Three Forums For Seven Candidates.

Our city will have elections to seat two new members of our City Council on November 3.

There are seven candidates currently running for the two seats.

Three debates/forums are scheduled where you can learn about each of the candidates.

The first is on Thursday October 1, beginning at 7:00 PM at the Point Vicente Interpretive Center.

The next two will be held beginning at 7:00 PM at Hesse Park on October 7 and October 14.

This is now the time to learn about the candidates and get more involved in OUR city as opposed to San Pedro.

It is sad to see so few yard signs in the Eastview area supporting candidates. We actually provide a great deal of funding for our city and we have the primary business and retail environments in Rancho Palos Verdes.

The good folks in the Miraleste area have supported candidates and there are at least two candidates who live in the Miraleste area this election cycle.

Each candidate has a Web site that you can find on the links of this blog.

Personally, I have placed yard signs for my first endorsed candidate, Jeffrey Lewis and I will probably ask for yard signs for the second person I endorse after the October 7 forum.

I have narrowed my choice for my second vote to three candidates. One is actually appearing to be a conservative and the other two seem to lean more in the correct direction of thinking.

I continue to wish John McTaggart all the best and thank him for his service to all of us and hope he understands that I feel there are new chances to allow others to serve who should be provided the opportunity to serve as well as Mr. McTaggart has done.

Please attend at least one of the forums/debates. It is important to know who is governing us so we can assist them in bettering our city.

What May Happen IF Marymount Wins New Accreditation

I know of an intelligent fellow who is in a position to know who has helped me understand what might happen with the Marymount College Facilities Expansion Plan moves forward IF the College wins accreditation to become a 4 year institution.

I was wondering where the Plan might head or not head if Marymount wins.

I have tried my best to offer his written comments to me below and I will add some opinion of my own. Don't I always?

I asked my source if he thought the Plan would have to back to the Planning Commission because of an accreditation change.

Here are his thoughts.

"Marymount will never return to the PC on this application. As I understand what the city council did, they have directed the environmental consultants to study the impacts of the new 4 year degree program. The results of that further study will be brought back to the city council no earlier than April with a decision then to be made by the city council (bypassing the PC completely). As a result, Marymount is a big election issue. It will be interesting to see what the candidates say."

I also wondered whether the gentleman thought the City Council members would seek a new application and/or call for new studies. I considered that if the student enrollment cap remained the same, then the current studies would probably be sufficient. Here are his thoughts on that.

"I don't think that the city council will order any additional studies beyond the current study. I expect that in April the environmental consultant will conclude that the change to a 4 year program will not impact any of the traffic impacts, parking impacts, mitigation measures, or other conclusions in the EIR. At that point, the city council (as then composed) will simply vote on the original application that the PC approved. I don't have any inside knowledge, but that is my prediction."

The individual who responded so kindly to my questions is someone who has been very involved with all the issues related to the Facilities Expansion Project.

It do feel and strongly believe that all the candidates seeking the two seats on our City Council should offer their opinions on both the application for accreditation change and their opinions on the entire Facilities Expansion Project.

The studies issue may come into more importance IF Marymount receives accreditation to become a 4 year institution because it means a higher percentage of students will probably own or use cars as transportation.

The older version of the Plan stated that if dorms were built on the campus, Freshmen living in the on-campus housing would not be allowed to have cars on campus.

If on-campus housing is ever built at a 4 year Marymount and Juniors and Seniors opted to live on-campus, I think they are two groups not originally considered as far as parking and trip generation in the current EIR.

It is not logical to support Marymount becoming a 4 year College and still strongly oppose on-campus housing. 4 year Colleges in California have some on-campus housing, I feel.

If you oppose on-campus housing then reasonably, you should also oppose the College's application to become a 4 year school.

Los Angeles Times Article and Comment

Here is an article that appeared in today's Los Angeles Times followed by some comments from me.

Corus Bank fails; cost to FDIC is $1.7 billion

(Associated Press)

Regulators on Friday seized Corus Bank, a major lender to condominium, office and hotel developers, adding it to the long list of banks that have succumbed to waves of loan defaults.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. took over Corus, a unit of Chicago-based Corus Bancshares Inc. The bank had $7 billion in assets.

Corus Bank's 11 branches will reopen as branches of Chicago-based MB Financial Bank, which agreed to assume Corus's deposits.

The closure of Corus will cost the deposit insurance fun $1.7 billion, the FDIC estimated.

