[Your recent] page one article, “Vegging out in Malibu” [May 6] — your glowing story about 2-year-old company “Ceres, Ink” renting space at HRL Labs in Malibu and creating genetically engineered tomatoes and other food products — was surprisingly unbalanced for The Malibu Times.

I love this community for many reasons: the beauty of nature, the level of education of its people, our desire to be informed, our love of the environment and commitment to family and community. We in Malibu who consider ourselves “environmentalists” must be aware of the debate over the emerging “Biotech Century.” Its scientists wish to create drought resistant, pesticide resistant, giant vegetables. We must ask all the right questions and evaluate the long-term consequences.

In his new book, “Biotech Century,” Jeremy Rifkin warns us that “Genetic Pollution” is likely to pose at least as significant a threat to the biosphere in the coming century as petrochemicals have in the current century.

Molecular biologists and industry spokespersons (for Monsanto and other giant transnational companies) argue that genetic engineering will have no harmful environmental consequences. The skepticism occurs because there is not a single instance in human history in which the introduction of a major technological innovation has had only benign consequences for the natural world.

Perhaps our local “Ceres” will create the perfect tomato and even improve upon God’s creation, all while employing many people. However, considering the high-risk consequences of our decisions over how we grow the food that feeds our species, and considering that this new era of agricultural biotechnology has few guidelines and virtually no idea of the potential outcomes to our children and our planet, we at least should raise the right questions and create a more informed discussion.

Bonnie Reiss,

founder of ECO and Malibu citizen

I did something this week I very seldom do.

I attended a City Council meeting. Actually, this was more than an ordinary City Council meeting. This was a combined meeting of the Malibu City Council and the Malibu Planning Commission. The council’s purpose was to consider the new hillside ordinance, and I guess the Planning Commission was there, since they developed the ordinance, so the council could hear it directly from the horse’s mouth, so to speak.

Generally, I just watch these things on cable, so at least when things bog down, I can change channels and watch a beer commercial for a while to hear some stimulating dialogue. But I decided this time that watching it on TV was the chicken way out and that I owed you, my readers, the story straight and unvarnished, direct from the combat zone, warts and all.

So I dutifully reported to the auditorium at Hughes Research Laboratory at 6:30 sharp Monday night. Although my intentions were proper, the human body can stand only so much. By 7:30, my stomach was sour, and I began to think a civilized council would at least sell beer at the meetings like they do at the ballpark. By 8:30 the bile was in my throat, and I began to wonder whether I really cared about you all that much. By 9 p.m., I decided the hell with you all, I’m going home. If you want to know what went on, go see for yourself, if you have the stomach for it.

So based upon my 2-1/2 painfully long hours at the scene, I’m passing on to you my impressions of the meeting.

For one thing, several council members asked questions of the Planning Commission, and, much to my surprise, considering they created the ordinance, they seemed very reluctant to talk about it, with one notable exception — Chair Jo Ruggles. She wanted to talk, she was willing to talk and in fact they could hardly shut her up long enough to get a reluctant opinion out of anyone else.

So here it is: the planning gospel according to the Planning Commission as enunciated by its interlocutor, Jo Ruggles, I assume with the assent of all, although we probably will never know whether it’s reluctant or enthusiastic since they won’t tell us.

As an aside, I must admit Ruggles did impress me. I can honestly say that in my many decades on this Earth, I have never seen another human being who was so absolutely certain about just about everything, a person for whom at no moment in time did there appear even the slightest doubt about what the proper course is to follow.

The plan for building or changes or renovations as enunciated would appear to be:

If your home is more than 18 feet high, thou shalt go before the Planning Commission.

If your home is on a slope of more than 33.33 percent, thou shalt go before the Planning Commission.

If your house is neither of those but the planning director decides he’d rather pass the buck, thou shalt go before the Planning Commission.

Thy house must look like thy neighbor’s because we have neighborhood standards.

Thou can choose any color thou wishest provided it’s not white, has no red roof, blends into the background and can’t be seen.

