This column was first printed in the May 16, 1998 issue of The Malibu Times. On Saturday, it was awarded first place in the California Newspaper Publishers Association’s Better Newspaper Contest under the category “Columns, Commentary, Criticism” for weekly papers with circulations of 11,000 to 25,000.

When I went to the polls this morning I must admit I was shocked. I thought they had handed me a defective ballot. Something had to be wrong.

Jack Lemmon’s name was missing from the ballot.

All week long we had been seeing tapes, letters, newspaper ads and finally telephone calls, with messages from Jack. I had naturally assumed that Jack was running for the council.

Actually I loved Jack as Ensign Pulver and in “Some Like it Hot,” and as I thought back over his career and the many happy hours it had brought me, the least I could do is vote for Jack. If he had decided to put himself on the Malibu City Council, that was just fine with me,

–For Jack is an honorable man.

I know that some of you cynics may believe that Jack, who apparently didn’t know either Hasse or Jennings before this election, should have taken the time to talk to them before putting his reputation on the line and endorsing the former and blasting the latter. That’s just nonsense because, as any fan knows, years before the camera making believe you’re someone else sharpens the mind and enhances the political acuity, and it’s not necessary to go through tiresome steps of making those kinds of judgments when you can always turn to your advisors for guidance. Besides, all you have to do is look at Tom Hasse and the word that immediately jumps to mind is “environmentalist.” You can easily see Tom astride a horse or up on a surfboard, not like some hotel-loving, highrise-demanding, citified lawyer like Jeff Jennings.

Besides, if Jack believes in Tom Hasse, I guess I should believe in Tom,

–For Jack is an honorable man.

Some have even criticized Jack for doing the voice on the video without checking out the script or taking the time to find out what in there was true. That’s utter nonsense. After all, Jack has spent practically his entire life as an actor. He opens his mouth, and other people’s words come rolling out. And we all know that real smart guys write those words, so there is absolutely no reason to mess with a winning formula. Besides, Jack wouldn’t say them if he didn’t believe them,

— For Jack is an honorable man.

I must confess that I had wavered for a moment when the Jenning’s camp said it had been in contact with Jack after the videotape had been released and mailed to several thousand homes in Malibu, and that Jack had admitted to the camp that he had read the script as written without first verifying its truth.

Well, that little apprehension was put to rest Monday night when there, on my answering machine, was a phone call from some very respectable polling service, up in Oregon I understand, which called to tell me not to worry: In fact they said, “We’re calling you on behalf of Jack Lemmon, and he wants you to know . . . that he’s researched what’s going on in Malibu and that Tom Hasse is the only one that has taken a stand against traffic congestion and over-development in Malibu,” and therefore I ought to vote for Hasse.

Well, when I found out that Jack had taken the time out of his very busy day, reading scripts and dusting his Oscars or whatever he does, to actually take the time to research what’s going on in Malibu and then had some guy in a phone boiler room in Oregon call me because he wanted me to know the facts, I must admit I was flattered. I had no idea that Jack and I had such a personal relationship. I feel a lot better about plunking down my $8 for his next movie. Besides, when I figured out that it also meant that Jennings must have been in favor of traffic congestion, I was outraged.

So much for the Doubting Thomases. If Jack says he researched what’s going on in Malibu, that’s good enough for me. He wouldn’t let anyone use his name that way if it weren’t true,

–For Jack is an honorable man.

And after the election, when all those pesky complaints are filed and questions are raised about how, with a $100-per-person limit on campaign spending, someone has been putting expensive phone banks into our little hometown elections, I’m sure that Jack or his lawyer or his agent or his publicist or his business manager or his wife are going to set the record straight and tell those nay-sayers that good old all-American Jack — movie star, community activist, Beverly Hills resident — will be able to tell us just how it was done, and I know we’re all going to believe it,

— For Jack is an honorable man.