Corus was staggering for weeks under the weight of bad real estate loans. Its collapse had been anticipated.

Regulators closed two other banks Friday, one in Minnesota and one in Washington state.

The three closures bring to 92 the number of banks that have failed this year.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, Corus lasted a bit longer than many of us thought it would.

Some of our City Council members have stated the failure doesn't mean that Terranea will soon close its doors.

And now with the Marymount stunt, our city is going to need every T.O.T. penny it can get its hands on.

I am not happy that I continue to consider that the Hotel/Resort may close sometime between the beginning of October and the end of February, 2010.

But a new idea popped into my cloudy brain about what could be in store for our city.

What if Marymount joined with another business education institution of higher learning to establish two small colleges, both with on-campus housing at the site currently being used as Terranea.

There are plenty of spaces to hold classes at both institutions. Both could easily be four-year Colleges specializing in business and anticipated degrees Marymount wants to offer.

Marymount could sell its properties and they could become wonderful residential neighborhoods and the money go to securing the Terranea site if that facility closes.

Having a business-oriented College in a city full of businessmen and businesswomen brings expertise closer to classrooms in a city which welcomes business people as residents, leaders, and supporters.

Pacific Heights and Palos Verdes North could close as off-campus housing for Marymount. And if both Colleges field teams, they both can play home games against each other with both schools calling those games 'home games'. (Yeah, that is absurd, but I have been writing far too many hours so far today.)

Back to reality, sorrowfully.

Oh, what the heck.........How about a third small College on the Terranea site which would have "The Donald" establish programs separate from the Business College and combining deal-making with showpersonship?

A third College could have classes geared more towards entertainment on a peninsula that is quite full of residents who are connected with that industry.

"Marymount, Mellon, Trump University of Liberal Arts, Business, and Entertainment.

And it could probably continue to have a 9-hole golf course.

Marymount; Eventual Dorms or Eventual Failure?

Marymount College campus plan faces new study

By Melissa Pamer, Staff Writer, Daily Breeze

Posted: 09/12/2009 05:25:12 PM PDT

Responding to unexpected news last week that Marymount College hopes to begin granting four-year degrees, Rancho Palos Verdes officials on Saturday asked for further study of the school's long-delayed modernization plans.

In a move that is likely to postpone for several months a decision on Marymount's controversial campus expansion proposal, the City Council voted 4-0 to ask for a review of the potential impacts caused by the college allowing students to obtain bachelor's degrees.

The vote came several days after the private Catholic two-year college revealed that it had applied to a regional educational accreditation agency to begin offering bachelor's degrees, with the first class expected to graduate in 2012.

Council members and city staff said the new academic program could cause additional traffic and have other effects on the residential areas surrounding Marymount. A state-required environmental review of the expansion plans which have been fiercely opposed by organized college neighbors since first proposed in 2000 should incorporate a study of impacts from the academic plans, officials said.

"Clearly this is a significant change that does need to be addressed. Maybe there will be no impacts ... but I'm not a traffic engineer, and I don't know," City Attorney Carol Lynch said.

Councilman Doug Stern said California law compelled a supplemental environmental review.

"I regret that it's many years into it, but I don't believe this process ... has fulfilled our obligation under (state environmental law), given this most recent disclosure," said Councilman Doug Stern.

The call for additional analysis follows years of delays and months of lengthy Planning Commission meetings that dissected the college's proposal, which includes a new library and athletic center, among other changes.

The most contentious aspect of the plans - two dormitories that would have housed 250 students - was dropped by the college in May. Nonetheless, neighbors organized as Concerned Citizens Coalition/Marymount Expansion appealed the commission's approval of other buildings.

Parties on both sides, along with city officials, hoped a daylong Saturday meeting would result in a decision finally putting the long-running issue to rest.

Then came the revelation - in a press release and a letter to the city from the college's attorney - about the bachelor's degree plans.

College officials said they sought to be forthright with the city by disclosing their academic plans, which they insisted would not impact residents because the number of students and faculty would not exceed a city-imposed cap.

"We weren't trying to hide the ball on this. Obviously, the timing is awkward. If we had waited six months, we wouldn't have to go through this. There's a penalty being put on us for candor," said Donald Davis, the college's attorney.

Marymount submitted its proposed four-year program - which would offer degrees in business, liberal arts and media studies - to the Western Association of Schools and Colleges in August. The move is a response to student demand and financial pressures due to declining enrollment, college officials said.

