Expected And Somewhat Pleasantly Surprising

Marymount College officials delivered to the city of Rancho Palos Verdes 4,876 signatures on petitions dedicated to qualifying The Marymount Plan initiative for either being approved by the City Council exactly as written or mandating that the Council call for a vote by the registered voters of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes.

Many of us at least fairly knowledgeable with the issues fully expected and were even provided comments that the signatures would be turned in by the close of business on April 27. Turning the signatures in to be validated as being from residents of Rancho Palos Verdes qualified to sign them on that date pretty much guarantees that the measure will be on the General Election ballot at the November 2, 2010 Election Day.

I was personally informed by one of the paid petition gatherers that he was told that Marymount College expansion plan supporters and college officials wanted to turn in 'at least 5,000' signatures to be able to go well over the minimum number of about 2,700 valid signatures that would be needed to have the Council act on either of the two directives they must vote on within 30 days of the City Clerk or Election Officials certify that enough valid signatures had been gathered.

What I saw in this morning's The Daily Breeze item on the turning in of the signatures is that the number of signatures turned in by Marymount was 4,876 signatures with associated names and addresses.

So it appears to me and hopefully others that Marymount's goal of turning in "5,000" signatures fell a little short of that goal.

Now, what might that indicate after ALL of those commercials on the television during the time the local area commercials are shown on cable television channels?

First I think, it means that no matter how much Marymount's contributors spent on the flashy mailers, advertisements, DVDs and other media, there still was a shortfall in the number of signatures the contributors wanted and a number Dr. Brophy, Marymount's President may even have guaranteed to those who shelled out the dollars for all that media.

I am not saying Dr. Brophy or others at Marymount stated as fact they would get 5,000 signatures, but they may have offered a much rosier picture that what actually happened.

I can understand that many of us opposed to having residence halls built on the Palos Verdes Drive East campus of the college would be somewhat surprised and not unhappy that Marymount may have failed to attract at least 5,000 folks in a city of about 27,000 registered voters to sign their petition.

It means they could not persuade even 18.5% of the registered voters to sign a petition.

I am encouraged that there may be a crack in their armor they have placed to have the electorate approve the one item that is different than what the City Council will eventually approve by May 28.

I will recite the difference countless times before November 2. I will continue to repost the fact that Marymount officials removed consideration of residence halls from the Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project voluntarily, by the Planning Commission. With residence halls out of the hands and votes by the Planning Commission, the City Council never took up the matter of residence halls on March 31, 2010 when they basically and with one exception completely approved just about each and every wish and item Marymount officials wanted.

As a matter of fact, there is still the issue of the placement of the soccer field on Marymount's campus and I am very confident that our City Council may demand a bit more mitigation in order to allow the soccer field to be built on the west side of the campus.

I hope at least one voter at a time learns the real facts and the truth that Marymount College officials and supporters, along with Dr. Susan Soldoff created The Marymount Plan for what can only be considered as the single biggest demand an strongest issue concerning Marymount College and that issue revolves around residence halls on the campus.

Now I also expect Staff members of the city, along with the City Attorney will draft a report that will finally detail the taxpayer expenses that will be needed just to add the initiative to the November ballot and the followup processes during that election cycle.

During the campaign that will move forward to oppose the initiative once it qualifies for the ballot and the City Council votes to call for the vote, I will again post the taxpayer costs associated with what would be required if The Marymount Plan's initiative is successful and stands up through the lawsuits that would be filed IF it is passed.

The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, when it is finally and completely approved of by the City Council is a Project I support and I hope it can be done, if Marymount finds the money to complete it as eventually approved.

After the issues of the placement of the soccer field is complete, I seem to be one of (I hope) many, many residents of Rancho Palos Verdes supporting The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project.

For safety reasons I have published on this blog several times and I will repeat an unknown number of times between now and November 2, I oppose construction of any on-campus housing for students and/or staff of the college.

By May 30 I am very confident that the ONLY DIFFERENCE between the approved Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project and The Marymount Plan are the residence halls.

I now have to state that there are technical differences between the two and language in The Marymount Plan would see that the Specific Plan Zone for the college would allow Marymount's rules and many codes supersede municipal law and that the city of Rancho Palos Verdes would have to deal with very little oversight with Marymount's elements outweighing city codes and laws.

The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project's approval does carry instructions that the roof height of the gym be a bit different than what The Marymount Plan wants.

Every other element besides those listed above are in both The Project and The Plan that has basically already been approved for construction.

So, because so much of the two are so similar, Marymount officials have caused yet another delay in implementation of The Project because of their wish to see The Plan voted on.

I can consider that had Marymount accepted The Project instead of creating The Plan, they might have started getting permits to begin phase one during this summer.

Now, no matter what the outcome of the election might be, Marymount officials created what just could be a one-year delay in getting started between this summer and next summer.

Back to admissions of consideration and thought.

Since The Plan is The Project plus residence halls, and that is now without debate or discussion necessary, everyone can now see that residence halls has always been, for the entire life of The Project, the singularly most important item for Marymount.

When you saw the illustration of the library, gym, and other illustrations and then a quick shot of one residence hall, you were supposed to believe that those other items were at least more important than dorm on campus.

It was a marketing ploy I feel, for the commercial to rush by the dorms and seemingly place other academic or physical fitness items above the dorms. Sadly, there were far too many registered voters living near Western Avenue who bought the lines, ads, and statements by Marymount petition gatherers.

Along with my unorganized opposition to the initiative and the portion of The Marymount Plan dealing with dorms, Concerned Citizens Coalition/Marymount Expansion (CCC/ME), the original opposition group to The Project and The Plan, there is now Save Our City III (SOCIII).

SOCIII was founded by one of the first mayors of the city and there will be a fairly good number of former mayors in that group, I believe.

When Marymount trots out two former mayors who approve of having dorms built at Marymount, SOCIII will offer many other former mayors who served our city well and oppose the notion of a private entity using the ballot box to create a single beneficiary business that is provided what they want at the expense of too many residents and the usurpation by Marymount of some city codes and municipal laws, I feel.

Tomorrow is a new day and it is one day closer to November 2. So much more to come.