Public confession has reached new highs
The more lurid the details,
The bigger the Prize
We’ve ditched the philosophy of
Don’t ask and don’t tell
There are interviews to give
And a book deal to sell
So whatever it is
That you’d like to share
We don’t want to know
Cause we really don’t care
At the risk of sounding insensitive or flip
Go get a life and zip up your lip!
Geraldine Forer Spagnoli
(Upon returning a pair of sunglasses to a lovely lady who dropped them.)
To think! These glasses will embrace
Her brow, her head, her lovely face!
Would that I could spend all day
Pressed to her countenance this way!
Oh, unfeeling plastic glass
That clingeth to this comely lass,
I fain would put thee on the shelf
And make a spectacle of myself!
Bill Dowey
The Streisand Center for Conservancy Studies has been doing such a booming business renting out its facilities for weddings, retreats and tours, Ramirez Canyon residents say they can not remember a weekend when catering trucks did not lumber up and down Ramirez Canyon Road, or vans did not shuttle guests on and off Barbra Streisand’s former estate. But while the functions may be lucrative for the Streisand center, they may also be in violation of state and local laws.
Streisand donated the estate to the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy in 1993 on condition that part of it house the Center for Conservancy Studies, to serve as a sort of think tank on environmental issues.
But residents say the Streisand center now functions as a “full scale commercial catering facility.” It advertises in wedding planning guides. Its flyer indicates that, for a $6,000 fee, space is available for weddings with up to 200 guests. It also permits amplified music, and guests may stay on the grounds until 10 p.m.
In this capacity, residents say, the center violates the state’s Coastal Act because it did not obtain the Coastal Commission’s permission to operate in such a manner. Under the Coastal Act, any change in intensity of use of land within the coastal zone requires a permit issued by the commission.
Jean Anderson, who lives next door to the estate, said with the shuttle vans bringing visitors to the estate, weekend after weekend, residents had more privacy when Streisand lived there. “And we had looky-loos then,” she said.
Residents say use of the center by outside groups has become so frequent, they banded together to demand that the commission force the center to submit to the permitting process. Resident and attorney Mindy Shep drafted a letter to the commission two weeks ago. “[We] got together and said, ‘We can’t tolerate this any longer,'” said Shep.
Anderson said traffic jams at the gate leading to Ramirez Canyon Road are commonplace on weekends. One Sunday morning, a flower delivery truck blared its horn at 7:30 to get through the gate.
“I’m so tired of not having a quiet Saturday and Sunday,” said Anderson.
Three weeks ago, a single catering truck took out a support beam on Ramirez Bridge, broke the motor on resident Lee First’s automatic gate, and so badly injured one of his sycamore trees, it had to be chopped down. First said he is usually out at 11 p.m. on Friday and Saturday nights to help guide the catering trucks out through the narrow, private road.
Laurie Collins, staff attorney for the conservancy, said renting out the center’s facilities is not an increased intensity of use under the Coastal Act, because the catered functions do not involve an increase in the number of automotive round-trips to the property, compared with the number of trips made when Streisand owned it. Without an increase in the number of car trips, Collins said, the intensity of the land use has not increased, and, therefore, a permit is not required.
“We compared our use to Ms. Streisand’s,” said Collins. “We kept our use consistent with her use, so we did not trigger the Coastal Act.”
Collins said because the 22.5 acres is subdivided into six lots for six homes, 60 round-trip car trips are permitted per day. She said the center only permits 15 trips per day.
But Gary Timm, district manager in the Ventura office of the commission, said any change in the use of land within the coastal zone requires a permit. “A change from residential to commercial use would require a permit,” he said. Timm said the residents’ complaint has been referred to the commission’s enforcement unit.
The center is not only feeling pressure from neighboring residents and the commission. City Attorney Christi Hogin notified Collins and the conservancy of the city’s position that the catered functions violate local zoning laws because a temporary use permit has not been obtained for any of the events. In a July letter, Hogin noted while state agencies are normally exempt from local zoning laws, they are not when events taking place on their property are not associated with the mission of the state agency. Hogin said the city’s position is that the private, catered events are not associated with the agency’s mission.
Collins said the conservancy’s position is that the functions are consistent with its mission because the funds raised by the events are used to fund the studies at the Streisand center. And consequently, Collins said, the conservancy, as a state agency, is not required to follow local zoning laws. “We are sovereign to the city of Malibu on zoning,” said Collins.
Hogin could not be reached for comment, but in her letter she threatened a lawsuit if the conservancy continues to rent out its facilities without a temporary use permit.
