My kids keep their houses reasonably presentable with little effort and seemingly little thought. So I was astonished to find my daughter reading “Talking Dirty with the Queen of Clean,” Linda Cobb’s breezy manual on how to rid your home of everything from cockroaches to hairballs.

I’m from the old school, the one that says you can handle most anything with baking soda, vinegar, club soda or lemon juice. And maybe something with enzymes for pet stains. Cobb recommends these old standbys, adds clear ammonia (sans soap), borax and hydrogen peroxide, and lists a few slightly bizarre uses for some modern brand name products.

I’m always interested in new ways to control pests without using insecticides, so I looked up the chapter titled “Bug Out-User-Friendly Pest Control.”

A substitute for insect repellent is plain old white vinegar applied to skin with a cotton ball. Much cheaper than my current favorite, Burt’s Bees Lemongrass Insect Lotion.

Cobb cautions that if you must use insect spray containing DEET, spray it on clothes instead of directly on the skin.

Full strength white vinegar also will discourage ants if wiped on counters, doors and windowsills. I’ve been using Avon’s Skin So Soft full strength in this way. If you feel compelled to actually kill ants, Cobb suggests pouring 3 gallons of boiling water down the anthill (if you can find it and it’s not too close to flowers). She adds: “Another way to kill ants is to mix a combination of 50 percent borax and 50 percent confectioner’s sugar. Place this on cardboard or a piece of board near the anthill. Ants are attracted to the sugar and carry the fatal mixture back to the nest to feed the queen.” (Do not place where children or pets may ingest it.)

Scientists have convinced me that our profligate use of antibiotic and antimicrobial products in an effort to kill all germs is probably going to kill us instead. Most germs are good, and exposure to them is essential to develop a healthy immune system. Chlorine is not so good–for the environment and us–whether used as bleach (lemon juice is better) or to kill bacteria. When it goes down the drain it kills the essential bacteria in your septic tank. And finding liquid hand soap without antibiotics these days is a challenge. Veterinarians used to use tincture of green soap, but I doubt you could find it these days, having been replaced by betadyne solution. If you must disinfect something, Cobb says mix 4 parts baking soda and 1 part borax. Store in a shaker container and use as you would any scouring powder.

Instead of using aerosol deodorizers, which mostly just cover up odors with fragrance (some as off-putting as the one you’re trying to mask), try charcoal, the kind sold for fish tanks, dry fresh coffee grounds, baking soda, dryer fabric softener sheets or wintergreen oil. If you still feel compelled to spray something, mix in a gallon jug: 1 cup baking soda, 1/4 cup clear ammonia and 1 tablespoon scented oil (your choice) with 16 cups warm water. Label and store. When needed, shake and pour into a spray bottle and mist the air to your heart’s content.

One of the brand name products Cobb recommends is Odorzout, a 100 percent natural blend of zeolite minerals safe even for cat litter boxes.

Over the years, our dogs have had many altercations with skunks, probably the most persistent noxious odor in nature. Bathing Old Blue just doesn’t cut it. Until now, the most effective remedy was to stick the dog in a large tub, saturate his hair coat with tomato juice and let it stay on for as long as you can restrain him. My Queensland heeler, whose idea of bathing was to jump in a water trough, once escaped mid-shampoo, streaking through the barnyard spraying tomato juice on the cats and leaving me looking like I’d just committed an ax murder. Now Ms. Clean Queen tells us this was all for naught. Ditch the tomato juice and instead douse the dog with a popular feminine hygiene product. (She includes the brand name–I won’t.) Do not rinse. Whew! Who would have guessed?

Talking Dirty with the Queen of Clean, Pocket Books

The purposes of The Optimist Club of Malibu, today and when it was formed in January 1960, are to develop optimism as a way of life, to promote an active interest in good government and community service activities, to inspire respect for law, to promote patriotism and to work for international accord and friendship among all people, to aid and encourage the development of youth. We believe that the giving of one’s self in service to others will advance the well-being of all people, their community and the world. As I wrote a few weeks ago our club promotes these purposes mostly by working in the local community.

The citizens of Malibu have made possible, through their generous donations, assistance to many local worthwhile causes, and, as I wrote a few weeks ago, to the national effort to assist those affected by the tragedy on the East Coast. Now, more than ever, is the time for actual and potential community leaders to join with us in our cause. Our youth, in the world, the nation and here in Malibu, are more in need than ever. We invite you to participate with us in our endeavors. In no group are you more likely to say, in looking back: “I got far more out of this than I put in.” Feel free to call me at home or office.

Bill Sampson

Others may wish to correct many of the factual errors in your recent “Charm of Charmlee Park” article, but I want to set the record straight about how Malibu came to own Charmlee, why there are restrictions on its use, and the role my wife and I played in that process.