Thou shalt protect public views, which means anyone who lives in the Valley and drives down PCH has a priority over you who may have spent a million plus for the privilege of living in Malibu.

Thou shalt not have large windows where light can creep out and offend neighbors or passersby.

Thy skylights must be flat and invisible.

Thy colors must be earth tones, but no one seems clear about what’s an earth tone. No matter — the Planning Commission seems to be saying they’ll know it when they see it.

Thou shalt have no bright colors on thy homes, and the decoration shall be flat black or natural colors.

Thy lights shall be directed downward.

And much, much, much more.

Now, I must confess even some on the council seem to balk at the direction the Planning Commission had taken, but Ruggles was clear and totally unapologectic. The Planning Commission wants a discretionary review and a design review. That means they intend to control everything.

So I ask you —

Did you vote for cityhood because you needed help deciding what color your house should be?

Did you vote for cityhood so the Planning Commission could protect you from your neighbors?

Did you vote for cityhood because you wanted to look, sound and be just like your neighbors?

Did you vote for cityhood because you wanted to be sure everyone who drove through Malibu (and that’s what public view means) had as much say as you do as to the shape of your city?

That seems to be what the Planning Commission believes and wants to enact.

In all fairness, even some on the council, with the possible exception of Carolyn Van Horn, who never saw a regulation she didn’t love, seemed to have some of the same difficulty with this that I had.

It remains to be seen whether their skepticism will thwart this silly overreaching by the Planning Commission or whether they ultimately will buckle under.

We wish to express our appreciation to the Malibu council for their “extraordinary matching grant” of $75,000 toward the Inaugural Season of Malibu Stage. It resoundingly reaffirms the city’s desire to establish a first-class professional theater in the community. We are honored to be supported both by the culturally enlightened members of the City Council and a local populace which clearly believes theater is every bit as important as road repair, water drainage, spotted owls or monarch butterflies. We are now eagerly awaiting the arrival of those other enlightened individuals who will rapidly help us match this grant.

lCharles Marowitz,

artistic director

Arnold, at a chance encounter [recently] you asked why I have not for some time now submitted a letter to the editor. This letter will explain my reasons. Until recently, I have given you a certain amount of respect for your practice of printing without editing all letters, however critical of you or anyone else. But I see clearly now that your respect for First Amendment protected freedoms is limited by whose freedoms are being trampled.

I refer, of course, to your lack of interest in, utter disdain for, and unconcealed glee respecting what Malibu civic activists are suffering for exercise of their Constitutional rights. The most important harm by far of the ongoing state Fair Political Practices Commission and Malibu City Attorney investigations of 1998 election activities, instigated by your disgruntled losing council candidate, is the chill on political activities, which has already fallen on the community and will grow worse as the ongoing investigations are prolonged to be political ammunition for the April 2000 city election. (How can this involve council persons Van Horn and Keller, who did not run for office in 1998? Arnold, I know you will find a way.)

These investigations threaten citizens in the exercise of First Amendment protected freedoms:

• to make financial contributions to the organizations for promotion of issue and ideas (slow growth, right to life, gun control, or what have you),

• to make financial contributions to the campaigns of candidates running for political office,

• to associate and communicate with like minded friends and neighbors respecting issues, ideas and political candidates, and

• to engage in such activities in public or in private.

It seems that your interest in protection of First Amendment rights wanes when you perceive a threat to what seem to you to be the rights of your developer friends to develop to the maximum. Your consistently pro-development bias goes way back. You were on the wrong side of the last failed, and then finally successful, cityhood/anti-sewers campaigns (lack of sewers, of course, being the main barrier to massive development). In the more recent past, you tried but failed to rally homeowners against Malibu’s slow growth, environmentally responsible General Plan and Zoning Ordinance with phony “down-zoning” and “won’t be able to rebuild or remodel your house” scare tactics. And now you are at it again, seeking to build a single issue ball fields, parks and playgrounds constituency for the upcoming April 2000 election by trying to paint as anti-kids and anti-young couples those on the City Council who are trying to negotiate a fiscally sound, environmentally protective agreement, providing for acquisition of the land needed for ball fields, parks and playgrounds and allowing the Malibu Bay Company reasonable, community serving development of its property.

