Re “Please, Meghan Sahli-Wells, Rein in Your Team”
Goran Eriksson, Welcome to the Scott Malsin Band of Bullies:
This is a response to the accusatory misrepresentations written by Goran Eriksson on April 5 where he makes reference to campaign signs adjacent to his office.
He has no right to remove and destroy campaign signs simply because he does not support that candidate. It is a violation of federal and state law. If he is responsible for the signs being removed and destroyed, he had better be prepared to answer for this conduct in possible criminal proceedings.
It appears that Mr. Eriksson rents space in this building. It is for the owner of the building to grant or deny permission to place campaign sings at a location. Being a renter does not give him, or anyone else, the right to decide who may, or may not, put a sign on a property.
Mr. Eriksson's letter of April 5 is an irresponsible and malevolent outburst without any basis in fact. It speaks volumes as to his pathetically irrational and accusatory state of mind. Before he falsely accuses others, I suggest he take the advice of more mentally grounded people and remember the admonition, “Physician, heal thyself.”
It is appropriate for the likes of Mr. Eriksson to be supportive of Scott Malsin in tomorrow’s City Council election. Mr. Eriksson needs to understand that the good citizens of Culver City are sick of the Scott Malsin antics, and those of his old- boy flunkies. Apparently as the head of the Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Eriksson condones and supports Mr. Malsin's conduct. When Mr. Malsin was on the City Council, he had the audacity to vote for two projects that exceeded the legal 56-foot height limitation. Those projects were Entrada and Rancho Higuera. It would appear that Mr. Malsin's loyalties are with developers, rather than to the people of Culver City.
Mr. Eriksson shamelessly appears to condone Mr. Malsin's disrespect for the two-term limit rule.
That is a rule that is a part of our established system of government, which all the other candidates here and elsewhere have to respect. Mr. Malsin found a way to sneak around and circumvent this rule. It speaks volumes as to his character.
It appears that Mr. Eriksson is devoted to supporting a candidate who never had a real job, who pretends his $10,000-a-year web business is a serious job, and who was constantly disrespectful and arrogant to the public when he was on the City Council. Why would anybody want him back?
Times are changing in Culver City. People like Mr. Eriksson and Mr. Malsin no longer fit in. If they are only interested in personal gain and cannot work with the residents to unify and better this community, it is time for them to hit the road.
The writer may be contacted at justinhealing@yahoo.com
Touting His Track Record, Malsin’s Shows We Should Reject Him
From Cary Anderson
Scott Malsin wants you to vote for him tomorrow to return to the City Council because of his track record and institutional memory.
Institutional memory is a collective set of facts, concepts, experiences and know-how held by a group of people.
One of his supporters said, “Scott has a passion for our unique city, and for making sure it maintains the ‘Mayberry’ feel while it continues its growth.”
I am not voting for Mr. Malsin because I don’t condone his lack of action. Millions of people a year see his inaction from the 405 Freeway.
As Redevelopment Agency Chair (2007-2008, 2011)m, Mr. Malsin approved and knows the history of the Westfield Culver City outdoor signs, from December 2007 and May 2009 public meetings. The Design for Development pertaining to Advertising Content of the Westfield Culver outdoor signs said:
“Signs will be used exclusively to advertise the business conducted or service rendered or goods produced or sold upon the property upon which the sign(s) is placed. A sign which advertises a brand name, trade name, product or service only incidental to the businesses or services conducted or operating at the Mall shall not be permitted. Goods, products or services are incidental if they do not make up a significant portion of the business”.
1) How does Mr. Malsin justify signs that do not advertise the business conducted or service rendered or goods produced or sold upon the property?
2) How do the three TV shows currently advertised meet the Design for Development? How do the three movie ads?
3) Does Mr. Malsin justify the blatant violation because the former Redevelopment Agency receives money and a potential cut of the advertising revenue?
He said at the March 1 Gateway Council Candidates Forum, “I'm really proud of the signs…” “They weren't my idea…” “They were proposed to us…” “When I talked with (Westfield) about those signs, I said, ‘I can’t imagine supporting them unless you split the profit with us, us, here, us taxpayers in the City of Culver City.’”
From the May 11, 2009, Redevelopment Agency agenda:
“The sole purpose of the additional sign area is to enhance revenues for the freeway-oriented mall signs, which will be shared between Westfield and the Agency. Westfield indicates that the increased signage is justified because that was the sign area upon which their original sign revenue projections were based.”
Pursuant to the OPA, the Agency receives a guaranteed base payment of $225,000 and an additional payment in an amount equal to 50 percent of the gross sign revenue received by Westfield during each calendar year. The additional payment occurs after Westfield receives a base payment of $2.2 million in revenue per calendar year. Additional sign revenue could increase revenue-sharing to the Agency.
