A strange thing happened at the City Council meeting Aug. 26. There was an outbreak of civility.

Well, that’s probably a little strong. It was more like a discussion about experimenting with the possibility of civility at the City Council meetings.

Even Joan House and Tom Hasse agreed, something they haven’t been doing very much of lately, that perhaps the lack of civility was beginning to get in their way.

There actually seemed to be a consensus among the council members, after Marissa Coughlan beat them up a bit for their lack of civility, that they’d better mend their ways if the council was ever going to get the job done.

During this discussion, Walt Keller and Carolyn Van Horn were generally quiet, which, I guess you could say, was a first step toward achieving civility on the council.

In case you’re wondering what this is all about, there has been an ongoing and not-too-loving split on the council, with Keller, Van Horn and Hasse on one side and House and Harry Barovsky on the other. After the last election, without so much as a missed beat, Keller, Van Horn and Hasse wheeled and turned on House and designated her the new reigning meanie — a replacement for Jeff Jennings. Jennings, despite what some of the more rabid letter writers seem to think, is gone and nowhere to be seen.

In fact, the last time I ran into him, he looked more relaxed than he’s looked in years. Life on the Malibu City Council must be tougher than it appears because, while both Harlow and Jennings look better, the currently sitting fearsome five are looking more and more like people under siege.

It’s understandable because we’ve taken some major hits lately. The beleaguered PCH has hit us all, tried our patience, been economically devastating to many businesses and taken a slice out of the quality of our life. It used to be that summer was a good time. We all had family and friends as beach guests, but not this year. That was part of the fun of Malibu, part of our ambiance, our hospitality. Today, with PCH as it is, it’s just too much of a hassle.

It’s at time like this when a city like Malibu has to call in all the favors, the goodwill it’s cultivated with the other agencies: the state, Caltrans, the Coastal Commission, the County of Los Angeles, the Sheriff’ s Department, the Highway Patrol and various public works departments, as well as their own employees for service above and beyond the call of duty.

Again, it should come as no great surprise that we don’t have many chits with many of those aforementioned groups. We have systematically antagonized, sued, obstructed and refused to cooperate with almost every one of them, and I suspect that if the PCH road repair took five years to complete, some of them not only couldn’t care less, but would probably take a perverse joy in our distress.

Unfortunately, this climate of combat and contentiousness isn’t going to end with just a few nice words. The Keller-Van Horn-Hasse axis is built on confrontation and polarization. It’s their MO. It’s worked for them politically in the past, and they’re not people who believe in surrendering a winning political hand.

For example, check out the letters to the editor this week. Look at the names on those letters. It’s the usual cast of characters, spewing their usual nastiness. They’re excised because I likened some of their mobile homes to converted Campbell Soup cans. It was a nasty crack, and it really wasn’t very fair. But I did it to make a point. There are a lot of differing lifestyles in Malibu. Malibu used to be a live-and-let-live place. No one likes it when their lifestyle is attacked. We don’t like it any better than you do. But what I see growing, particularly with Keller-Van Horn-Hasse, are the beginnings of lifestyle police. They know how we should live. They know what our houses should look like. They know what color they should be. They know what our setbacks should be. They know the perfect size for our trees.

Unfortunately, what they don’t know is how to keep our roads open. How to get our landmark Malibu Pier fixed. How to get our potholes filled. How to find ballfields for our children to play on. How to solve a permanent sewage problem.

Pardon my cynicism, but I’m wondering if their sudden discovery of civility may have something to do with their plan to turn the Civic Center into a park, or a salt marsh or whatever grand scheme they’re concocting. They suddenly figured out if they’re going to ask us to give them millions of dollars to buy some land, we’re probably not going to do it unless we trust them first.

Maybe it’s a good idea and maybe it’s not. I don’t know yet. But a better idea might be to first spend some energy doing something about PCH, perhaps that third lane, so all of us can see an immediate improvement in our lives.

Every time someone writes in defense of Christi Hogin, they have a comment about the mobile-home rent ordinance legal fiasco and invariably blame the whole sorry episode on Walter Keller and Carolyn Van Horn. Attorney Richard Scott, however, in his letter to the editor last week in his attempt to “set forth the facts rather than just allegations” gave it a new spin by including Missy Zeitsoff as their “partner.” I don’t intend to defend or condemn Christi Hogin, I am only going to state here what is documented on the events Mr. Scott covered, and let whoever reads this draw their own conclusions.

