STOP is a PAC that was registered last week to defeat several front-running candidates. If past elections are any indication, a video or CD will likely be in your mail boxes soon, but too late for any response from those it will attack. Videos have been effective in the past, but the community of Malibu deserves better than expensive fear-mongering commercials that attack, lie and mislead.

I have not seen the video but I am sure it will attempt to cast me and others as “pro-development schemers” who care nothing about increasing traffic on PCH, protecting wetlands or our environment. I have been castigated already as “dealing with the devil” for having sat on a council-majority approved ad hoc committee for 11 months with the Malibu Bay Company. In fact, Tom Hasse and I were doing everything that is humanly possible in the negotiation of words — pushing, pulling and cajoling the Bay Company to provide amenities for the city via a development proposal.

The development proposal is only an option for the community’s consideration, not a done deal. I have said all along that this proposal should be brought to the public for its approval. I also support a thorough Environmental Impact Report.

The truth behind the video is that the initiators are motivated less by a desire to serve the whole community but more by a desperate attempt to maintain control over the Malibu City Council and its commissions so they can continue to dictate their personal, as well as political, will.

Now, you must ask yourselves, what is the truth? Is Joan House a pro-development sellout? My response to that is — if I were, I would not have been given the endorsements of people like Jeff Kramer, Harry Barovsky, Leon Cooper, Frank Basso, Bill and Fini Littlejohn, Les Moss, Sherman Baylin, Mary Frampton and Fran Pavley, to name just a few. These local political and environmental activists have always fought for the protection of the environment and slow growth.

The bottom line is this. It’s time to stop name calling and fear mongering. Let’s work together toward solutions of the problems that we now face using the resources that we now have. Imagine what we could accomplish if we could but work together.

Joan House

city councilwoman

Save Malibu for Malibu. I heard these words this weekend on television under the presentation of a political campaign by Councilman Keller of our city of Malibu. What came to mind when hearing those words was, what does Save Malibu for Malibu mean? Who are you saving our fair city for? After nine years on the Council, the city of Malibu is getting deeper and deeper into one crisis after another, and the people of Malibu are being left out of this mix. We do not have the following: A new City Hall Building, resurfaced roads, meeting rooms, a nice hotel (with all the trimmings), senior citizens/teen center, sheriff’s station, disability ramps (for sidewalks) and more. A city needs services provided to its citizens by the City Council.

After watching some televised political forums (PACs and the Malibu Township Council) I have come to the conclusion that three of the candidates are saying the same thing and appear to be willing to work together for the sake of the citizens, the numerous projects (that are now in the pipeline) for the council to act upon in a reasonable efficient manner. The three candidates that would be an asset to the community are Jeff Jennings, Joan House and Ken Kearsley.

Remember, there are six candidates for the three City Council positions. It is up to you to put the three who will be able to complete each project in an effective manner with city staff and interagency (county, state and federal), so reasonableness is returned to this small metropolis.

Remember this is our city. Vote on April 11, 2000, with me for three candidates who will accomplish this tremendous task of putting the city on a positive, reasonable, achievable plane.

Marilyn Santman

Regarding the letter last week criticizing Malibu Homeowners for Reform, Julie Steinberg’s comment “When I looked at the public benefits they are giving, I didn’t see any benefits for me … I’m not a senior citizen, nor a teen …I don’t have kids. So what’s my benefit? All I see for me…” This “me only attitude” is contemptible. Malibu would be a richer place without people who are zealous about ensuring that the lives of children, teens and senior citizens are not improved. This is such an immoral position that one has to wonder how they became so selfish that they are proud to announce it and flaunt their lack of civic mindedness, compassion or concern for their neighbors.

The letter has several false allegations that confirm the author was writing political copy. Our licensed contractors are experts in the building code and believe Malibu homes would be safer if the city applied reasonable state standards and if building department inspectors had a friendly relationship with the public. The current antagonism between the two has only produced widespread bootlegging. We believe it is possible to restore the positive communications between homeowners and inspectors that existed before Proposition 13 when cities began treating permits as a source of revenue to make up for tax shortages.

Regarding the old “developer” attack, this reform movement has a vitality of its own and is far removed from developers. As the founder of Malibu Homeowners for Reform, my only previous political experience was as a community organizer for Treepeople for five years where I devoted my time to planting trees in schoolyards and neighborhoods all over Los Angeles and raising funds for tree planting. When I began hearing friends’ stories of the city’s Gestapo tactics against them for minor code issues, I rallied to their defense. Being a part of this effort and the outpouring of public support have confirmed my belief that we can have a beautiful environment in Malibu and still respect people’s right to privacy in their homes.

