The $103 Million Sony Building, Hayden Tract Development, SB 79, and the Endorsements of Albert Vera, Dan O'Brien, Kimberley Kim and Jeannine Wisnosky Stehlin
October 13, 2026
Politics can be a strange world.
Sometimes the strangest part is not what politicians say, but the difference between what political organizations claim to believe and the candidates they choose to support.
I recently obtained Culver City Coalition's original Statement of Organization, filed with the California Secretary of State in March 2022.
On page three, the Coalition describes its purpose:
“The goal of the Culver City Coalition is to support common sense middle of the road policies and politicians in our great city.”
I found that statement particularly interesting.
Because that is precisely how I have described my own candidacy for Culver City Council.
I am the middle candidate.
I am not running as part of what I call the left left or the right left of Culver City politics.
I am running because I believe our city needs practical solutions, fiscal responsibility, neighborhood protection, public safety, and a willingness to evaluate ideas on their merits rather than according to political alliances.
So imagine my surprise when I discovered that an organization founded to support middle-of-the-road politicians is endorsing Kimberley Kim and Jeannine Wisnosky Stehlin in the November 2026 election, while overlooking a candidate who explicitly identifies with the political middle.
Of course, calling myself the middle candidate does not automatically make me the Coalition's preferred choice. Reasonable people can disagree about what constitutes a moderate position.
But the irony raises an interesting question:
What exactly does Culver City Coalition mean by “middle of the road”?
And how do its political endorsements reflect that original mission?
1. Who Founded Culver City Coalition, and What Did They Want?
The original Form 410, dated March 15, 2022, identifies:
Ramsey Houston Salem as treasurer.
Marta Alicia Valdez as principal officer.
Culver City Coalition as a general-purpose city political committee.
The organization's stated mission was not to support a particular political party or ideological faction.
It was to support common-sense, middle-of-the-road policies and politicians.
That is an important distinction.
The Coalition did not describe itself as an organization dedicated to electing the most liberal or most conservative candidates.
It presented itself as a vehicle for practical, moderate local politics.
I support that general objective.
But I also believe that a commitment to moderation should be reflected in the standards used to evaluate candidates.
For me, being in the middle does not mean avoiding difficult decisions.
It means recognizing that both sides of an argument may have legitimate concerns and then finding solutions that are practical, financially sustainable, and fair.
It means supporting housing while acknowledging neighborhood impacts.
It means supporting public safety while demanding accountability.
It means protecting taxpayers while recognizing that some public investments are necessary.
And it means evaluating politicians according to their decisions, not simply their political relationships.
2. The Coalition's Political History
Culver City Coalition has participated directly in local elections.
Its 2022 campaign-finance disclosures show that it received $15,000 from the Alliance for Culver City to Support Renteria and O'Brien for City Council 2022.
The Coalition also reported expenditures opposing Freddy Puza and Alex Fisch.
In 2024, it publicly supported Albert Vera, Jeannine Wisnosky Stehlin, and Denice Renteria.
Now, in 2026, it is supporting Kimberley Kim and Jeannine Wisnosky Stehlin.
There is nothing improper about a political committee endorsing candidates.
But when an organization declares that its mission is to support middle-of-the-road politicians, I believe voters are entitled to ask what criteria it uses.
Does the Coalition evaluate every candidate's positions?
Does it consider candidates who disagree with both established political factions?
Does it prioritize fiscal responsibility, housing policy, public safety, and transparency?
Or does it place greater emphasis on existing political alliances?
I do not know how the Coalition arrived at its 2026 endorsements.
That is why I am asking.
3. The $103 Million Sony Building: Is This Fiscal Responsibility?
On September 28, 2026, the Culver City Council and Public Finance Authority reportedly voted unanimously to approve an option agreement concerning the former Sony Pictures Animation property at 9050 Washington Boulevard.
The proposed purchase price is approximately $103 million.
The agreement involves a $375,000 option payment and authorization for up to $500,000 in due diligence expenditures.
The City has not yet approved the final acquisition. That distinction is important.
Nevertheless, the possibility of purchasing a property for $103 million raises substantial financial questions.