First of all, as Mr. Scott knows very well, four (4) council members approved the ordinance, not just Walt and Carolyn. Michael Caggiano and Missy Zeitsoff completed the super majority vote. I doubt very much that Michael Caggiano considered himself a “partner”of Walt Keller and Carolyn Van Horn, and maybe that’s why Mr. Scott neglected to include his name. I can guarantee that Missy Zeitsoff would also take issue with being considered a “partner” as a reason for her vote. Larry Wan was the only one on that council who cast the only no vote, and is the only one who can claim no blame.

I recall very well that petition attributed to the Paradise Cove Homeowners Board by Mr. Scott. I also recall that during the nine or 10 months the task force worked on revising the county’s rent ordinance and while the petition was being circulated just before the hearing, no one from Paradise Cove (board members or park residents who signed the petition including Mr. Scott) expressed any concern to the task force about any provisions of the county’s rent ordinance the task force was revising.

It is true that the park owners threatened to sue if the ordinance contained the provision for rent recalculation provision, which, coincidentally the park owners first voiced the threat to sue at a task force meeting not long after City Attorney Michael Jenkins quietly removed the County’s Rent Ordinance from the final Municipal Code when it was adopted July 16, 1991. The origin of the base date for the Malibu ordinance recalculation provision was the Dec. 31, 1984, base date of the county ordinance.

Mr. Scott alleges that Ms. Hogin had nothing to do with advocating that portion of the ordinance which led to the lawsuits and that City Attorney Michael Jenkins and Ms. Hogin “predicted” that the courts would overturn the proposed ordinance because of the Dec. 31, 1984 base date. However, Ms. Hogin in her Aug. 6, 1991, memo to the council stated, “I know of no legal reason that the city could not adopt a base date of Dec. 31, 1984 (the county’s base date) and adjust rents charged on that date according to the CPI formula.” Mr. Jenkins and Ms. Hogin advised the council at the December 1991, hearings to make the base date March 28, 1991, to avoid the task of gathering the necessary information to correctly recalculate the rents in Paradise Cove which were incorrect and had been challenged at the county level prior to incorporation.

Ms. Hogin was assigned by the city attorney and the council to give the task force legal guidance. Many times, even after the ordinance was adopted, she voiced the opinion that even if the ordinance was challenged, it was legally “defensible.”

Efrom Fader

She wouldn’t hurt a flea!

How many times have you passed someone with their dog off a leash and heard this statement? Don’t believe it!

I always thought that I had to protect my 10-pound, 12-year-old little dog from our wilds. The bobcats, the coyotes, the snakes, etc. I was wrong.

I should have been protecting her from the six unleashed domesticated dogs walking with their owners, that were in denial.

I am mad. I am sad. I have regrets. All signs of my loss.

Fuzzie did not lose her life but she is in critical condition. She was viciously attacked by a pack of unleashed dogs, that were accompanied by their owners. I have passed this group before and they have said that there was nothing to worry about. I usually pick up my little dog, just in case.

I did not pick her up this time. I will forever regret this navet of mine. My own denial of the possibilities of dogs.

My little one was on a leash. This made her even more vulnerable. With six adults, we could barely do anything to stop the attack. Once one got started that gave all the “innocents” permission to get involved too.

I felt so helpless. I was helpless.

Fuzzie did miraculously survive, but I am left with the question of how this could happen.

I have to say that the people involved are remarkable people. Everyone took responsibility. There was no finger pointing. They paid all the bills, sent flowers, drove me back and forth to the vet and are loving people. And they made the decision, on their own, to keep their dogs on leashes.

So this is a message to all the dog owners of Malibu. There is a negligent supervision ordinance that applies no matter where you are in Malibu. If you neglect to keep your animal from hurting others you are responsible. And the horrific part about my story is that the dog that initiated the attack has attacked before. And the blessing is I am having another lesson in forgiveness.

Rev Pam Mc Carthy

You have absolutely lost it!

Your editorial this week was the most vicious, mean-spirited personal attack on a person I have ever read anywhere, ever, and I found your comparison of someone’s home to a “converted Campbell Soup can” absolutely disgusting and revolting.

You obviously dislike Jo Ruggles and disagree with her on many issues, but to personally attack her views (which I am not sure were hers) based (allegedly) upon the house she lived in and where it was located, showed your arrogance and bigotry as well as your stupidity. In your (I’m sure) nasty attempt to be funny, you got your facts all wrong . . . as usual.