Anne Hoffman

Timing in elections, as in real life, is everything. I said, not long ago, that I would never again contribute anything to your Letters to the Editor section, unmindful of the admonition, “Never say never.” Perhaps I should have said I would limit myself to one each millennium — unless sorely provoked. But let us get back to the subject of timing.

Jeff Jennings, as a notable example, is a master of timing. Jennings, shortly before the April 1998 Malibu election, filed with the California Fair Political Practices Commission a complaint regarding the Malibu Citizens for Less Traffic newspaper ads about his and other council persons’ voting records on development issues. Next, he went to the press with his complaint just before election day — early enough to gain maximum political advantage and late enough to prevent effective response.

Two years have now passed in the FPPC investigation of Jennings’ 1998 election complaint. No charges have ever been made, and late last year the original FPPC investigator was removed from the case. But the file in this long dormant investigation, which the FPPC should have been able to wrap up with perhaps two months (not years) investigation in 1998, remains technically open. This, most convenient for Mr. Jennings, enabled him once again to make political use of his 1998 election complaint two years later, less than two weeks before the April 2000 election.

Does this chain of circumstances provoke any concern or suspicion? In my view, especially sinister and frightening is the chill on exercise of First Amendment rights to exchange information and opinions on public issues and the boost to Jennings’ political campaign caused by Big Brother California FPPC’s threat of prosecution of Malibu citizens posed by its expressed interest in investigating associations of people and the specific wording and factual accuracy of ads place by them respecting local Malibu issues. Who appointed the California FPPC as thought police over Malibu’s city elections, anyway?

Artfully timed, but much cruder (they are not lawyers, after all) is the March 30 Malibu Homeowners for Reform’s reprehensible piece of hate literature, which is too full of new deliberate falsehoods for detailed item by item response in these last days before the election. I’ll just take one, the lead item in MHR’s March 30 ad.

Charge: “Van Horn has an illegal, unpermitted second kitchen in her home.”

(Based on city of Malibu letter to council candidate Carolyn Van Horn, dated November 2,1993, requesting removal of second stove.)

Fact: The stove was promptly (in a matter of days) removed in 1993, and was replaced by a hot plate, permitted in the “Granny” portion of the premises then used by Carolyn’s mother, which are now occupied by Carolyn’s legally blind son. Any honest objections?

Do the good but mean-spirited folks at MHR really expect anyone to believe the Malibu Code Enforcement Officers took no action for over six years? Would you buy a used car from anyone so free with the truth? Following the advice of people like this as to who you should vote for could cost each of us in Malibu a lot more than what one might lose on an MHR used car.

Art London

I am writing to ask for your support for Jeff Jennings, candidate for Malibu City Council. I believe him to be a man of high honesty and integrity who symbolizes the kind of community I want to live in.

When I moved to Malibu seven years ago, I was a young mother of two, following my husband, Mike, to his new position as principal of Malibu High School. It was an exciting opportunity, but I had doubts about the move. I was concerned about raising my two little boys in what I perceived to be a shallow, materialistic town. However, I found Malibu to be a warm, close community with many families who hold their children’s education and quality of life to be of the utmost importance. I felt fortunate to be able to send my two boys to Malibu schools and participate in sports and other community programs. I met Jeff Jennings in his role as a leader in starting the high school and serving on its governance council through good and difficult times.

In 1997, my younger son, Sean, died suddenly in an accident. I was overwhelmed by the outpouring of friendship and support that came from many in Malibu who didn’t even know us. Jeff and his wife, Kris, were among those who offered support. I was more convinced than ever that this was home, that I would never find a more caring community.

However, I have been dismayed to find that city government has not reflected these values of care for children and families. I have been appalled by less-than-honest election tactics and representatives who appear to look backward to some “ideal” Malibu of old that no longer exists. The “new” Malibu is vibrant and alive with children and young families filling our schools and parks. With the opening of Point Dume Marine Science Elementary School, where I currently teach fifth grade, our former community center has had to restrict its programming, affecting children and seniors, and further restricting our park space. Jeff has been in the forefront in advocating a new community center that would serve not only seniors and children but our growing population of teens in need of a safe place. These youth, although not voters, are a constituency we cannot afford to ignore.

The kind of bickering and animosity that has characterized city government does not reflect the values of neighborliness and community that I know to be those of my fellow Malibu citizens. I believe that Jeff Jennings does embody those values and has proved that in his many civic activities, including helping to found and lead the high school to its current status and in his service to the Malibu Little League and AYSO. He has been unfairly labeled as “pro-growth” because of his attempts to be reasonable, fair and effective with people of diverse interests. His reputation as a mediator and leader is unparalleled.

We 0need a council member who looks forward to the future and has the skills, intelligence and honesty to make good decisions for everyone. Please join me in supporting Jeff Jennings on April 11.

