This is a response to “Can’t sidestep the dog issue,” and I do hope it gets published, for I know a lot of Malibu Road residents have written letters to your newspaper and did not get published. You must be fair.

You mean everyone is badmouthing two people who don’t like dogs on Malibu Rd.? This is not badmouthing, it is the truth, they are not made up stories. Contrary to your belief, all of us dog owners know the laws, we would be the biggest fools not to clean up our expensive backyards, not only do we clean up after our dogs, we clean up after visitor dogs. Even prior to this madness, residents of the road were united in an effort to educate visitor dog walkers, we posted signs along the road informing them of the law and the fines.

You said it yourself, the “public” parking lot at Zuma. This is a different issue, these are our homes, and we take pride in our neighborhood, perhaps you should talk to your neighbor, as the saying goes, you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

L. P. Lerner

City attorney shift

There’s a bunch of things going on at City Hall, not the least of which is that the council in a 3-2 vote just decided to give a 60-day termination notice to their city attorney, Steven Amerikaner, and hire instead the newly formed law firm of Jenkins and Hogin. The Jenkins, of course, is our first city attorney, Michael Jenkins, formerly a partner of the firm of Richards, Watson and Gershon but now struck out on his own. His partner, both in business and in life, the Hogin of Jenkins and Hogin, is our former city attorney and present Interim City Manager Christi Hogin, who is anxious to get back to lawyering and out of the city-managing business. The vote was not unanimous with both Mayor Tom Hasse and Mayor Pro Tem Joan House in opposition — not so much because of the change but more because they felt it was done in too much of a hurry and should have gone out to bid (or at least that’s what they’re saying publicly). It apparently wasn’t Amerikaner, whom they all appear to respect, but maybe more a question of costs. However, what has become more apparent with each passing week is that Councilmembers Sharon Barovsky and Ken Kearsley are on one side, and Hasse and House are on the other. Councilmember Jeff Jennings appears to be the man in the middle, who sometimes goes this way and sometimes that. Other opposition to the new city attorney, primarily in the form of letters to the editor, appears to be coming from the usual suspects who were instrumental in pushing Hogin out last time as the city attorney and don’t seem too happy about her return.

Bond committee splitting

The Ad Hoc Citizens Committee, push for a $15 million bond issue to buy public open space has been meeting regularly. At the last meeting, Ozzie Silna, a member of the committee and the major financial backer of Proposition P in the last election, announced that the Wetlands people who have been a significant part of the bond committee were backing off and going to take a less-public role. Essentially, they were fearful that the wetlands issue might detract from the coalition’s ability to get the two-thirds vote necessary to pass the bond. One of the primary goals is to get new ball fields, and their backing off was described as a generous gesture to make it easier to pass the bond issue. HoweverBeneath the surface was a much touchier issue. It’s been rumored for quite some time that the Wetlands people — or perhaps someone on their behalf — were going to file a lawsuit against the city in connection with Prop. P, which passed in the last election but had 100 or so fewer Yes votes then Proposition N, which supposedly knocked Prop. P out. Or so they said. The bond coalition was fearful that if the Wetlands people finally decided to sue the city, it would spell doom for the bond issue. Now everyone will have to wait and see if the Wetlands withdrawal was truly just a generous gesture to help the bond pass, or just a strategic preliminary move before filing a lawsuit.

Growth of government-funded faith-based charity

I recently attended a conference at Pepperdine University called “Faith and Public Policy” that was intended to examine the roll of “faith-based” organizations in the Bush administration’s national thrust to deliver more of our social services through churches and other nongovernmental and frequently religion-based organizations. With the welfare reform of a few years ago, the burden of maintaining a safety net is falling more often on private religious institutions, much as they did throughout this nation’s history. Typically, they deliver services more cheaply and efficiently than do many of the larger public bureaucracies. However, there are some significant costs. Some argue that it is part of the steady chipping away of the constitutional separation of church and state, which in the long run is bad for the state and even worse for the church. In a multicultural society like ours, if the government begins to fund the activities of religious institutions, those groups that are funded begin to show up at the polls to support the candidates that fund. Keeping certain people in office becomes, they believe, the godly thing to do — which makes many people very, very nervous, including me. Having spent many years covering politics and politicians, I can say one thing about almost all politicals: If there is one thing they ain’t, it’s godly. There was never a politician alive that didn’t want to put God onto his campaign committee, and if he can do it at public expense that’s even better. So, for many of us, the jury is out on faith-based funding from the government. And the real question for the churches is: No matter how pure your intentions are, can you take their money without getting corrupted?

