In an e-mailer I just received, I was told “The Truth.” I had to look at the mirror and pinch myself. Let us not be bothered with the facts. Name calling is much more sexy, and half-truths go halfway around the world before they can be refuted.

For more than four decades, I call Beverly Hills my home. I am not part of any labor union. I am not a “Naysayer” and I am not against development. I care most deeply about the city.

I have hosted Maurice Hennessy – the eighth generation of a family whose Cognac House is one of the letters of LVMH – several times in our offices in Beverly Hills. We are a legacy business here for almost half a century. We are a private client of Moet Hennessy, i.e. a select group of people who spend a lot of money to buy the group’s products.

Just this week I turned from being “righteous” (when I wrote about standing up to antisemites) to “demented” literally overnight, by a friend I value, only because she saw my name as a donor to the Vote No campaign. Yes, I have given several times to their campaign as the people I see involved dedicate their time and hard-earned money, for no monetary self-gain. They, too, care deeply about our city.

Reminder: we will still need to live with each other after the vote. If there are more votes in favor, then we have given something of immense value for very little in return. If somehow there are more votes against, we will still have a most magnificent project, for no business spends a half-billion dollars on a property and [does] not intend to make it marvelous.

Whatever the result on May 23, maybe our city leaders should spend some time and formulate a schedule of fees, since history shows us that each project presented to the city gets extra height, extra density, waiver of parking and more. All that one needs to do is walk from Crescent to Canon to Beverly (and now to Rodeo). And each and every time, the city comes [up] short. Why? I can repeat the arguments presented for each of the projects on your way. They were all most persuasive, and they all consistently benefited one side so much more than the other.

There should be more meat to these approvals beyond “ask and be granted.” There should be a uniform, transparent schedule of “what does the city get in return.”

History also teaches us that promises do not get fulfilled. And they are hardly ever backed with a bank guarantee. I still am dreaming about a magnificent park on part of the Hilton property. I am still wondering what happed to the $60 million the city expected to get from the development where Robinsons-May used to be (Nancy? John?). And I laugh at the shrewdness of Larry Field of blessed memory regarding the condo he bought at the Montage. The city should [have] asked him to negotiate any development deal, but now he is gone, back to his maker.

Each of us has a vote – this is a great privilege and responsibility. Exercise it!

Please remember that as enthusiastic [as] many members of the community [are] about a proposed project, there are many others who care deeply about the city they call their home. They are not being paid, as many of the voices you hear. They actually spend their own money to participate in the process. They have nothing to gain personally. Their only wish is the long-term well-being of the city.

If a project can be built to code and still be magnificent and awe-striking, it should. Robert Zarnegin’s Peninsula is one such example. If the city leaders want to give up rights and waive requirements, the city should directly benefit from it, not with promises on paper that may never materialize.

Vote! And remember to tell your kids that others in the community are equals in this process, and we need to respect them too!

Ari Bussel

Beverly Hills