Re letter written by J. Patrick Maginnis [“Marketing Malibu,” June 17]:

I am so relieved. Mr. J. Patrick Maginnis has provided the insight into what’s wrong with Malibu. Ralphs is not big enough. He spoke to some manager at a Santa Monica store who was remarkably informed about our City Council’s irrational prevention of the only thing between us and happiness, a gargantuan Ralphs.

The concept that size is the missing ingredient when it comes to producing quality is an idea perfectly compatible with development in Orange County through which Mr. Maginnis has been driving, sampling markets as he goes. I know of no Ralphs which is any more oriented toward quality or diverse products than any other. In fact, in the many square feet of the Malibu Ralphs, size has not effected the loss of specialized product lines previously carried by a smaller Hughes (not itself a sterling example of excellence).

Ralphs is a mass market operation desperately trying to standardize to the lowest common denominator, not a poor, battered, high quality grocer prevented from being a Balduchi’s, Zabars, Dean and Deluca, or even Bristol Farms, Gelsons, Irvine Ranch, Whole Food Markets, or even the Santa Monica Cooperative — only because it isn’t as big as a football field.

But is this issue really about Ralphs or is there a subtext which is important for Malibu in this seemingly innocuous notion of size equaling quality?

That subtext is the influx of a certain kind of population into Malibu over the last 10 years. I would define these people as those who would really rather live in a slightly more suburban environment such as Beverly Hills or Brentwood or Pacific Palisades, but the prices are a little too high, so Malibu becomes an alternative. They do not really come here for the semi-rural quality of life which has characterized Malibu. They really want all the amenities available in Beverly Hills. They want a real “city,” not a bedroom community passing as a city in order to preserve a “way of life.” They want soccer fields, ball diamonds, cineplexes, playgrounds, malls and Costco — all things which are perfectly reasonable and can be found plentiful numbers in real cities throughout the Los Angeles and Orange County areas. In Malibu there is first and foremost, the beach — one of the healthiest recreational and character building phenomena in existence. There are as well, miles of trails, many safe streets for bike riding and ball playing — in short, a child’s dream, but, horrors, it’s not organized. It is unique and provides a particular experience not necessarily a common one.

I’m sure as with many good things, The Malibu is going to be a thing of the past. It may be possible to slow down developers, but when the nature of the people change, people who feel the special qualities of Malibu are irrelevant, a hodge-podge Pacific Palisades cannot be far behind.

Donald Wrye

With great reluctance I have been forced to emerge from my “cocoon,” this being my first and I hope my last letter to the editor. I urgently call for a closure to the vituperation, invective and name-calling in the political arena. Of paramount importance is dealing with the issues. Personality conflicts of this nature have no place in this lovely city of Malibu. They only serve to cloud the issues and cause unnecessary rifts in our legislative body.

Think about it — wouldn’t it be ghastly to live in a society where everyone agrees on everything? Thankfully, we are not clones and do come from a diversity of backgrounds with varying opinions. I, personally, would not wish it any other way. We are fortunate to live in a society where these opinions can be intensely debated, but personal attacks serve no useful purpose.

Isn’t it possible for our city to indulge in healthy arguments and debates? Isn’t it possible for reason and good humor to take over?

We have a duly elected City Council, some of whom I supported and others whom I did not. However, that is irrelevant in that I respect all five members and only hope they work in concert to solve our myriad problems. As a homeowner in Malibu, I feel it is my function to facilitate their job in any way I can, not to cause breaches within the council. Is this self-serving? Of course it is. The more unified the council is, the more rational the thinking in devising better, more creative solutions. Identifying the problems is easy. Solving them is much more difficult. Let us begin to help them by offering our ideas, thoughts and suggestions in a more acceptable manner than personal affront and attacks.

Thank you for listening and, please, let the vitriol cease with no one having the last word.

Fay Singer

I am sure that Christi Hogin is pretty happy to be out of the ever-tantalizing fingers of Walt Keller and Carolyn Van Horn.

I am also wondering how much it would take to get both of them along with Joan House to resign from the City Council. They have been here much too long.

E. Reta Templeman

Thank you for printing the correction regarding my request for more PCH street lights at the recent PCH Task Force meeting. So many subjects were discussed that evening that I can well understand how your reporter might have been confused.