Malibu would be best served by two newspapers, each responsible to report the news fully and fairly, while voicing its opinions in clearly labeled editorials. But I believe you have failed in this responsibility. Too often you have used your paper to abuse and vilify those few who have worked unselfishly and tirelessly for the good of the community. Simply put, I do not wish any longer (this letter being a last exception) to contribute in however small a way to the success of your publication and thereby to the real harm you do to Malibu. So adios, Arnold, and do your damnedest — without any help from me.

Art London

I was saddened to learn that a complaint has been made to the city of Malibu regarding the peacocks that have made their home on Point Dume — more particularly, those that have chosen to live in the tall eucalyptus trees adjacent to my property.

At this time of the year, we who love these birds have learned to live with the mating calls that sometimes enliven the nights — I must confess that I, like most of my neighbors, actually enjoy hearing them call out to one another. It is also a time when these birds tend to wander from one flock to another. “Junior,” who sleeps on the power line in front of my house during the mating season, was one such bird who first arrived literally on my doorstep a couple of years ago. He and a darling little pheasant (both of whom were having a hard time gaining the acceptance of the other birds) would wander through the neighborhood and were thoroughly spoiled by the lucky people they chose to visit.

Although I have lived in Malibu for the past 25 years, I bought my present home on Point Dume in 1993. This house was the first one I saw when I started looking for a place on this side of the Pacific Coast Highway. It was a beautiful spring day when, alone, I went to look at this property. I had been told that no one lived there at the time, and as I wandered behind the house, to enjoy the gorgeous view of the mountains, I startled a small flock of peacocks. It was pure magic, and so unexpected. I was entranced and lost my heart to them then and there. I had not even looked at the house — didn’t care a darn if it was falling down, because I knew I had to live there. I considered my happy discovery as a good omen, and I embraced it.

I actually moved in later in the year, a month after a nasty experience with cancer surgery. I spent hours sitting outside, wrapped in a blanket, trying to sleep off the effects of the chemotherapy, at times full of dread at what was happening to me, but always reassured by the natural beauty which surrounded me, and those wonderful, beautiful birds, who lived their lives about me. It was pure enchantment, and I’m convinced the spell cast on me by these birds may very well have saved my life.

My own personal feelings aside, however, perhaps we should be looking at the larger picture. Could it be that we are now faced with yet another loss to our Malibu way of life that has drawn so many of us to move here over the years? I remember a time when horse lovers could ride the many trails throughout Point Dume. A dear friend of mine intentionally purchased land and built a house on Dume Drive because one such horse trail ran by her property. She told me how privileged she felt to be able to watch these noble animals walk by her home. How little we see of this now, just as we look in vain for the small ranches that welcomed us to observe the rabbits, chickens, ducks, donkeys, what have you, that they maintained so lovingly, and that brought amazement and joy to the faces of our grandchildren. Remember the llamas on Wildlife Road?

Very little remains of those gentle pleasures as tennis courts and pools proliferate, houses become fortress estates, and we are gradually becoming yet another wealthy suburb of greater Los Angeles. Yet it was Malibu’s rural ambience that brought so many of these later arrivals here — as I would venture to guess was the reason why the complainant who prompted me to write this letter felt drawn to Point Dume. We can be sure of one thing — where there is wildlife we have to learn to put up with a little noise. But isn’t it so much nicer than traffic horns and police sirens? And isn’t it so very important to try to hang onto the Malibu we love for as long as we possibly can — not just let it disappear in dribs and drabs as we grow old and our children move away. What about those other kids out there — what will they think of us when they realize the magic has been stolen from them?

I dare to hope that the city will be as concerned as I and many others are to protect what remains of the original Malibu.

Patricia K. Jordan