Approval from WASC is expected as early as February, college President Michael Brophy said.

Brophy and Davis asked the city to review the college's academic plans separately from the modernization proposal in hope of avoiding another delay to construction at the Palos Verdes Drive East campus.

"It is a time when we wonder what kind of Kafkaesque situation we are in with the city," Brophy told the council.

After over three hours of public comment and debate, the council voted 4-0 for the expanded environmental review. The council also called for an analysis of the possibility of keeping the college's soccer field in its existing location instead of moving it closer to the road.

Mayor Larry Clark was recused because he lives close to Marymount.

Brophy said after the vote that he believed the new environmental review would not show additional impacts to the college's neighborhood. He expects the Planning Commission approval to be upheld by the council.

CCC/ME President Lois Karp supported the council vote, saying the future review was a "necessity."

"My head is spinning," Karp said.

The issue should return to the council for action in February, planning director Joel Rojas said. At that time, the City Council will have two new members, following November elections.

Saturday's action will likely force Marymount's plans into an even more prominent place in the city's politics just as the campaigns of the seven council candidates are gathering steam.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Will Marymount remain open long enough to see on-campus housing finally approved or ordered?

How much money will Concerned Citizens Coalition/Marymount College (CCC/ME) spend on lawsuits that are now almost certain?

How far into the legal system is Marymount willing to go IF they receive accreditation to become a four-year College.

Dr. Brophy, Marymount's President telegraphed, without touching the key, that if Marymount does NOT become a four-year institution offering as few as three Bachelor's degrees, the College will fail.

Since four-year colleges in California and just about every other State have on-campus housing, Dr. Brophy offered his 'tell' with his latest stunt/gimmick/preplanned 'Hail Mary' pass, I believe.

Even though I oppose and will continue to oppose on-campus student housing at Marymount, I recognize and understand the thoughts of many residents of Rancho Palos Verdes and the three other cities on The Hill who support residence halls at Marymount.

San Pedrans living close to or affected by the Pacific Heights or Palos Verdes North off-campus housing sites now in use by Marymount students, have more chances to weigh in with their ideas and demands.

Through interviews and other means, I have learned that Pacific Heights is not the best neighbors to some members of the San Pedro community. Marymount College Presidents have stated that the Pacific Heights site, housing approximately 116 students and staff was to be closed in the past and would certainly be closed if on-campus housing is finally offered at Marymount. Every promise from Marymount to close and sell Pacific Heights has gone unmet.

With the current Facilities Expansion Project, there is no call for the approximately 300-student and staff off-campus housing site on Palos Verdes Drive North to be closed.

Attorneys, and there sure are quite a few of them living in Rancho Palos Verdes, will argue in cases that will overshadow whatever the Planning Department, Planning Commission, City Council, CCC/ME and our city's residents decide about Marymount.

However, if the accreditation request fails to allow Marymount to become a four-year institution, most indications now point or have been telegraphed that the College won't survive, especially without residence halls, I feel.

San Pedrans who have been long silent on the Facilities Expansion Project will have more chances to weigh in, in numbers, and with reasonable arguments supporting on-campus housing at Marymount. It is my opinion that they have a right and resposibility to improve their neighborhoods as they see fit and they have standing in discussions about the Project.

CCC/ME is close to demanding that the College us a 'Living Campus/Academic Campus' approach with Marymount. They would like to have no on-campus housing at Marymount, have the Palos Verdes North site expanded with residential units AND the College's Athletic Department AND including playing fields in north San Pedro and not along Palos Verdes Drive East.

That keeps the door open for San Pedrans, including Councilwoman Hahn to contend that on-campus housing is the best thing for San Pedrans and San Pedro.

Our City Council has no jurisdiction to demand anything as far as residence halls and athletic facilities in the city of Los Angeles and its San Pedro community.

And when it comes to the question of which community can provided the greater number of voices, Neighborhood Councils that represent about 25,000 households each, and evidence that both the Pacific Heights and Palos Verdes North facilities have not be the best neighbors, San Pedro wins hands down even though CCC/ME members aren't willing to accept that and the facts.

It appears that the Accreditation Committee may make its ruling by February. My opinion is that if Marymount is not accredited as a four-year College, April will contain news that the Class of 2010 may be the last graduating class at the College.

