Maybe It Is All About Making Money?

I learned a new term today. 'Forward Selling'. As explained to me, it is the process that allows an entity to sell, grant, lease, or convey in some manner, something of value to another entity and the seller, granter, or lease provider makes money quickly and early during a development or expansion project.

I am going to use information from the Web sites; www.useducationguides.com and www.petersons.com/collegeprofiles to offer some demographics concerning the 2009-2010 academic year for Marymount College.

None of the numbers I am using have been disputed by Marymount's President, Dr. Michael Brophy, and he offered his opinion that the numbers I provided to him Tuesday evening, are correct to the best of his knowledge.

For the 2009-2010 academic year for Marymount College, there were:

591 students with 96% of the students (567.36) attending Marymount on a Full Time Basis.

60% of the 591 students (354.6) lived in Marymount-owned and administered off-campus housing. That brought to Marymount a gross income of about $3,763,000.00.

IF the Initiative passes, it is expected that the approximately 116 students and advisers that live a the Pacific Heights off-campus site would move out and Marymount would be able to sell the entire building, something it has been claiming it would, but they have not done so, yet.

(Also, keeping the approximately 300+ beds at the college's Palos Verdes North facility, along with 250 beds on campus, that gross, based on this past year's room rates would garner something like $5,830,000.00 per year and having enough beds to offer up to 69% of its total student body the opportunity to live in campus-owned housing.)

Costs for room at the two off-campus housing sites were about $10,600 per student, with the typical board charge was $3,914.00.

UndergraduateTuition was listed at $24,052.

The combination of tuition, room, board, additional fees and, undergrad books brought the total per student costs to attend Marymount at approximately $40,529.00 for the preceding academic year.

Now let's examine some money or profits IF Marymount's initiative passes.

250 students living on-campus@ $10,600.00 for room equals $2,650,000.00 per year, assuming that the room cost is equivalent to what it was for this immediate past academic year.

IF Marymount's initiative passes, there would be no restriction or local government oversight with such things as renting out the auditorium, large field, tennis courts, swimming pool, dorms during summer, or other rooms and areas at Marymount's Palos Verdes Drive East campus.

Marymount would have the right to lease out or sell rights to an independent promoter or another company to offer concerts, sports activities, summer programs (Band Camp, Cheerleader Camp, or Soccer Camp) with attendees staying in on-campus housing and paying fees for the programs, plus room and board.

There would be no oversight in the placement of outdoor lighting and no government restriction of noise levels of concerts, even outdoor concerts on the campus.

Now please consider this. Marymount would have the right to 'forward sell' the operation and maintenance of its dorms to a entity who would provide all upfront construction costs, plus an undetermined profit to Marymount such that Marymount COULD fund their entire plan after receiving a check made from a contract with the business that would accept the forward sell.

Also, Marymount would have the right to 'forward sell' rights and opportunities to an entertainment type company to administer any to all events and activities that could be of money making types and that Marymount could enter into a contract soon after its Initiative is passed whereby the entity entering into the forward selling with Marymount would probably provide a large check upfront to also increase the coffers of Marymount College.

Some were wondering why and where Marymount gets all the money to do its outrageous, in my opinion, marketing during the petition gathering campaign and what will surely be a huge blast of marketing seeking to provide as little information as possible that would get ill-informed voters to vote "Yes" on the initiative.

I have asserted that Marymount will fail as a college if it cannot secure on-campus housing as a way of attracting more non-local students, especially foreign students which is only had 6% of its total 2009-2010 enrollment.

I think I and others can now assert that Marymount is willing to have its supporters shell out giant sums of money to get approval of its initiative so it has the opportunity to forward sell the operations of the on-campus housing AND entertainment, sports activities, and any other money making venture produced by an independent entity which purchased rights to do so from Marymount, almost immediately after the Initiative would pass.

However, I have continued to state that I feel that The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Plan, now law and able to begin with Marymount, is a very good plan and one that should be followed and supported.

I think now that many folks could realize like I have done today, that one huge reason Marymount seeks dorms and restrictions of oversight is NOT because of needed added enrollment, it is because its entire Marymount Plan could be paid for using forward selling and not using donations and other sources required with The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project.

