And here is a quote from the packaging that I think I will write to Marymount about.
"We can achieve our goal of reducing student commuter traffic and taking parked cars off the residential streets without changing the enrollment cap we currently have and without taxpayer dollars."
Well, how are they going to do that without the proposed ballot measure getting onto the November ballot and then finding enough votes to pass the measure which will cost taxpayer dollars for the ballot measure to be on the ballots?
Look below for the post where I asked our city officials how much having the ballot measure appear on the ballot would cost our city's General Fund.
Apparently, Maria Grau doesn't think there is currently a college level library on the Marymount College campus right now. She wrote; "Having a college level library, a state of the art athletic facility and new meeting spaces benefits the community and enhances a City asset."
Janet Hausrath Thrall also seems to feel her child who attended Marymount didn't have a college level library because she wrote: "A college level library, gym and new playing fields area all a benefit to our community."
Do you get the feeling that supporters of Marymount's plan have learned to recite the talking points without even thinking about what they are saying or writing?
I guess Marymount might not have a college level library now so how might the current students be receiving the quality education that the college's administration tauts that they provide?
As for the DVD, EVERYONE who spoke stating how long they have lived in the city arrived where they lived about TWENTY years AFTER I arrived. Even the elderly folks haven't been in their homes from the date I first came to my home, in 1955.
One of the 'lobbyists' who spoke on the DVD has a vested interest in the college remaining open because she works there.
There is absolutely no reasonable or realistic position that anyone can take suggesting that it is safer to have younger drivers residing just above the switchbacks on Palos Verdes Drive East and along a two-lane winding road when most of those students would not have come from the Los Angeles Basin.
When folks taut that the majority of the site will remain open space, they don't tell you that is because the bulk of the property is not safe to build structures on.
They also don't tell you that the tragedy that occurred a while ago didn't happen near either of the two off-campus housing sites. It actually happened in a spot that would be visible from the windows of the on-campus student housing, if there had been any at the time.
Go ahead Marymount supporters, challenge me concerning safety, I dare you.
Where should students live? on a hillside that won't have a fence around it or in a fenced in, guarded facility that offers a great deal of outside lighting. After all, that is what Palos Verdes North has.
Please do not sign the petition.
No comments:
Post a Comment