I live on Malibu Road, recently unofficially designated Dog Poop Capital of the World. Since this topic seems to inspire so much local passion, I thought a few statistics I compiled would be of interest.

Of the 250 homes along Malibu Road, one in three have a dog in residence. That makes 83.33 dogs. Of course, some people are multiple dog owners, so I round that figure up to 113.22 dogs. Now most dogs, if my own dog can serve as a research topic, poop three times a day. Each poop weighs eight ounces. (I weigh my dog’s poop, to keep track of his health.) My dog is a large dog, so his poops obviously weigh more than those of a very small dog, so I average it out to 3.45 ounces of poop per dog, three times a day. The 10.35 ounces of poop per day, times 365 days per year (dog pooping has no holidays) equals 3,777.75 ounces or 236.11 pounds per dog per year.

So 113.32 dogs leave 26,755.99 pounds –13-plus tons — of dog poop a year on the two-mile stretch of Malibu Road, which nobody ever picks up.

Funny I never noticed.

Kerstin Egger

I feel very strongly that the new Malibu Pier should not be for the exclusive use of fishermen. I do not want to see fish blood and beheading of the poor creatures all over the pier. Seeing them flopping around in buckets is disgusting. The place gets filthy because the fishermen do not clean up, and the railings and planks get sticky and dirty with the leftover remnants of dead fish. How about having the pier stay fresh and clean and exclusively for family activities, not fish killing and beheading?

Susan M. Tellem

Your March 1 editorial about the steelhead I found very amusing and very factual.

I must add that it is very unlikely that a carat gold fish or a sterling silver fish would even come close to that amount, $4,200.

Keep up the good work.

E. Reta Templeman

I want to thank Richard Schaefer for his very insightful letter. When I read it, I felt as though I was reading some of my own thoughts!

A few weeks ago a friend of mine emailed an article by a Nashville-based writer and activist, Tim Wise (who can be reached at tjwise@mindspring.com). He was commenting on the recent shootings by teens and his opinions are shared by me. I would like to quote some of his article:

“I said this after Columbine and no one listened so I’ll say it again — white people live in an utter state of self-delusion. We think danger is black, brown and poor, and if we can just move far enough away from ‘those people’ in the cities we’ll be safe. If we can just find an ‘all-American’ town, life will be better, because ‘things like this just don’t happen here.’

“I’ll tell you what went wrong and it’s not TV, rap music, video games or a lack of prayer in school. What went wrong is that white Americans decided to ignore dysfunction and violence when it only affected other communities, and thereby blinded themselves to the inevitable creeping of chaos which never remains isolated too long. What affects the urban ‘ghetto’ today will be coming to a Wal-Mart near you tomorrow, and unless you address the emptiness, pain, isolation and lack of hope felt by children of color and the poor, then don’t be shocked when the support systems aren’t there for your kids either.

“Listen up, my fellow white Americans. Your children are no better, no nicer, no more moral, no more decent than anyone else. Dysfunction is all around you whether you choose to recognize it or not. …”

When I look around at this beautiful paradise called Malibu, I also see the graffiti on the reflector poles, and hear the “get out of my way bitch” as high school kids speed 50 miles an hour up a blind curve street marked 15 miles per hour (not caring if they kill wildlife) So nothing is perfect — not even Malibu/paradise. But perhaps as more awareness reaches the “not my kid” populace, more will be done to encourage true communication in the family and a respect for life. I admire journalists such as Tim Wise and people like Mr. Schaefer who seem to at least care!

Alessandra DeClario

In March 1999, the Crummer Trust filed a Tentative Tract Map with the City of Malibu seeking approval of eight custom home lots on 24.9 acres. The RR-2 zoning assigned to the Crummer property in the General Plan permitted 12 dwellings. The application I filed as agent for the Crummer Trust was in compliance with the General Plan and municipal ordinances.

In October 1999, Roy Crummer was asked by a City Council member if he would consider making a charitable gift of land to the municipality sufficient in size to accommodate the sports fields and parking the city was going to lose at the Malibu Bluffs State Park as a result of the city’s ground lease expiring in April 2002. If the Crummer family would do this, the city would enter into a Development Agreement with the Crummer Trust awarding it vested entitlements. The councilmember felt certain a majority of the council would uphold this proposal. A public opinion poll of registered Malibu voters in 1998 indicated by a margin of 51 percent to 39 percent that local citizens would support the city entering into a development agreement with property owners of undeveloped property whenever public benefits like land for sports fields could be acquired at no cost.

