Traffic signals at Miraleste and Palos Verdes Drive East?
Having them is warranted under current conditions at that intersection.
The current Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project contains plan to have signals placed if and when that project receives approval by the City Council or possibly, registered voters.
Subjectively, I have talked to many people who use that intersection on a regular basis who all say they do not want that intersection to have traffic signals.
I want to find out your opinion. Maybe myself, my wife, and many others are in the minority with our thought that the intersection should not have traffic signals and walking signs installed.
Please answer the poll only once. It certainly is not scientific, but it may demonstrate how many folks desire having the intersection signalized.
You are also most welcome to provide you comments why you answered the poll question the way you did.
I sent out an Email about the poll to many individuals. The Email address I have for Dr. Brophy, the President of Marymount College came back as undeliverable. So I forwarded the Email to another Email address for the College because it is fair to seek input via the poll from folks at Marymount.
Thank you all for participating.
This letter was forwarde to Mr. Stern,
ReplyDeleteI always believed that Marymount does not have the right to participate (ie it has no standing) in the public forum for two reasons, 1) It does not pay taxes as do the property owners of RPV, 2) It is a religous institution. I believe it gives up these rights in exchange for the free ride it receives.
Now therefore it appears under the CA Constitution it has no right to solicit a ballot initiative simply by the fact that no public monies can be spent on a election.
Are we going to follow the CA Constitution or not?
T. Taricco
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 9: EDUCATION, SEC. 8:
No public money shall ever be appropriated for the support of any sectarian or denominational school, or any school not under the exclusive control of the officers of the public schools; nor shall any sectarian or denominational doctrine be taught, or instruction thereon be permitted, directly or indirectly, in any of the common schools of this State.
ARTICLE 16, SECTION 5 OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE CONSTITUTION PUBLIC FUNDS; AID OF RELIGIOUS PURPOSES OR INSTITUTIONS SEC. 5:
Neither the Legislature, nor any county, city and county, township, school district, or other municipal corporation, shall ever make an appropriation, or pay from any public fund whatever, or grant anything to or aid of any religious sect, church, creed, or sectarian purpose, or help to support or sustain any school, college, university, hospital, or other institution controlled by any religious creed, church, or sectarian denomination whatever; nor shall any grant or donation of personal property or real estate ever be made by the state or any city, city and county, town or other municipal corporation for any religious creed, church, or sectarian purpose whatever, provided that nothing in this section shall prevent the Legislature grating aid pursuant to section 3 of Article XVI.(Adopted November 5, 1974)
This is a comment left by T. Taricco.
ReplyDeleteThe individual left their Email address within the comment and asked that it not be shared.
I do not edit comments before publication unless specifically requested to do so and T. Taricco does not wish to have their Email address show
Here is T. Taricco's comment:
Dear Sir, Clearly what is needed is a competing ballot initiative, an educational one. One that nullifies the Marymount initiative. Persuasive.
1)Local neighborhood control, do unto others.
Would you want a future initiative to put a large public structure in your back yard?
Would you like to pay more taxes for non-profit congregations that burden your city's resources?
Remember why RPV was founded, local control, not imposing a large project unduly on your neighbors.
Should a large project that is good for the city overall put an undue burden on the local neighborhood in which it exists?
Should churhes, private schools, businesses, etc be allowed to exand without limits regardless of tax status and a net generator of taxes or a net tax burden?
Now therefore; Let it be adopted that no modification or changes to the city charter, laws, zoning or rules may be made or building variances issued concerning the introduction of , expansion of or change to a; private school, business or entity other than a private residence unless there is a 3/4 majority vote of approval of the resident citizens in an area located within a 3000 foot radius of the perimeter of the said subject potential changes or modifications to a property. Said cost of local election shall be born fully by the owner of the subject property and shall require at least a 60% participation of all eligible voters. This initiative shall be binding upon and prevail over any conflicting initiative at the time it was enacted by the voters.
-------------------------------------------------------
Thank you T. Taricco, for your comment.
I think it is going to be interesting to attend the City Council meeting on March 16. I wonder how many folks will speak about the latest thing Marymount has done during the public comments on items not on the agenda.