Now that Dr. Brophy has stated what he has stated, there would not be enough reasons for parents to spend in the range of $39,000 a year to send their kids to a College Dr. Brophy has telegraphed would most likely close.

Since, according to parents of two Marymount alumni, Juniors and Seniors attending four-year Colleges don't normally want to live in on-campus housing, I don't know whether that impacted decisions to attempt to begin a four-year program in the fall of 2010.

Can CCC/ME and others opposing on-campus housing AND the College becoming a four-year school do anything to sway the Accreditation Committee?

I think our city can offer opinions to the Committee if asked, but I am not sure our city government can or should weigh in. Any overt action to support or oppose Marymount's accreditation requests would be met by lawsuits on either or both sides of the issues and R.P.V. shouldn't spend funds it probably doesn't have to deal with lawsuits in the nearer term. There will be more than enough opportunities for our city to have to pay legal fees to represent us with a defense, response, or petitioner.

Now it seems we all need to trudge down to Terranea and help it survive so T.O.T. dollars will be paid to our city so we can find more funds to deal with Marymount.

And aren't we still being sued by "The Donald"?

Marymount Supporters Want The College to Become A Four-Year School.

Marymount College currently has fewer than 600 students.

Enrollment is capped at approximately 750 students.

Enrollment has been declining in recent years.

Marymount College ranks two thousand, three hundred, and fifteenth, according to someone who has thoroughly researched facts and figures concerning Marymount.

Sadly, the last student to parish while attending Marymount was under 21 and had a blood alcohol level of between .17 and .21, according to the Deputy who investigated the crash. (The differences in the level is because of where and when some samples were taken)

In the State of California, the legal limit to be considered under the influence is .08, less than half of the victim's lowest level tested.

Four-year Colleges have a greater percentage of students who are 21 or older than is found at most Junior Colleges.

It looked, until this past Wednesday, that the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council was likely to disapprove the appeal filed by CCC/ME to the Expansion Project.

Marymount was poised to be granted just about every part of the Facilities Expansion Project save on-campus housing.

The College was placed on Academic Warning for originally a two-year period but the College corrected problems and that warning was lifted late in the first year of warning.

Dr. Brophy and supporters of Marymount know that without on-campus housing under existing conditions, the College will most likely fail.

Perhaps there is not enough financial incentive left to build the current Project, without on-campus housing being assured.

There are very few, if any, four-year Colleges in California that do not have either on-campus student housing or near adjacent housing for students.

Marymount College does not offer off-campus housing within a reasonable walking distance.

It stands to reason that Dr. Brophy and others need to use whatever means are required to have on-campus housing for the College to survive.

But then again, Bob Lowe basically begged the City Council to approve the T.O.T. Rebate. Even with the T.O.T. Rebate now rescinded, the Resort is not closed and some City Council members claim business there is quite good.

It is not surprising to me that Dr. Brophy and others are attempting this change in order to secure on-campus housing in the future. If the College gets to become a four-year accredited College, it will most certainly need to find a way to get on-campus housing. I feel strongly that College representatives would bring lawsuits against the city of R.P.V. should they receive four-year status and are denied on-campus housing.

Some folks have already stated to me that these most recent plans were hatched long ago.

I am concerned how this will play out in the current election cycle.

Are there candidates that favor having Marymount becoming a four-year institution? If there are, what kind of support might Marymount and its supporters provided to those candidates?

What might supporters of Marymount do with City Council candidates who oppose either on-campus housing or the College moving to a four-year program?

Is Dr. Brophy and others who may not live in our city attempting to 'rig' the election?

I most assuredly hope not.

The credibility of Dr. Brophy can be called into even more question. I feel so sorry sometimes when I find I can no longer trust Dr. Brophy's words and intentions. I have tried to offer him my best but it seems on-campus housing is his primary goal with Marymount.

It is also an unfortunate opportunity to have our election mired in this latest fiasco. Voters on both sides of the campus housing debate will want to know where the candidate stands on dorms and having the College become a four-year institution.

We have other large matters for the candidates and voters to deal with and we did not need or want this incursion into our decision-making challenges.

So here is what I am considering about the candidates.

If any candidate favors Marymount becoming a four-year College it means to me that the candidate knows full well that that support is also support for on-campus housing.

I highly doubt any candidate who favors having Marymount become a four-year College would get my one remaining vote I haven't endorsed yet.

It then stands to reason that any candidate that supports on-campus housing at the College even if it remains a Junior College will most likely not get my vote and I would hope won't get many votes from voters.

