials have warned that hauling the city’s refuse to private dumps elsewhere could cost up to $55.7 million over five years. Alarcon hopes the money from the new fee will lessen the financial blow of closing Lopez Canyon.

But Councilwoman Rita Walters, who represents parts of South-Central Los Angeles, is leery of the fee. She said that some of her constituents with large families need the extra trash containers but cannot afford the $5 monthly fee.

Walters worries that if the fee is imposed, some residents may be inclined to dump their extra trash on the streets or vacant lots rather than fork over the $5. “My district,” she said, “already has a major dumping problem.”

Whose dumping problem takes precedence will be decided when the extra capacity fee is decided Dec. 13.

Hello, I Must Be Going

A year after the Los Angeles City Council voted to use redevelopment powers to rebuild earthquake-ravaged areas of Sherman Oaks and Studio City, a redevelopment panel voted Thursday to begin dismantling the project.

The council adopted the project in November, 1994, at the behest of then-councilman Zev Yaroslavsky, who represented the area before resigning in December to take a seat on the County Board of Supervisors.

But the city’s Community Redevelopment Agency voted Thursday to start dismantling the project at the request of Councilman Mike Feuer, who replaced Yaroslavsky in July.

Feuer and residents of Sherman Oaks have argued that the redevelopment effort is superfluous and that earthquake repairs can be made with the help of other city programs. But the underlying fear among residents has been that the CRA would become like the nightmare house guest who moves in, runs roughshod over everybody and stays forever.

It won’t be cheap. CRA officials said it has cost approximately $450,000 to set up a redevelopment project. To close the project now, CRA officials have set aside an additional $100,000 to pay for lawyers, staff work and public hearings.