Sandy and I became involved with Charmlee almost immediately after we moved to Malibu in 1988. We lived near it, we had been involved with parks everywhere we had lived and Charmlee was, and still is, a unique and spectacular asset. Together we created the Charmlee Nature Preserve Foundation, of which I was the founding president. The foundation continues to support and fund the public programs at Charmlee.

Charmlee was originally a part of the Los Angeles County Natural Area Park system. As the last such park to be acquired, it was the most vulnerable to closure when the county ran into severe budget problems about 1990 and was slashing its parks budget. Instead of spending time and effort on improving the public program at Charmlee, three months of every year was devoted to a lobbying campaign just to keep the Board of Supervisors from closing the park altogether.

When Malibu became a city, it presented a possible solution to Charmlee’s uncertain long-term viability. Perhaps Malibu could operate the park at a lower cost than the county and begin to establish a Malibu parks and recreation program without incurring the impossible costs of major land acquisition. Charmlee alone would not be enough to get a broad spectrum of city residents behind the idea, but a package of Charmlee, Bluffs Park and the Equestrian Center provided something for many different interest groups. The deal we proposed was that Malibu would take over operation of all three parks from the county.

This concept met the objectives of both the city council and the board of supervisors. Malibu citizens supported it and the transfer of all three parks was quickly effected under a simple operating agreement.

At the time, both the city and the county understood that an eventual transfer of full ownership of all three parks was a possibility to be worked toward, but each property had unique problems. An indication of the complexity of those issues is that ten years later, the city still doesn’t own Bluffs Park or the Equestrian Center.

Outright ownership of Charmlee might have been transferred rather quickly, except for the VMS-Anden/Banyan/Semele Rancho Malibu project nearby in Encinal Canyon. Since the city opposed the project both at the county and in the courts, and since Sandy and I were leading the community opposition groups, the project owners threatened to sue to block any transfer of ownership.

Although the city eventually dropped out of the Rancho Malibu fight, the Charmlee transfer stalemate persisted as long as our opposition to the project continued. The case against the county, with Rancho Malibu as the real party at interest, was on appeal in 1998 when Sandy and I decided to move to Santa Barbara to be closer to my job.

Before we could leave Malibu with a sense of completion, we had two pieces of unfinished business to attend to. An acceptable settlement of the Rancho Malibu litigation was needed and we wanted to leave Charmlee with strong protections against grandiose development and commercialization ideas being floated by certain elements in the city administration and citizen recreation cliques.

All the parties to the lawsuit agreed to settle the suit. One of the settlement provisions was that Rancho Malibu would not oppose a transfer of Charmlee to the city of Malibu. Another provision was that the county would make the transfer subject to certain deed restriction designed to protect its heritage as a natural area park and that the city would maintain access to the park for all, and not restrict it to city residents alone.

The restrictions were important because of the unique natural assets of Charmlee; the incredible diversity of its flora and fauna, the many threatened and endangered species found there and the spectacular view. They were also important because of the fragility of its geology. The city was not a party of the lawsuit so it had nothing to say regarding the terms of its settlement. The county did not even have to consult with the city regarding the terms of transfer, but it did, and the city council agreed to the open space and passive recreation deed restrictions. And why wouldn’t it? How often has anyone given the city 500 acres of spectacular property for free? Can you believe that some people are now complaining because they can’t trash the most incredible gift the city has ever received, or is ever likely to receive.

I can absolutely confirm that the “Russell couple” were responsible for the deed restrictions, although we had a lot of support from many others. We are immensely proud of the way we were able to protect Charmlee. A unique set of circumstances and convergent interests created the opportunity, and even the determined efforts of Laurene Sills, Christi Hogin, certain council members and others were unsuccessful in thwarting what was so obviously an incredible deal for Malibu. No city council, no mater how dismissive of the environment they may be, can undo those ironclad deed restrictions. These are not just for the “time being” as Tom Hasse suggests. They will stay with the property forever.

Unfortunately, the city has not demonstrated that it is worthy of this special gift. Its stewardship of Charmlee has been shameful. Before the voters of Malibu give the city council millions for park acquisition, they should consider carefully how it has failed with the one park it does own. In hindsight, it might have been much better if Charmlee had been transferred to the state or national park system instead. They seem to appreciate their parks. Maybe it is because they didn’t get them for free.

Paul J. Russell

SEND IN THE CLOWNS

It looked like a three-ring circus at Jane Seymour’s oceanview estate as Patch Adams and pals helped raise money for the International Toy Bank. The colorful characters came decked out in purple wigs, baggy checked pants, wide polka-dot ties, mismatched socks and clown-sized clodhoppers.