Some relatives of mine visiting from a small town in the Midwest picked up The Malibu Times as we were waiting to be seated at a local restaurant. We had to laugh when they asked me why anyone who’s sophisticated enough to live in Malibu would also take you seriously enough to send you a letter (I’m asking myself that question as I write this) when your only interest is, very understandably, to run a successful business.
And they’re right. You’re an educated man, and surely must be well aware that you’re running your business as a small-town miniature imitation of the “yellow journalism” method Joseph Pulitzer and John Cockerill used about a century ago to rake in enormous amounts of money in St. Louis. (It’s a romantic story, although people sometimes forget that both of those men always carried guns out of fear of retaliation from the people whose lives their business destroyed on a regular basis. Cockerill was even almost killed once, but he beat his assailant to the draw.)
Anyway. Clearly, as the smart businessman that you are, your paper is a form of entertainment where you conjure up “controversy” by any means you can imagine. By this method, you’ll most likely be in business for many years because the “opinions” (sales campaigns, really) that support your intention to increase advertising sales provoke people to read responses to responses, responses to attacks, attempts to correct facts, expressions of anger, and so on.
Unfortunately, for I want very much to respect you and give you the benefit of any doubt, this leaves me with the very strong impression that exaggeration, incomplete information, sarcasm, cruelty, insults, finger-pointing and false statements are not beneath you.
I also think it’s very likely that, if it’s successful, you’ll stick to your current business strategy for years. Which means it’s inevitable that, in the future, no matter who works in City Hall, no matter who is elected to the City Council, no matter who is appointed to city commissions, you will always require a target of attack. One-time disasters and PCH road conditions aren’t likely to command as much ongoing attention as will the ordinary years-long city management efforts you’d continue to portray as blazing controversies.
Perhaps you have some interest in the further impression this has made on one of your readers. It seems to me that you are either teetering on going out of business, and will do anything to survive, or you’re very greedy.
Perhaps you have some interest in what one of your readers would prefer. I’m no longer interested in hearing about who you don’t like and how the world isn’t going out of its way to please you. What I would like is for you to state –frequently, explicitly and honestly — what you’re for.
I know you know it’s easy to stand to one side and ridicule. I think you studied law. If so, you were probably, at some point, exposed to the rhetorical term for this: “argumentum ad hominum.” To use this device in the “opinion” column of a publication over which you have complete control strikes me as — well, I don’t think there’s a single word for it. I’d say the sense, the impression, it gives is a combination of cruel, cowardly, uncreative, shortsighted, powerless, destructive. . . . That’s pretty close .
I know you also know that it’s far more difficult, and much more honorable, to take a clear position and rationally defend it. People who can do this without attacking others personally are often described as classy. I can’t say I’ve ever seen you do this, however. I’d like to. And I hope to see it in the future. I truly believe you’ve got what it takes. But I don’t remember seeing it.
In spite of all I’ve said, I still wonder where we’d be if you do find the courage to declare something you are for and stand by it until persuaded that another position is better (hopefully for human life, rather than just your life). Because the level of integrity I’ve come to expect from you also leaves me very uncertain about your honesty.
Will you please demonstrate that my impressions of you are wrong? What are you for, Mr. York?
P.S. A quick comment regarding your remarks about the Paradise Cove Mobile Home Park, where I live. I want to let you know that I very much agree with some of what you say! It may not be true of the home of my intelligent, hard-working, courageous neighbor Jo Ruggles (she used to risk her life every day as a public servant), but I am very unhappy to have realized after moving here that I ended up with a “tin can” (yes, it’s a figure of speech) in the lower section of Paradise Cove. But that’s another story.
Andrea Sharp
The condition of Malibu Pier is not as bad as government officials initially feared, but significant work is required to restore the basic structure, according to a recent state inspection.
A major concern for the state Department of Parks and Recreation was the pilings supporting the pier, especially after the punishment they took from the rough waters during this year’s stormy winter. “There are fewer damaged pilings than people thought,” said John W. Foster, a state senior archaeologist and diver. “It seems sturdy to me, but it definitely does need to be fixed up.”
About 28 percent of the pilings are damaged or missing, Foster estimated, including one area of the pier with several rows of damaged pilings.
Foster is part of a group of state divers, archaeologists, engineers, architects and historians who have been inspecting the pier for the last month to determine how much restoration work is required before the pier is made safe enough to be open to the public, according to Russ Guiney, supervisor of state parks for the Angeles district.
The group should complete its evaluation within the next week or so, Guiney said. The actual restoration will have to wait until various government agencies, such as the Coastal Commission and the Army Corps of Engineers, have given their approval and a contractor is chosen to do the work, Guiney explained. He expected improvements to be made no sooner than January.