To set the record straight, Jo Ruggles has never lived in the “lower section of the park,” nor has she ever lived in a “converted Campbell Soup can.” She lived in a three-bedroom, three-bathroom modular house (not even a mobile home) up on the western bluff overlooking the canyon and the beach, right across from Barbra Streisand’s three-house compound.

It is now obvious that you are prejudiced against mobile home folks since you insist we live in soup cans. Or, is this a straight-out attack on Ms. Ruggles, since I feel you do know the correct section of the park she resided in, but deliberately mentioned that she “used to” live in the lower section. She must bother you a lot since you are keeping such good track of her.

Does any of this make a difference in how you view her opinions? I doubt it. Does that elevate her aesthetic quotient? Probably not. It’s obvious that you have an unbridled hatred for this lady. Is that because she has the courage to stand up and be counted for this community that she has served for so many years? That she has the courage to speak out for what we the residents want? Probably. You are a mean-spirited coward, guilty of arrogance and stupidity — two character flaws I cannot tolerate in one person.

Pauline Balseiro

Sept. 28 will be both a happy and sad day for me. Happy that I’ll start work at a larger, full-service, Northern California coastal city; sad that I will be leaving such a great Public Works Department staff: Rick Morgan, Kimberly Collins, Richard Calvin, Jed Ireland and Ed Bianchi. I will miss them. We will always be a family in every sense of the word.

And, I’ll miss all of the other city employees, too. In my 30-year career in local and state government, I have never met such a dedicated and passionate group of professionals that you have so far attracted to Malibu. They truly care and they truly try to make decisions that are in the best interests of the city. They are your most valuable resource. And, I want all of them to know that I truly respect them. I will miss them greatly.

And, I’ll miss all of the many Malibu citizens and business owners that I have worked with over the past five years, through entirely too many disasters. I have made many close friends during my brief stay in Malibu. I will miss you all more than you can imagine. I wish you all the best in the future as your new city matures. But it is time to go. So, ’til we meet again. . . .

John P. Clement

Thank you, Arnold York. You took some of the words out of my mouth about Planning Commissioner Jo Ruggles’ strange slant on Malibu architecture.

Since I am the architect of the very building under construction above PCH she has singled out as an example of her scathing discourse on hillside design, I have something to add to your eloquent editorial.

Ms. Ruggles, you have named yourself an arbiter of what is acceptable in Malibu architecture. That is an awesome responsibility — and we architects are justified in asking: What are your qualifications to judge the “what and where and how” of the buildings of Malibu? You better not be living in a glass house.

How incredible that you would set yourself up to delineate one house or several as examples of what you deem as inappropriate or unsightly on the skyline or whatever direction you choose to look, in this eclectically designed community.

It’ll come as a big surprise to you that the very home you have chosen to denounce is a rebuild of a home built over 40 years ago on the same site and destroyed in the last Malibu fire. You’ve stated publicly that there was no building there before the present one under construction. I have to laugh at your ignorance since I was the “very young” (25) architect of the original house reachable only by a 180-foot tramway. (Your committee would choke on that today.)

This was my first of over 50 houses I’ve designed along the beaches and hills of Malibu. I called it then, as now, “The Eagle’s Watch” because it perches as a proud bird on its ridge site overlooking Santa Monica Bay and PCH at Las Flores.

I’ve loved Malibu all my life, its unique environment, its history. The mountains reaching down to the shoreline. The surf when it’s breaking is world class. I’ve been a longboard surfer most of my life and totally respect the ocean. I still surf a 12-foot wave and look inland toward the beautiful shoreline and houses I’ve designed. They fit in because of my point of view.

Ms. Ruggles, are we architects of Malibu now supposed to “design by committee” with you as our learned leader? I’d love to get a spiritual word from Leonardo Gaudi, Frank Lloyd Wright, Lautner, Van Der Rohe, and legions of architects who broke new ground and dared to put a building on a hillside or mountain top or ridge line.

My thoughts on architecture or any art form you try to restrict is: You better look at some of the freedoms this country was founded upon. If you choose to ignore them, then roll back the clock and live in prewar Germany or Russia, or better yet, go to China today.

I look forward to taking my next client’s plans to the Planning Commission. It should prove to be a very entertaining morning, or better yet — let’s make it “High Noon”!

Harry H. Gesner, architect