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

What fun Mr. York must have had satirizing Commissioner Ruggles’ efforts to comply with the mandate of the electorate to keep Malibu “rural.” Aside from another blatant display of this editor’s profound bias, what does he think “rural” means? Certainly not the precarious, elbow to elbow kind of structures of every conceivable style and color we see sprouting, crowding and endangering our hillsides. Some of the more inspired, though admittedly beautiful designs, are totally inappropriate to, and in sharp conflict with, what the majority of voters envision for Malibu. (Seems to me Frank Lloyd Wright did very nicely using unobtrusive earth tones and styles without sacrificing originality or resorting to visual and stylistic excesses.)

Mr. York, in his derisive fervor, seems to have completely disregarded the fact that most communities have long established strict standards designed to ensure the maintenance of a harmonious character of their environment.

But there is another, even more compelling reason why we must institute standards that will ensure that Malibu remains — yes, rural. Beyond and above the fact that’s what the majority of Malibu voters want — not to mention those who have come to admire the scenic beauty of the coastal area — we must bear in mind that this unchecked, free-for-all kind of building is detrimental — not merely to the esthetic value we place on our community, but also to the geological integrity of our hillsides.

The denser, bigger and closer to the ridge lines we build, the greater the chance of loss due to landslides. The fate of the home Mr. Steinmetz built is a sad example of this fact. Given the heartbreak of losing one’s home in this manner, I suspect, Mr. Steinmetz, were he to do it all over again, would have built his home further back and he just might still have it.

All these disasters should teach us something, but some of those determined to milk the place for all it’s worth, just don’t seem to get it.

As far as Commissioner Kearsley’s statement about creating a “Stepford Village” is concerned, that’s the kind of witless, self-serving remark that amounts to pandering to the developers. Mr. York, of course, couldn’t have been more delighted with it.

These are some of the things we better remember when 2000 comes around.

Dan Segal

My house is doomed, I must assume,

Because of what is planned —

The Commission’s coming ruling:

Where my red roof will be banned.

No more white, and no more red,

The Law will soon be passed.

My house won’t match the coming Code

Where my choice of paint is last.

The Aesthetic Rule to soon appear

Will change the color schemes.

It’s bad enough that I’m on a hill,

Without killing all my dreams.

I like my white house, and red roof,

And I like the view below.

The different colors all blend in

And some don’t barely show.

But pass a rule where paint’s a tool,

To make homes look alike;

Will cause a heap of trouble —

And I hope they see the light!

H. Emmett Finch