Well, lets look as more 'facts' about the mailer.
Again we are all able to read the; "at no taxpayer expense". Of course what they won't admit is that just the simple fact that having the measure on the ballot will cost the General Fund of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes, which is taxpayer funded, an as yet undetermined amount of money probably in the tens of thousands of dollars.
What is also omitted is the fact that Rancho Palos Verdes will be required to use taxpayer funds to partially finance the placement of a traffic signal system mandated by both the Project and The Marymount Plan at the intersection of Palos Verdes Drive East and Miraleste Drive.
Marymount also won't publish that taxpayer funds will be used to change the intersections of Palos Verdes Drive East at Palos Verdes Drive South.
Marymount also won't publish in their advertising that taxpayer funds will be necessary to make striping and directional changes to the intersection of Trudie Drive at Western Avenue.
Now, about that 36 month "total" construction time in all the literature. Yes, it is 36 month, probably. But the fact is that the 36 months of work will be spread out over an eight year period.
How do I know that? Dr. Michael Brophy, the President of Marymount College and Mr. Don Davis, the attorney for The Marymount Plan both stated on the record and on videotape that they will need eight years to get the Plan built and they both stated they did not believe it could be accomplished in as little as six-years time frame.
It is still simply not believable that the administration, Trustees, and supports of Marymount College will continue to keep the cap on enrollment if and when the multi-hundreds of million dollars the Plan and/or Project will cost will not seek higher enrollment for the simple fact that all the construction and maintenance will cost money and the only way to get more money is to charge more than the current up-to $39,000 a year for tuition and boarding or increase the number of students.
Even high school graduates can understand that there will have to be increases in fees or persons being charged fees for a completed project to be paid off.
Recently I heard the words; 'Visa Loophole Students'. These students are recruited from oversees by Colleges seeking wealthy parents funding their kids college experienced in the United States.
Parents of college-age students, many overseas, wish to have their kids educated in the United States so that those students can possibly continue on living in the U.S. and perhaps allowing for more family members immigrating to the United States as some point in the future.
With on-campus housing at Marymount, that college's administration could offer a better marketing plan to parents of prospective students with the ability to claim more control and monitoring of students/children that many parents are currently seeking.
Only about 1/3 of the students attending Marymount are from families who reside more locally in the L.A. Basin.
This is completely different from most other junior colleges and community colleges who normally find the majority of their student population gathered from local areas much closer to the school than from overseas.
It is a documented fact that many pregnant women normally living in South Korea come to the United States and stay in specialized housing until the birth of their child on U.S. soil, before returning back home with their newborn.
The child, born in the United States, automatically becomes a U.S. Citizen and would offer the reasoning that IF something were to happen between South Korea and North Korea, many South Korean families would be able to come to the U.S. more quickly than others because of their U.S. citizen child.
Personally I feel that if the unthinkable should happen, this is a reasonable and realistic way to save many thousands of South Korean civilians from harm. I am not all that opposed to it.
I won't state as fact or even much probability that I know that Marymount continues to market to parents of Visa Loophole Students, but they might and there are other colleges who probably do the same thing.
I do know that the number of foreign students attending Marymount College has been in decline for several years not. I also know that many folks want on-campus housing at Marymount.
I do know that for a time, the actual enrollment at Marymount was greater than the 793-student maximum, but it is nowhere near that now and may be more than 200-students fewer, at this time.
Back to the mailer.
"How will the plan benefit Rancho Palos Verdes?" The mailer claims that with the increased parking (the total number of parking spaces will still be less than what the R.P.V. Municipal Code call for) students, faculty and visitor parking will be gone from residential streets.
Since there has never been a documented time or period other than a special event that the parking lot has been completely filled, how will adding cars owned by drivers living in on-campus housing not add to the problem.
Students, faculty, and visitors have been observed, counted, and located parking on private streets even though there were open parking spaces on campus. Those are the facts documented in studies taken for the Environmental Impact Report. It wasn't something Marymount supporters said, stated, wrote, or opined. It was a third party objective study.
The mailer also states that having on-campus housing would reduce commuter traffic. The Environmental Impact Report used objective observations, counts, and studies to disprove that notion that Marymount still claims as fact.
With on-campus housing, the campus would operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and Marymount has no plans to restrict entrance to or exits from their campus at any time of any day.
There would probably be students, living in residence halls, who have jobs not located on the campus of Marymount. Those students would probably drive to and from their jobs beginning and ending at the Marymount campus at all hours of the day or night.
Furthermore, with residence halls necessitating eating halls, truck and supply traffic would increase to and from Marymout using Palos Verdes Drive East. How would you like to get stuck behind a bob-tail delivery truck on any portion of Palos Verdes Drive East?
I wonder if the most recent mailer was produced because there still isn't the number of signatures college supporters want to have before they turn them in.
Please remember that we all need to be very concerned about the safety of the students, faculty, staff, visitors, and everyone else who drives by or lives near the Marymount campus. This must be first and foremost in our thoughts and there have been too many cases where the lack of safety and responsibility on the part of Marymount students has led to harmful and tragic situations to students, local residents and others.
Just imagine IF a 'Visa Loophole Student' would attend Marymount, from a home overseas that is not built in the environment similar to where Marymount is located. Would you not feel some kind of responsibility if you backed The Marymount Plan and that student faced harm or tragedy because he or she is not familiar with the area and inexperienced in driving or riding a bicycle? I am not willing to accept that, on-campus housing is more important than the safety of everyone, including that student.
No comments:
Post a Comment