The state has allocated $900,000 for the restoration, which is only enough to cover the most basic structural improvements. “It’s not a final cure-all,” Guiney said, but he added state parks will request additional money in the future from the state legislature in order to continue beyond the “phase one” stage of restoration.
With more money in its coffers due to a budget surplus, the state is having second thoughts about giving up management of the pier to Malibu, which has already hired a consultant to prepare a business plan. “They [Malibu officials] want to make sure [the pier] pays for itself. At the same time, now that the state has money, the state may want to operate the pier,” Guiney said.
Last week, Guiney met with City Manager Harry Peacock, City Treasurer Peter Lippman and city consultant Larry Williams of Williams-Kuebelbeck & Associates (W-K). The city and the state “are continuing to talk and share information,” according to Guiney, who described the work being done by W-K as “complementary” to the state’s restoration efforts.
Both sides agree that, no matter who ends up operating the pier, “the ambiance and appearance should stay as is,” Guiney explained. The present pier has been around since 1945, according to Foster, replacing the original built by the Rindge family. “It’s been a landmark on the Malibu coast for a long, long time,” Foster said.
In a world beset with bombings and strife
We’re obsessed with a president
Who cheats on his wife
There’s Larry King with his pundits and panelists
And analysts analyzing other analysts
And all those bimbos are coming forth
They have even dug up Ollie North
Your enemies with all their cunning and zeal
Got to you through your Achilles heel
You knew who they were
Who were wishing you ill
So what the hell were you thinking Bill?!!!
They say you look bad, it’s all taking its toll
But your approval went up in the CNN poll!
Geraldine Forer Spagnoli
In Mr. Ben-Yehuda’s article on cable rate reductions [Aug. 20] he quotes Susan Booker, regional manager for Falcon, as claiming that “rate increases . . . were due to the cost of producing local programming in 1997, such as high school baseball games” (emphasis added).
Although shocking, it is not surprising that local Falcon Cable representatives are trying to point the blame on the videotaping of four high school baseball home games, rather than their own predatory price-gouging practices for overcharging and violating the cable television franchise agreement with the city of Malibu.
Falcon has consistently violated the franchise agreement by failing to provide video equipment, training and facilities, which they promised when they first obtained the franchise which would allow local producers, such as myself, to cover local events such as high school sports without any pass-through cost to the community, but, alas, when we asked Falcon to do something so minimal for something so meritorious such as televising youth sports events here in our community, they pass through charges and blame us for their overpriced, monopoly-type billing practices.
When they are caught, like most wrongdoers, instead of accepting responsibility, they point at the innocent to divert attention and to avoid taking responsibility.
Falcon has insulted this community and continues to insult us by failing to honor the agreement they wrote and the promises they made to induce us to allow them to make the “highest profit margin” (L.A. Times) of any cable company operating in the country today.
Falcon Cable owes this community over $1,800,000 in liquidated damages for failing to provide equipment, training and facilities which they agreed to do or, they agreed if they failed to do so, to pay $500 per day as an agreed upon penalty.
How many local event programs have been produced by Falcon using their own for-hire cameraman and their own employee, Jeanette Scoville, and then taking credit as “produced by Falcon Cable” for their own promotional purposes, making us pay while decrying local citizens’ request to tape and program four local school sports events which, by they way, they aired months later and at such poor quality that they were virtually unwatchable. And this is what Susan Booker says caused our rate increases? What a bad joke Falcon Cable plays daily on our community.
Sam Birenbaum
I would like to respond to two subjects addressed in last week’s edition. The article regarding an economic study [“City won’t take county for grant(ed),” Sept. 3] left out a crucial word in quoting me. I said that most people don’t see the need for more businesses. If local establishments are already stressed by lack of business, more competition — especially from the chains — would only make matters worse.
Also, in a letter to the editor, Richard Scott states that I, as part of the “council majority,” had twice refused a settlement offered in closed session on the Lunita Pacific condos which “would eliminate the 38-condo project in favor of a one-unit-per-acre project.” I wish to respond to Mr. Scott’s allegation, that at no time while I was on the council was such a settlement submitted to the council. He says that he has firsthand knowledge of these offers because he was the attorney of record for San Paolo U.S. Holding Co., who owned the property at the time.
I was not on the City Council between April 1994-1996. At the time I left office, Preferred Financial owned the property. I understand that subsequently First Los Angeles Bank held title under their subsidiary San Paolo U.S. Holding Co. When I rejoined the council in April 1996, the property had already been sold to the current owners.
The size of the entire parcel is 70-plus acres. If the council had zoned the Lunita Pacific site at one acre, they would have had to zone the rest of it the same — which would have allowed 70 units — not six as Mr. Scott states.
Walt Keller