Where will the money come from?
Will the City borrow additional funds?
What would the annual financing costs be?
How much revenue could the property realistically generate?
What happens if the investment does not perform as expected?
And how would this affect the City's ability to repair sidewalks, maintain trees, improve streets, and provide essential services?
Council Member Albert Vera, whom the Coalition supported in 2024, was among the members of the Council that reportedly approved the option.
Approving an option is not the same as approving the final purchase, and there may be reasonable arguments for investigating the opportunity.
But this is precisely the kind of decision that requires financial scrutiny.
If the Coalition supports fiscal responsibility, what financial conditions would it require before supporting a $103 million property acquisition?
Would it demand independent financial analysis?
Would it require public disclosure of financing assumptions and potential risks?
Would it oppose the purchase if the numbers did not make sense?
These questions should be answered before the City makes a final commitment.
4. The Hayden Tract: Neighborhood Protection or Larger Buildings?
Another issue is the future of the Hayden Tract.
On March 16, 2026, the City Council considered planning directions that would allow increased building heights and residential density in the Hayden Tract.
The direction also contemplated transitions near existing neighborhoods and additional public amenities.
This is not the same as approving a particular building. It is a broader planning process.
Nevertheless, the changes could significantly affect future development.
Culver City Coalition emphasizes neighborhood preservation and local control.
So what does the Coalition believe should happen in the Hayden Tract?
Does it support taller buildings?
Does it support increased residential density?
How should traffic, parking, infrastructure, and neighborhood impacts be addressed?
I believe we need more housing.
But I also believe residents deserve clear information about the consequences of development decisions.
Being in the middle means recognizing that housing production and neighborhood protection are both legitimate public interests.
The challenge is to develop policies that address both.
That is more difficult than simply saying yes or no to development.
But it is the responsibility of elected officials to make those decisions thoughtfully.
5. SB 79: My Experience as a Small Property Owner
My position on housing is not merely theoretical.
I have personally explored the possibility of building approximately 11 residential units on my property under California's SB 79.
The City has confirmed that my property qualifies for increased development potential under the law.
But what I have discovered is that legal permission to build housing does not mean the project is financially feasible.
Before knowing whether a project can obtain financing, a small property owner may have to spend thousands of dollars on architects, land-use consultants, engineers, feasibility studies, and other professional services.
And there is no guarantee the project will ever be built.
Large developers have teams of professionals and access to substantial financial resources.
Small property owners often do not.
I believe Culver City should be doing more to help smaller property owners understand their development options and navigate the approval process.
That does not mean approving every project.
It means making the process more predictable, transparent, and financially realistic.
SB 79 also creates an important distinction between state law and local decision-making.
The City cannot simply disregard state requirements. However, local officials still have choices about implementation and other planning matters.
I would like to know where Kimberley Kim and Jeannine Wisnosky Stehlin stand on these issues.
Do they support making housing development more accessible to small property owners?
Do they believe the City should provide clearer guidance and technical assistance?
How would they balance state housing requirements with neighborhood concerns?
Those are practical questions.
And practical questions should be central to any organization that claims to support common-sense politics.
6. The Irony of the Coalition's 2026 Endorsements
Now we return to the question that started this discussion.
Culver City Coalition was organized to support middle-of-the-road policies and politicians.
I have consistently presented myself as a candidate seeking a middle-ground approach to Culver City government.
I support public safety.
I support responsible housing development.
I support fiscal accountability.
I support transparency.
I believe we should protect neighborhoods while recognizing that Culver City must accommodate change.
I believe we should carefully examine major property acquisitions before committing taxpayer money.
And I believe residents deserve elected officials who are willing to question proposals regardless of which political group supports them.
Yet the Coalition has endorsed Kimberley Kim and Jeannine Wisnosky Stehlin.
Let me be clear: I am not claiming that these candidates are incapable of representing moderate positions.
Nor am I suggesting that they should be held responsible for Council votes they did not cast.
But I am asking a reasonable question.
What makes Kimberley Kim and Jeannine Wisnosky Stehlin better representatives of the Coalition's stated middle-of-the-road mission than a candidate who has explicitly built his campaign around that approach?