In response to this request, the Crummer Trust submitted a revised Tentative Tract Map to the city in December 1999 showing where a Little League baseball diamond, a Pony League baseball field, and a soccer field for the children of Malibu could be located without harming the market value of Crummer’s property, provided the city agreed to certain restrictions. Did the city have to agree to award Crummer more than eight houses to get the land gift? No. Crummer asked for no more than what the Interim Zoning Ordinance permitted on eight three-acre minimum-sized lots. That is what Crummer was entitled to if no gift of land had been made. Crummer neither sought nor was offered any exceptions or variances from existing general regulations. The city was giving nothing away.

Did the city propose to back off on requiring Crummer to pay for essential environmental impact report studies? No. Crummer was required to do costly geology, seismic, soils, water, waste management, slope stability, hydrology, drainage, traffic and plant, and animal habitat studies.

Isn’t the Crummer site impacted by three active earthquake faults? How can the city permit houses to be built on seismically endangered land? To address that matter, the city geologist specified the depth and the breadth of the geologic studies that Crummer would have to undertake. Three sizable trenches were dug across the Crummer property to allow licensed geologists, including the city and state geologist, to enter the trenches and examine any observable fractures in the soil. Two were found. But the ruptures were embedded in soils that were more than 30,000 years old. It was clear to all that the faults were inactive. They represented no risk to development.

Won’t the irrigation of city sports fields and the eight Crummer lots contribute to undermining the earth and the movement of Malibu Road and the houses along it toward the sea? Geology studies on the Crummer site reveal bedrock slopes toward Pacific Coast Highway and not toward the sea. Furthermore, the city engineer is requiring Crummer to develop a drainage system that will collect and filter water to conduct it harmlessly from the site, protecting surrounding properties. Wastewater will be collected and piped to an on-site package sewer plant where it will be treated and re-used to irrigate the city sports fields as well as the eight residential lots. There is no environmental problem with the site that cannot be mitigated to the city’s satisfaction.

Why does the Ad Hoc Committee of the City Council believe the community will support a development agreement with the Crummer Trust? The public is receiving a gift of 7.2 acres at no cost for replacing sports fields at Malibu Bluffs State Park, and Crummer is getting no more than the right to develop eight lots on a site that qualified for 12 lots under the RR-2 zone. The city is requiring Crummer to comply with all existing general regulations. If the city rejects Crummer’s generous donation of park land, the city would have to look elsewhere for comparable acreage which it has been unable to find. The Crummer Trust would continue processing its subdivision plan for approval without any direct land benefits accruing to the city. There is no sensible reason for this mutual arrangement to be opposed.

Thomas Ashley Agent for the Crummer Trust

Since the great cost of removing the Rindge Dam in Malibu Canyon is a subject its advocates seldom acknowledge, here are some actual and potential benefits of leaving the Rindge Dam standing guard over this unique wilderness area:

1. Preservation of the dam protects a multimillion-dollar asset of the taxpayer and conserves $40 million or more of taxpayer funds anticipated to remove it; 2. Maintains the half-mile-long aquifer behind the dam holding 10 million gallons of water; 3. Dam and reservoir could be rehabilitated and serve as a back-up water supply to the City of Malibu, thereby maintaining historic water rights of Malibu; 4. Keeping the existing aquifer behind the dam would not lower the water table in the steep canyon walls, which could possibly upset the present geologic equilibrium causing a catastrophic collapse of Malibu Canyon Road; 5. Using the dam as a giant catch-basin to trap toxic chemical or sewage spills or tainted runoff from the upper watershed (note this use, Heal the Bay, Surfrider Foundation, et. al); 6. Maintain the wetland above the aquifer behind the dam and possibly enhance this wetland by simply adding flash boards where the spillway gates once existed; and, 7. Potential tapping of the aquifer behind the dam for fire repression or filling of fire department pumper tanks in the middle of the mountains rather than having to go to the coast or upper watershed to refill pumper tanks at time of recurring fire incidents.

Those wishing to tear down the dam give little credence to the above uses and do not want to talk about the dam as a guardian of a rich wilderness area now unfit for animal, aquatic or plant life. The dam is a formidable obstacle discouraging humans from traversing the canyon which has hazards such as snake bites, poison oak or slip and fall injuries sustained in this rugged area not amenable to quick rescue of injured hikers. More humans hiking in the canyon presents an awesome fire danger to hikers and downwind property owners if a hiker tosses a lit cigarette into the brush or fails to fully extinguish an illegal camp fire. Finally, to tear down the dam is to destroy this engineering marvel of the SMMNRA and violate laws protecting this historic property with ties to the landmark Adamson House at Malibu Lagoon.

Ronald L. Rindge