Kelley Matthews

Time has passed quickly during my two years on the City Council. It remains my honor to serve you by governing Malibu by getting results.

Next Tuesday, we go to the polls to vote for three of six candidates running for City Council. I urge you to vote for John Wall, Joan House and Ken Kearsley. I also urge you to vote Yes on Measure A, a two-term limit on future city council members so we never have to face this type of election again.

Malibu must have the courage to change the composition of the City Council next Tuesday if we’re ever going to get beyond ceaseless argumentation and ideological litmus tests. No-growth extremism is as dangerous to Malibu as pro-growth extremism because both lead to the same result: high-density commercial development.

By now, most of you know that Council Member House and myself have negotiated a proposed development agreement with the Malibu Bay Company. That agreement will be the subject of public hearings in about a month. It reduces by 75 percent the MBC’s potential commercial development under the city’s existing Interim Zoning Ordinance and General Plan. It provides a $21.5 million gift of 19-acres at Point Dume and the construction of a 15,000-square-foot senior-teen community center and three sports fields there. It provides another 26 acres of permanent open space at Trancas and in the Civic Center, including the two-acre, scientifically-confirmed wetlands. It also enacts a 10-year moratorium on the development of the 19-acre Chili Cook-off property. This allows those who claim they can raise the millions of dollars needed to buy the property 10 years to do so.

Unfortunately, a couple of incumbent candidates are now promising no development in the Civic Center — period. That, my fellow Malibuites, is a legal and financial impossibility. Not only does the MBC own about 40 acres of vacant property in the Civic Center, but four other property owners own about another 50 acres of commercially zoned, vacant property. That’s 90 acres, valued at about $750,000-$1 million per acre according to independent real estate appraisers. The city of Malibu, with an annual budget of about $13 million cannot even begin to afford the purchase of the Chili Cook-off property alone, much less all 90 acres of vacant Civic Center property. Federal and state grants take years to apply for, process and, if awarded, disburse, and many require willing sellers and a local match.

Sadly, these same two candidates, as eight and 10-year incumbents, have failed to solve this problem over the decade/near-decade they’ve been on City Council. There would be no need for our proposed development agreement in 2000 to cut back MBC’s potential commercial development by 75 percent, gift us a community center, sports fields, open space or preserve wetlands if these two incumbents had worked with their numerous colleagues over the years (Harlow, House, Barovsky or yours truly) to solve these land use and recreation & parks issues at any time between 1992 and today.

Ask yourself: Who voted for the General Plan (1995) and IZO (1993) that set the current commercial build-out densities? Why isn’t permit streamlining done? Other cities do it. It’s not that hard. Who campaigned on it in 1996, then voted against making it a top priority in 1999? Why did it take nine years to do a simple economic plan for the city? Who delayed it and repeatedly voted against it, claiming it was going to be some secret pro-development manual? What two “citizen”-politicians supported term limits in 1992, then voted as two-term incumbents against letting Malibu voters decide the term limits issue for themselves in 2000?

I, for one, am tired of being called a “traitor” and “sell-out” by these same two incumbents and their small band of no-growth followers who get mad at anyone who doesn’t follow their ideologically rigid mindset. People don’t live their daily lives in some ideological fantasyland. And it’s no way to govern a city. We’re a municipal government organized under the laws of the United States and the state of California with about $12 million -$13 million in revenues annually.

It brings me no joy to say this, and how I wish both incumbents had decided not to run again. It would have saved many people, including me, from having to publicly oppose their re-election. They will always be owed the thanks of a grateful community for helping to found the city of Malibu.

But for the good of Malibu, enough is enough. To lead is to choose. Join me in choosing John Wall, Joan House and Ken Kearsley next Tuesday. Together, we’ll get your local government working right, solve these and other problems that have been festering for years, and take the city of Malibu into the 21st century.

Tom Hasse

city councilmember

Jon Robin Baitz’s “Mizlansky/Zilinksy” begins with a paraphrase of Genesis. Like so much in Hollywood, the paraphrase may bring in the audience, but it muffles the effect of the original story.

There is one moment in the play, however, when one man “does the right thing” even though it will scuttle his financial salvation. Too bad this moment is brief and unresolved.

The play’s exposition is revealed by two showbiz types lunching on Thai-Mex cuisine. Lionel the actor (Richard Kline) and Alan the writer (George Wyner) gossip about Mizlansky (Michael Lerner) and Zilinksy (David Groh), former business partners who made 1960s “B” movies. The IRS has come knocking, and Mizlansky is proposing a tax shelter trafficking in “B” movies of Bible stories.

Meanwhile, at his granite-and-glass home, Mizlansky plots his financial recovery. He is tethered by voices of restraint from his lawyer (Maury Ginsberg) and his gofer (Will McCormack), and prodded by the Oklahoman head of an investment consortium (Wayne Rogers).