Perhaps the Coalition has examined all the candidates and concluded that Kim and Wisnosky Stehlin best reflect its priorities.
If so, I would welcome an explanation.
Perhaps it defines moderation differently than I do.
That would also be worth discussing.
But without a clear explanation of the standards used, voters are left to interpret the endorsements for themselves.
7. Being in the Middle Is About Policies, Not Labels
I do not believe moderation should be determined simply by where someone places themselves on a political spectrum.
A candidate should be evaluated according to actual positions and proposed solutions.
For example:
On public safety: I believe residents, businesses, pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers all deserve safe streets.
On housing: I support additional housing and practical ways to make development financially feasible, particularly for smaller property owners.
On fiscal responsibility: I believe the City should thoroughly examine the risks and long-term costs of major financial commitments.
On infrastructure: I believe sidewalks, curbs, trees, and streets deserve greater attention because they affect residents every day.
On transparency: I believe the public should understand what the City is doing, why it is doing it, and what those decisions will cost.
I do not consider these positions inherently left-wing or right-wing.
I consider them practical.
That is what I mean when I say I am the middle candidate.
And that is why the Coalition's original mission statement caught my attention.
Its founders described an objective that sounds remarkably similar to the approach I am advocating.
8. Questions for Kimberley Kim and Jeannine Wisnosky Stehlin
Because the Coalition is supporting these two candidates, I believe voters should understand their positions on the City's most significant decisions.
I would welcome their answers to the following questions:
Do they support the potential $103 million acquisition of the former Sony Pictures Animation property?
What financial safeguards would they require before approving such a purchase?
Do they support increased building heights and residential density in the Hayden Tract?
What are their positions on SB 79 and the opportunities it creates for smaller property owners?
Would they support City programs that make housing development more accessible to small developers?
How would they balance neighborhood protection with Culver City's need for additional housing?
What does being a middle-of-the-road candidate mean to them?
These questions are not accusations.
They are opportunities for candidates to explain their priorities.
I believe voters benefit when candidates provide specific answers rather than relying on political endorsements or general campaign statements.
9. Questions for Culver City Coalition
I would also welcome answers from the Coalition itself.
What does the organization mean by “middle of the road”?
How does it determine whether a candidate represents common-sense policies?
Did it evaluate every candidate in the 2026 City Council election?
What specific positions led it to support Kimberley Kim and Jeannine Wisnosky Stehlin?
Does it support the City's investigation of the $103 million Sony property acquisition?
What development standards does it favor for the Hayden Tract?
And how does it believe Culver City should implement SB 79?
These questions matter because the Coalition has chosen to participate in elections and influence who governs our city.
Its endorsements deserve the same scrutiny as those of any other political organization.
10. Final Thoughts: The Middle Is Not a Political Club
I began this blog with a statement from Culver City Coalition's original filing:
“The goal of the Culver City Coalition is to support common sense middle of the road policies and politicians in our great city.”
I could not agree more with the general principle.
But the middle should not be defined by membership in a particular political organization, friendships with elected officials, or participation in an established political alliance.
It should be defined by a willingness to evaluate problems independently and pursue practical solutions.
Sometimes that means supporting additional housing.
Sometimes it means questioning the financial risks of a major property acquisition.
Sometimes it means protecting neighborhoods.
And sometimes it means telling people on both sides of a political debate that neither side has all the answers.
I am running for Culver City Council because I believe our city needs that kind of independent, middle-ground approach.
The irony is that Culver City Coalition was originally organized around the idea of supporting middle-of-the-road politicians, yet it has chosen to endorse other candidates.
That is its right.
But I would welcome a public explanation of how its endorsements reflect its founding mission.
Because ultimately, the question is not who gets to call themselves moderate.
The question is who is prepared to make practical, responsible, and independent decisions for Culver City.
And that is a question voters should answer for themselves on November 3.
Dr. Franklin Carvajal
Candidate for Culver City Council 2026
www.carvajalforculvercity.com
The Strange World of Politics — Asking questions, examining decisions, and demanding accountability.
0 Comments
Comments are reviewed before they appear.