Dear Culver City: Questioning a new financial process

EDITOR'S NOTE: This piece was submitted by a source unaffiliated with Culver Crescent and should not be interpreted as reflecting or confirming the opinion of The Crescent or its writers. Click here to view the full Dear Culver City disclaimer

By: Jim Clarke, Jeff Cooper, Allan Corlin, Göran Eriksson, Scott Malsin, Andy Weisman, and Ed Wolkowitz

We are former Culver City mayors writing as residents because we believe the public deserves to understand a major financial decision before it is made — not after. Our concern is not whether a particular property purchase is wise, but whether the process, financial safeguards, and long-term precedent are appropriate.

• A major decision is approaching. On September 14, 2026, the City Council will meet in closed session regarding negotiations to purchase six parcels from a financially distressed developer.
• Potential cost: $200–$275 million. If financed similarly to the City’s recent borrowing, we estimate this could require approximately $14–$19 million annually for 30 years from the City’s General Fund.
• The public is prohibited from voting. In April, the Council created the Public Finance Authority, allowing the City to use lease financing that can commit the General Fund to long-term payments without voter approval.
• The General Fund is at stake. These payments compete with funding for police, fire, streets, parks, and other essential City services. Contractual debt payments must continue even when City revenues decline.
• The City has already used this financing mechanism. In June, it borrowed $42.69 million, with the bonds sold directly to one bank without competitive bidding—the City’s first such noncompetitive bond sale in more than 15 years.
• Acquiring private property must serve a public benefit.
• The proposed properties carry significant risk. They include the former Sony Animation office campus and Culver Steps complex, associated with developer Michael Hackman, who defaulted on approximately $100 million earlier this year and has lost part of the property to foreclosure.
• Current rental income may not cover the debt payments. The financial risk could increase substantially if the anchor tenant does not renew its lease in 2031.

Four Questions the Mayor and Council Should Answer Before Proceeding

1. Transparency

• Why was the June financing completed without competitive bidding?
• Exactly how was the $42.69 million used?
• Why has detailed financial information not been released before another, much larger transaction is considered?

2. Economic Justification

• Where is the independent appraisal of the properties?
• Where is the 10-year financial forecast showing the General Fund can absorb another $14–$19 million annually?
• What assumptions support the proposed purchase price and projected revenues?

3. Community Benefit

• What specific public benefit justifies committing City funds for decades?
• How is the property essential to City operations rather than primarily a real-estate investment?

4. Financing Safeguards

• Why should debt of this magnitude proceed without voter approval?
• Why should financing occur without competitive bidding or an independent appraisal?
• What safeguards prevent this process from becoming the model for future acquisitions?

Why This Matters

This decision could establish a precedent allowing future Councils to negotiate major acquisitions outside public view and commit future General Funds to decades of payments without voter approval. The issue is bigger than one property purchase—it is about how Culver City makes major financial commitments.

What Residents Can Do

• The closed session begins at 5:30 p.m. on September 14, 2026.
• Residents who wish to comment should contact the City Clerk about the procedure for speaking before the closed session.
• Email or call Council members and ask them to address these four concerns before committing the City to the transaction.
• Share this information with other Culver City residents before September 14.

The Council must withhold any decision until these questions are answered and shared with the public. We are asking the Mayor and Council to demonstrate transparency, economic justification, clear public benefit, and appropriate financial safeguards before committing taxpayers to decades of obligations.

Jim Clarke, Jeff Cooper, Allan Corlin, Göran Eriksson, Scott Malsin, Andy Weisman, and Ed Wolkowitz each served terms as Culver City’s Mayor between 1996 and 2020.