The International Toy Bank is the creation of Malibu resident Nancy Butner. In addition to teddy bears and Beanie Babies, the organization distributes badly needed medical supplies to impoverished children in such countries as Nepal, Haiti, Brazil and Romania.

Patch Adams was honored for his work with World Peace Clowns, which travels around the globe spreading joy and laughter.

“Patch has been a great mentor,” says pal Bruno the Clown. “He takes us clowns around the world to visit sick kids, poor kids, deprived kids, underprivileged kids, forgotten children, and we just see their faces light up.”

Bruno is quick to point out the healing power of humor, saying, in light of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, it is needed now more than ever.

“We’re not just going to keep our red noses in our pockets because of tough times,” he explains. “Laughter is therapy. It brings people out of their sorrow and is the best medicine you can get.”

RIDE ON, DUDE

Modern day Moondoggies and Gidgets gathered at Granita for the Surfrider Foundation’s 5th annual Save the Malibu fundraiser. They came in all their puka shell finery sporting summer tans, bleached blond tresses and the very latest in haute Hawaiian wear. In between bites of Wolfgang Puck pizza and sips of asparagus soup, Surfrider supporters browsed a silent auction, which appropriately featured items such as a Pepto Bismo pink Kayak and a 1972 signed Sonny Vaderman board. Following a gourmet dinner, David Carradine picked a few numbers on his Gibson guitar while a performance artist painted ever-changing scenes on an oversized plastic canvas.

Surfrider celebrated its success as a local organization that took off and now has 28,000 members and dozens of chapters worldwide.

“The secret is people power,” says Surfrider’s Chris Evans. “We’re grass roots. We’re people who live at the beach and want to protect what we have.”

Co-Chairman Hersh Farberow agrees. “We’re a symbol to the world. If Malibu doesn’t have clean water, what does that say?”

In addition to cleaning up local beaches, Surfrider’s latest focus is opposing the Ahmanson Ranch development project, which, it says, will introduce all sorts of waste, dust and silt into the environment.

As Surfrider sees it, clean oceans and beaches have never been more important. Says Evans, “We live in a different world now. We really need to protect what we have for our spirits and our souls. We need to create a place that’s clean and keep it clean for future generations.”

Last week you reported that the City Council blamed the Malibu Township Council for the Malibu Local Coastal Plan written by the Coastal Commission. Let’s put the record straight. MTC’s lawsuit was filed many months after the State Legislature passed a special law, AB988, giving jurisdiction to the Coastal Commission to write the Malibu LCP. The subject of MTC’s lawsuit is the lack of public participation and notice in preparation of the City’s “Hogin” draft LCP. Contrary to erroneous allegations, MTC has never advocated, condoned or supported any LCP other than the one prepared by the Malibu consultant and Council appointed LCP Committee.

The time for the City to act was before the Legislature made its decision — but the bill passed with no recorded opposition. A draft LCP prepared by the City’s consultant and LCP committee was submitted by the Planning Director to the Coastal staff for comment in March 2000, five months before AB988 was considered. If the Council had used that draft LCP to prove to the legislators pushing the bill that a Malibu LCP had already been prepared and submitted, the City might not be in the position it is now. Why wasn’t it done? Probably because a new City Council was elected in April 2000, and a new Planning Director was hired who had no coastal experience. He told the Council Land Use Committee that he did not support the 2000 draft. We believe that opinion reached Coastal staff who weren’t about to waste their funds evaluating an LCP the Council would not support. Coastal regulations establish a procedure for responding to a city’s draft LCP. It is a negotiation process with Coastal recommending modifications and the City stating what they are willing to include. LA County took four years to complete this process with their 1986 LCP. Malibu could have been in the second year of negotiation with the 2000 draft LCP, instead of just starting the process with the Coastal Commission’s LCP which no one really wanted.

There are portions of the Coastal Commission’s LUP we oppose and hope to change. The Crummer site adjacent to Bluff Park was rezoned CV-2 allowing a hotel. However, it is in an earthquake zone and we expect that fact will preclude a hotel. Mr. Hasse’s comment that the Coastal Commission LCP is a return to County zoning is far from true. For example, the zoning Coastal gave the Chili Cook-Off site provides for less intense use than the Malibu General Plan which gave it the most intense commercial zoning (CG), which allows motels.

As for Councilmember Kearsley’s quotes from Frank Angel’s letter written on behalf of MTC–that was a recitation of AB988, the current law. MTC did not make that law. But once it was enacted, the City might have been in a better position to negotiate with the Coastal Commission if it had cooperated with the process instead of getting in their face with the “Hogin” draft, written by staff with no public participation.

MTC has and always will advocate local control. For over 50 years, MTC has been doing just that.

Efrom Fader, vice president

Malibu Township Council