Thanks also for the wit and good humor that so often informs your reflections on the conduct of our young city’s affairs. Laughter nurtures civility.

I am told there is now concrete evidence that the missing sheep you wrote about recently formed its own rock group and is planning to cut a single upon its release from Betty Ford. From here to County Line, good shepherds of all persuasions eagerly await his return.

Henry Gibson

I cannot thank you enough for your continued coverage of the social and political life of the Sara Wans. Every time I wonder what they are doing, you come up with a nice spread about the political and social activities of the Wans, pictures and all! Whatever would the people of Malibu do without this coverage of the Wans, in which you so splendidly display as frequently as you can apprising the locals of Malibu what the Wan entourage is up to. I am sorry I am late in expressing my gratitude to you. I know you will continue to keep the people of Malibu posted as to the activities this high society couple will be doing every step of their way. Keep up the good work of publishing a first class local newspaper. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Carleen Wood

In a letter sent last week to a local paper, Mary Grady made many false statements about a farewell gathering held for our departing city attorney. In an attempt to clear up Ms. Grady’s representations, I tried to reach her by phone, but she was not listed. Then I checked the voter registration and made inquiries, but I could find no instance of Ms. Grady being involved in the community of Malibu, not on committees, commissions, charities, etc. However, Ms. Grady described events and people as if she was a longtime political activist and as if she had really attended Hogin’s “retirement” party. The inaccuracy of her account suggests she did not.

I believe it is important to set the record straight regarding the outlandish inaccuracies in her letter. First, she characterized the gathering as being “a den of iniquity” attended by “a pro-development goon squad.” Yet at the gathering were many veterans of the “slow growth and pro-cityhood” movement as well as environmental activists, representatives of homeowner’s groups, and dedicated community volunteers. Among them was Les Moss, Fay Singer, Georgianna McBurney, Ruth White, Mona Loo, Oscar Mondragon, Pat Greenwood, Mary Frampton and I’m sure others who don’t fit the picture of “Malibu’s pro-development mob.” (Will these attendees now be added to Ms. Grady’s hit list?) I believe that all who came, did so for the same reason I did — to pay sincere respect to someone who served our city for nine years with integrity and intelligence. Second, the gathering was planned by Ms. Hogin’s colleagues at City Hall, not by Councilman Barovsky or myself as Grady stated, “House and Barovsky issued a royal proclamation relieving all city staff members from their jobs on Friday …. the guest list was a who’s who of Malibu’s pro-development mob.”

As to other Grady inaccuracies — she reported a “pinata whacking,” when in fact, there was no pinata at the gathering much less any whacking. In fact, many of those present described by Grady as a “perpetually angry crowd” actually shed a few tears while individuals from the community shared words of somber appreciation and praise. And Christi Hogin had to admit that it was almost (but not impossible) to make a “maudlin Irish girl like me cry.”

As to the assertion that Harry Barovsky and I are against slow growth, let me offer as one example, our votes on the Adamson Hotel as evidence to refute. I was the only member on council who voted against the 150-room Adamson Hotel against the Keller, Van Horn, Harlow and Jennings majority. (I have this meeting on video.) I agreed with then-Planning Commissioners Barovsky and Hasse that a smaller, residential-sized hotel was more appropriate with a maximum of 106 rooms.

This is not the first letter with ugly personal invective and deliberate mistruth. Why the name calling and personal attacks on dedicated environmentalist Mary Frampton, or on local charity and political activist Sharon Barovsky, or Beverly Taki, David Kagon, Marilyn Santman, etc. — all active, conscientious community participants who may not agree with each other, but who choose discourse over childish name calling and misrepresentations?

I believe that these letters of personal invective have done irreparable harm to the soul of our community and to the spirit of the political process. It appalls citizenry, drives good people out of Malibu politics and pollutes the possibility of rational discourse. And worse, it has given slow-growth advocacy a bad name. I would hope that in the future those who have legitimate concerns and differences in opinion confront the issues not the people.

Joan House