Thusly set up, the story inches forward, crowded with references to L.A. and its lifestyle, so crowded that one wonders whether it could play in Pomona, let alone Peoria. Hollywood clichs, anti-Semitism, homophobia, superficial chit-chat and overarching Biblical references mix well but don’t propel this unfocused work.

Some of the dialogue takes place via speakerphone and, not surprisingly, is made incomprehensible, not because of low volume but because of the nature of speakerphones. It makes a funny, momentary gag, but an audience should not struggle to hear large portions of dialogue.

When Mizlansky and Zilinsky first appear together onstage, they stand in one corner of the stage, not moving, not even swapping places. It looks like a Vaudeville routine, minus the jokes. Lines seem to be repeated, possibly to make sure the audience “gets” it, but it makes Lerner seem to have lost his place.

Kline plays only the superficialities of his character. Still, in combination with direction and writing, his Lionel is the only character to stand up for his beliefs and walk out on cash. The Oklahoman money source says he wants to see the other players in the deal “Jew” him out of a fee. The rest will swallow the insult, but not Lionel. It is at that point the play becomes something universally meaningful and touching. For those other characters, however, who make their own bigoted statements, including, “The goyim love this crap,” it may be cosmic karma.

The thoughtful sets (Karyl Newman) and lighting (Geoff Korf) evoke additional scorn for L.A. Before the play even begins, a boxed palm tree laden with white twinkle lights is also uplit in hot pink. The buildings are steely, stony, artistic industrial-style cold. So program notes indicating the action takes place in L.A. are superfluous, at least for this audience.

Simultaneously attracting and distracting, however, are the floor-to-ceiling windows at the back of Mizlansky’s living room, which look upon a panorama of Century City. When the play slackens, one’s eye is drawn to the familiar buildings.

To top off his insults to L.A. theater, Baitz has a character refer to the works of Tom Stoppard as “very frothy.” By the play’s end, one can’t help but feel Baitz is a pot calling the whole foundry black.

“Mizlansky/Zilinksy” runs through April 23 at the Geffen Playhouse, 10886 Le Conte Ave., Westwood Village. Tel. 310.208.5454.

After reading the campaign literature mailed to me by certain incumbent City Council members I had to write this letter. These council members claim to favor streamlining the permit process for homeowners. It is odd that they would discuss this now, right before the election, when they have had years to address the problem.

I built my home while Malibu was still under the county. The permit process was a nightmare. I wanted to build a 2500-square-foot house on a flat one-acre property. It took years, but I got it done. I voted for cityhood. I am not a proponent of development. I don’t want hotels, condos, department stores or 15,000-square-foot, four-story mansions on quarter-acre lots. But people should be able to do reasonable things with their properties.

In 1996, my parents, both retired, decided to build a granny cottage on the property. There was nothing unusual, 750 square feet and a garage, no variances and a flat lot. The process took three years. Besides the incredible red tape, there were endless requests for more sets of plans, misfiled or lost documents (the city’s mistake) that sent my father all over town, from the architect’s office in Hollywood to the Coastal Commission in Ventura and many repeat waits in line at Planning and Building & Safety. Finally the permit was issued. However when the foundation was staked out, we found that the orientation of the house was not right (our mistake). Rotating the house, without moving its location or changing its height, was the best solution. A simple thing, or so we thought. We were told to go back to the Coastal Commission and start the permit process over. My mother joked that they would be dead before the house was building. The process was “expedited.” Coastal approval took two weeks. The city of Malibu took four months. Thousands of dollars in fees. Finally we had the permit. A time for rejoicing. So we thought. We broke ground the beginning of February 2000. The same week, my father was diagnosed with cancer and operated on. As of this writing he has one or two weeks to live. He has never seen the house. We wanted to bring him out here a couple of weeks ago but he was too weak to make the 35 mile car trip. Now, in his lucid moments, that are getting fewer, he asks me about the progress of the house and expresses regret that he won’t be able to enjoy it. I guess the joke’s on us. What was to be a happy retirement home will now be a painful reminder.

If a reasonable system were in place, the permit process could have taken six months. The construction will take about six months. My father could have enjoyed the house for 2-1/2 years. The City Council has shown no desire to streamline the process. For them, the slower the better. If you are rich or powerful, you can hire attorneys and “expediters” who will speed the process, the rest of us be damned. I fear that if this letter is printed, I may be subject to retribution by the city, as the house is not finished. However, when I read that campaign literature, it made my stomach turn and I knew I had to say something.

David S. Lamont

Editor’s note: We are informed that Mr. Lamont’s father, Herbert Barry Lamont, died April 2, at his home in Gardena. He was 71.