So this is how Mr. Malsin justifies signs that do not advertise the business conducted or service rendered or goods produced or sold upon the property.
He is allowing the blatant violation for us taxpayers.
When the mall rents out display space to a wide range of advertisers, it is engaging in “general advertising for hire,” in contrast to the “self-promotion” function of a store sign. It is this economic independence that makes billboards legally different. Billboards are not just large signs.
The content that does NOT advertise the business conducted or service rendered or goods produced or sold upon the property makes the signs by definition billboards.
The Redevelopment Agency’s attorney explained it:
“Significant portion of business involved. Goods, products or services are incidental if they do not make up a significant portion of the business. Movies and TV ads do not meet these criteria, so they are violations.”
The intent stated by the mall for the signs was to draw in customers by advertising businesses in the mall. The billboards are only about advertising revenue and do not draw in customers with movie and television show ads.
How serious of a business are billboards? The California Highway Patrol caught a person cutting trees in the 405 Freeway right-of-way adjacent to the new Westfield shopping mall in Culver City after the first sign went up. The trees, which stood in the line of sight of the billboard affixed to a corner of the shopping mall, were advertising a movie. According to the California Dept. of Transportation, this blatantly illegal act is currently under investigation, along with six other tree-cutting incidents that may involve the issue of billboard or super graphic sign visibility from L.A. area freeways.
Mr. Malsin said in a recent mailer: “Teamwork is what makes Culver City great…” “Everyone can be a part of the team.”
The ad shows him standing in front of community members including former Mayors, President of the Chamber of Commerce, a School Board member, teachers, Plannino Commissioners, business Owners, husbands, wives and coaches. Their team leader knows the signs violate the Design for Development pertaining to Advertising Content of the Westfield Culver City outdoor signs. Now they do and so does everyone else. Members of his team.
Call Mr. Malsin and ask him why he is allowing this blatant violation. See what excuse you get from him. Does the end justify the means? What are your ethics?
For those who say this is negative hit piece… it is not a hit piece if the facts are true. Mr. Malsin wants you to vote for him because of his track record and institutional memory. This is his record. Ask him about it. See what excuse you get from him.
Mr. Malsin knows exactly what qualifies as off-site advertising. He knows the definition of a billboard. Mr. Malsin is looking the other way. Watch the video for yourself:
I am going to be voting for four candidates. Mr. Malsin will not be one of them.
Sinning by silence. It’s not smart. It’s not brave. It’s just cowardly.
Mr. Anderson, a Culver City homeowner for 25 years, may be contacted at caryanderson@ca.rr.com
Four Examples of How Our Priorities Are Upside Down
From Liz Kinnon
Sometimes I wonder if I'm on a reality show. Seriously, when I read just a few of the recent “news” items in my own Culver City, I fear that the ethical and moral compass in our community is officially pointing south.
Have our expectations of appointed or elected leaders dropped so low that the following statements don't inspire head-shaking and anger?
• A superintendent is saluted for not, in essence, stealing money by retiring (again) when it is appropriate. Since when has it become remarkable for a well-paid superintendent not to take undeserved money after retiring, just because it's been done in the past? This is surely no cause for salutation, and it does not change my opinion of Patti Jaffe in any way.
• A City Council member (Scott Malsin) quits early to preserve his benefits, then has the nerve to run again weeks later for a new term that would, in fact, enable him to sit on the Council for more than the maximum years allowed. I understand why Mr. Malsin did what he needed to do to take full advantage of the system. But I find it arrogant that he would run again. I don't believe that, due to a technicality created by his resigning, he should have an opportunity to sit on the Council beyond the maximum time intended. Mr. Malsin will not get my vote.
• Another City Council candidate (Mehaul O'Leary) says the Council members should get a 400 percent raise. Really? I find this to be insensitive and offensive. If Mr. O'Leary thinks he deserves a 400 percent raise, I suggest he not involve himself with community service. In this terrible economic environment, even mentioning such a thing should be reason enough for his ouster. Mr. O'Leary most certainly will not get my vote.
• A City Council candidate (Meghan Sahli-Wells) is ridiculed for suggesting the city save thousands of dollars by consolidating low-turnout elections … something that makes complete fiscal sense in any economy, let alone this one. As a tax-paying citizen and longtime Culver City resident, I appreciate and support Ms. Sahli-Wells's suggestion that we consolidate our elections for School Board and City Council. We are in desperate need of sound ideas that address our shrinking budgets. I've often wondered why this wasn’t done years ago.
Ms. Sahli-Wells will get my vote, along with Jim Clarke and Andy Weissman.
Ms. Kinnon may be contacted at lizkinnon@gmail.com
