Open Letter To PVP Watch

To the Editorial Board and Members of PVP Watch.

This post is also an Email to PVP Watch.

Greetings, I am writing to establish your group's true position on The Marymount Plan and the upcoming initiative and I am doing so to see if your group departs from the marketing language used by representatives of Marymount College. I am trying to find out why a group such as yours supports a plan that so very few residents of Rancho Palos Verdes could actually benefit from versus the potential costs and problems placed on current residents of that city.

I am seeking more clarification on your group's stand versus what I have read in 36 newsletters from your group posted on your Web site: http://www.pvpwatch.com/.

I noticed on your group's Web site a goal stated in print and I wish to get your reply based on one of your stated goals. Here it is.

"•Take positions on ballot measure and elections as appropriate based on the stated Purpose and Goals."

Why is PVP Watch probably the only 'organized' group not directly affiliated with Marymount College, currently supporting The Marymount Plan and the initiative?

It can't truthfully be because the Plan benefits many residents of Rancho Palos Verdes because it clearly does not.

In fact and truth, the majority of students in the 2009-2010 academic year or planning to attend Marymount not only do not now live in Rancho Palos Verdes, they also do not come from homes on the peninsula.

It can't be because traffic in R.P.V. will decrease because there would be more vehicles used by residents of high-density housing driving along Palos Verdes Drive East then there are now and studies state that fact clearly.

It can't be because of many added jobs within the area because the only non in-home business in the neighborhood is at Marymount College, where all but five employees would have to travel by some sort of transportation to and from their jobsite.

It can't be because of all the new taxpayers creating more revenue for RPV because almost every students who would reside in dorms at Marymount will either not work or they would probably work in areas other than Rancho Palos Verdes.

It can't be because your group is one of a great number of groups that has gone public with support for The Marymount Plan and its initiative because it appears today that your group is just about the only group willing to offer support to something so many other groups oppose or are not willing to take a stand on.

It can't be based on stated goals because there has really been far too little explaination by Marymount Representatives as to why they want or need on-campus housing other than creating a more comfortable learning environment for students who, in the case of the vast majority, do not live in the community your group seems to represent.

It can't be based on positive economic outcomes for taxpayers living in Rancho Palos Verdes because infrastructure costs must go up to supply increases in first responders and increased costs related to have so many new residents who probably won't contribute financially to the city of Rancho Palos Verdes.

It can't be because of safety because The Marymount Plan offers a take-away of some safety-related items from the recently approved Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project.

So, why does your group support The Marymount Plan and its initiative? Please, in your own words.

Can it be because of 'all' the differences between The Marymount Plan and The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project?

Your group must be aware that 'all' the differences include, but are not limited to the following:
On-campus housing.
A new municipal code that likely restricts the rights and responsibilities of our city's representatives elected by the voting residents of RPV to provide leadership and representation to ALL the residents of RPB and not just those who favor adoption of The Marymount Plan.
A concrete center median that would be designed to protect all drivers from encountering vehicles that cross over the double-yellow lines along the 1,000-foot curve portion of Palos Verdes Drive East.
The lowering of the overall height of the roof of the gymnasium by a 'whopping' ten feet.
Only the 'fair share' of costs associated with some traffic mitigation that will have their remanining costs paid for by taxpayers.
Absolutely no gurantee that should The Marymount Plan be enacted, the College could still seek to have its enrollment increased.
No guarantee whatsoever that representatives of Marymount College would ever go forward using The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, if no on-campus student housing is approved in the near future.

Sirs, here is also something I pulled off of a newletter item from your group.

"It has been pointed out that RPV's General Plan includes 'The City shall encourage the
development of institutional facilities to serve the political, social and cultural needs of the
community." RPV City Councils have long violated their responsibility to Marymount (and others) and the option left to Marymount is the initiative process."

It must not come as a shock to your editorial board that Marymount seeks to alter the city's Generap Plan and have special provisions enacted that specifically allow Marymount College representatives to bypass some current zoning requirements and other codes and authorities.

This special new position for Marymount could lead to private ownership and control of all residence halls by a third party and would not limit Marymount's ability to rent out or lease its facilities to an entity or group that would capitalize on Marymounst's sites and facilities to create profit-making events and offer high density entertainment in a low-density neighborhood with few wide and easy access points.

Here is another line from one of your newsletters I found confusing and not humorous:

"It is past time to end the "backroom" deals and demand greater transparency at RPV City Hall."

Gentlemen, I seem to recall your groups relationship with activities seemingly related to issues regarding PV on the Net and some of the late Dr. Peter Gardiner's allegations against other members of the City Council.

Wasn't there a Freedom of Information Act issue that required the city to use taxpayer funds to gather great amounts of information only to end up have the 'Plaintiff's" legal firm failing to recover a single document related to that issue, after many thousands of taxpayer dollars were spent doing what was legal and ethical and then having what I regard as your 'back room deal' with others in RPV, slither away into the night without any further litigation?

I am also still a bit confused about the name of your group and whether it may have been designed to create an thinking that has not be truthfully realized by your group.

As I understand it, your group is named "PVP Watch" and it leads us to presume that your group is "Palos Verdes Peninsula Watch"

However, in viewing 36 newsletters currently on your group's Web site, I first encounter a paragraph about issues related to something other that PVPUSD or the city of Rancho Palos Verdes only after reading the first 30 of 36 newletters.

I finally found a paragraph about something other then the two entities I wrote when I read something in the 31St newsletter.

Wouldn't it be more ethical to name your group "PVPUSD and Rancho Palos Verdes Watch"?

I did find some humor in various newletters dealing with Deputy Chris Knox and some trouble one of you Editors had by getting a ticket from Deputy Knox.

It seemed in reading the various writing that your group strongly supports law enforcement unless that enforcement has an Editor receiving a ticket for a 'small infraction'.

I guess a law is something that should be enforced on the rest of us, but not necessarily some of the members of your group, or so it seemed from the writings I read.

Now please remember gentlemen, before you go ahead and attack me like you seem happy to do with Tom Long and Doug Stern remember, if any of you live in a tract home and not in a custom home built in an area that is not in a residential tract, I arrived at my home before you arrived at yours and I think I can claim a longer tenure in this area than the majority of you can, no matter what age any of us are at.

Please do not attempt to use seniority or knowledge of this area as any reason to question my knowledge about Rancho Palos Verdes, its issues and the community. I feel I've got that pretty well covered compared to the vast majority of residents of Rancho Palos Verdes.

But if you must attack, please know that I have already done a pretty good job on myself, about myself and it would probably be best if you would simply use honesty and truthfulness to justify your group's position concerning Marymount College's initiative. And please remember that I have already suggested that I do not find all initiatives to be bad things and that I opposed increasing the Terranea TOT from 10% to 12%.

I also am quite disgusted that the R.P.V. C.C. raised the Storm Drain User Fee. I know we all knew they would, but that doesn't mean we have to agree with it.

Thank you for your timely response to my request for clarifacation about your stand on issues regarding Marymount College.

Be well.

Mark Wells
aka M Richards.