Either way, I hope you can read and look to learn much more about the potential income Marymount could enjoy while using a lack of government oversight to provide venues to paying customers to use as Marymount and those customers see fit and not what would be in the best interests of the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes.

Voting "No" on the initiative means Marymount would have the opportunity to accomplish a reasonable, responsible, realistic, and respectful expansion, with oversight that provides more safety for all and local responsibility with the expansion and operation.

Voting "Yes" means a high-density residential development in a low-density neighborhood, POSSIBLY controlled by a private company not beholden to the city of Rancho Palos Verdes, the local neighbors, or the rest of the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes.

A "Yes" vote could also mean a private entity paying Marymount a hefty amount up front to offer concerts, sporting events, cultural events, and other activities with a for-profit way, with little to no restrictions with noise, lighting, time of day, type of activities, parking, traffic, or responsible oversight by the city of Rancho Palos Verdes.

A "Yes" vote also demonstrates that profit may be more important to Marymount and its supporters than being a good neighbor and providing the best educational opportunities to the greatest number of residents on The Hill, I believe.

If you wish to forward sell your community to a College that has seen declining enrollment over the past several years, got itself off of the Academic Probation it was placed on, early, thank goodness, and having a President who decried your City Council's ("you tinkered") tinkering of the Project such that it now provides more safety than The Marymount Plan does, then I think you are ill-informed and I hope you would take the time to learn the facts, ALL the facts, and not the deceptive, in my opinion, ads and some statements made by Marymount Supporters and at least one in its administration.

I also challenge Marymount to offer their opinion on each and every one of the approximately 62 differences Marymount wants from what has already been approved of by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council. My challenge involves honesty, openness, and forthrightness from Marymount, without continuing to state that The Marymount Plan would be built "at no taxpayer expense" and in only "36 months" construction time.

Marymount has used its mighty dollars attempting to provide ONLY the most basic information that its marketing folks feel would garner approval of its plans. Marymount has not been willing to reveal that it would only pay its "fair share" of traffic mitigation and that taxes would be used for the remainder of the mitigation and that if Marymount gets its "Yes" on the initiative, it won't matter about the "36 months" because it literally would have the ability to allow permits to run out and then get granted again to make the total construction time for the project being not 36 months, not even 8 years. Marymount would have basically, an unlimited amount of months and years to work on its project.

It also would be a fact that IF the initiative is passed, Marymount would have the right to build its on-campus housing and nothing else. The Marymount Plan could see no new gym, library, swimming pool, better parking, or other neighborhood mitigation measures accomplished because with passage, Marymount could do as little or as much as it wanted OR as little or as much as it could possibly profit from.

The city of Rancho Palos Verdes will provide, on its Web site, a detailed and completely objective list of the similarities and differences between what the City Council approved and what Marymount seeks in its Initiative.

I will certainly provide a link to sites where truthful information, written objectively, can be viewed by any and all.

Please don't be fooled to believe that a great number of Marymount's supporters will read or not object to what is written, even though it is mandated to be objective and truthful.

Dr. Michael "you tinkered" Brophy fired the first salvo when he used those careless words dealing with added safety to Councilman Campbell and I will provide as many salvos and battles as I feel are necessary to defeat the Initiative, using truth, as much objectivity as I can muster, and some hyperbole, not unlike what we have heard or read from Marymount.

Dr. Brophy, my armor is polished. My information and facts you haven't been able to deny or dispute. My challenge to debate concerning safety continues, any time, anywhere. My cause is NOT NIMBY as I live 3 miles from Marymount's entrance.

I am independent of CCC/ME, SOCIII, and every government entity in Rancho Palos Verdes.

I arrived in the house I live currently live in 55 years, one month, and 13 days ago, so I think I have more seniority in this area than more than 95% of the other residents.

I await any and all challenges and as I have already done for many, many months now, I haven't been proven incorrect by anyone associated with Marymount College, including its President.

I support the Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project and recognize that Marymount probably cannot profit financially with it, but it could provide an excellent education for up to 793 students, if it only chooses to.