But I am going to watch the machine that may be from Marymount supporters and whether any candidate withers under pressure.

I understand that when a group tries to sway elections to get supportive candidates elected, it is still bad but it happens all the time.

Of course I wrote to our City Council members. I also wrote to two members of CCC/ME. I wrote to Jeff Lewis and one other candidate.

My current thought is that during the opening of the City Council meeting, Council members should individually state that unless the city receives written documents stating that Marymount will not continue with efforts to become a four-year College, then our City Council must kick back to the Planning Commission, the Project Plans they approved.

Since almost every four-year College in California has on-campus or nearby housing, the current Project Plans must be restudied and reworked to include the probability that on-campus housing would be granted via lawsuits against the city by Marymount.

This all may be moot though. I can be contended that Dr. Brophy and other have no intention of moving forward with the current Project Plans until they receive approval to become a four-year institution. Then they simply skip into Council Chambers with facts and figures for four-year institutions and have their legal counsel skip along and smile at Council members as he or she offers the fact that Marymount will be most willing and able to go to court to seek approval for on-campus housing via expensive to the city lawsuits.

Whether Marymount can stand the time lag between accreditation and ruling is a good question. Maybe if they won't fund an Expansion Project until a ruling comes forward, they won't have to expend funds and stay open no matter how few students attend classes.

All in all, it seems to me to be a sneaky, smarmy, end-around trick to get on-campus housing. For a College affiliated with any religious organization to attempt this is sorrowful and doesn't provide good impressions towards that organization, in my opinion.

If the site could eventually acquire a more business-education Junior College, I think the peninsula has a great number of human resources to make a program like that work better than just about anywhere else.....except perhaps Century City.

I have to fight against having Marymount become a four-year College because it means they would get on-campus housing much sooner than any later. But on-campus housing was always the first goal of Dr. Brophy's with the Expansion Project, wasn't it?

A Mailing From John McTaggart

Our mailbox held a mailing from Rancho Palos Verdes City Council candidate John McTaggart, today.

Naturally I opened it and read it as carefully as I could.

I do appreciate Mr. McTaggart's years of service to our city, but I also feel that he should let others serve our city as he has done.

His mailer contained wording about his extensive experience. Clearly he has been a candidate many times and I had hoped this mailing would have provided greater evidence of his experience in running for office.

Along the left side of the page was a 'Partial list of supporters'. I read that list seeking to learn who some of Mr. McTaggart's supporters are and whether I might know some of them.

Halfway down the list I noticed the names reappearing on the page. Looking further at the list it appears the list was completely repeated, except for the names of one couple, so as to make it appear that there are more supporters than are actually named.

I don't like this tactic one bit. I don't think Mr. McTaggart can claim this use by claiming he is a novice at running for office. It may even be pityful to read names repeated because a candidate doesn't have the names of enough supporters to fill the side of the page, but does so anyway.

I continue to consider that Mr. McTaggart's service as a City Council member has come and gone and he has provided good service to our city.

I think it is time to let others join the ranks of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council members. like Mr. McTaggart has already done.

These next two election cycles will bring a complete change in the membership of our City Council. I hope that no other former City Council members decide to run in two years so we can have a Council seated without former Mayors back on our Council.

We have the opportunity to provide a completely fresh and new approach to the governance of Rancho Palos Verdes and I hope we all consider the benefits that could bring to all of us.

I am now fairly settled on one of my votes on November 3. I still have one vote to work towards and right now I feel there are four candidates that could earn my vote.

As a known progressive, I feel Mr. Misetich is not necessarily someone who I am interested in learning much more about. He may be a wonderful gentleman, but his politics is too far right for my liking.

I do however, consider that a balance between conservatives, centrists, and progressives would be the best for our city. In the next two cycles I would like to see that happen. And we all have a chance to make that happen, if we choose to.

My first vote is strongly leaning towards Mr. Jeffrey Lewis. I have written that on other posts.

The four other candidates I am going to consider are ramping up their campaigns and I hope to attend functions for them to learn more about them so I will be able to vote for the two candidates I feel would provide the best service and representation to our city.

Right now any one of them could potentially receive a vote from me.

In Tom Long's recent Email, he offered that he will opine about the seven candidates. I will appreciate what I read from him and the other current members of our Council.

I think the more we learn about candidates we wish to learn more about, the better we can vote to provide the best leadership to our city.