After viewing the site meter at the bottom of this blog, I really want to thank Dr. Michael Brophy, President of Marymount College for helping so much to add readership to this blog.
The lawsuit Dr. Brophy files seems to have been found to help add folks on this blog and I certainly appreciate that.
Just think, Dr. Brophy has now encouraged me to write even more!
Maybe is a good neighbor after all...just to me and this blog.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Enrollment Up, Even At Marymount
Enrollment is up, way up at some schools, including Marymount College, this new school year.
According to an article in today's Daily Breeze, enrollment jumped at Marymount from about 600 students to "750" students, now that the new four-year degree program has begun.
Enrollment at Marymount has not been as high as it is now for several years and it is a little under the current 793-full time student cap which Marymount officials claim they will not increase or seek to have increased.
During the studies conducted for the now-approved Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, a student enrollment figure of about 625-students was used.
With my support of The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, I am pleased that more students want to attend the "tiny" Liberal Arts College even though I will continue to oppose having any on-campus student housing approved at the college's Palos Verdes Drive East campus.
Having this large of student enrollment before the election can mean many things that could bode well for supporters of ballot measure P or could bring even more opposition toward The Marymount Plan.
I bet that Dr. Michael Brophy, the President of Marymount might consider contacting every single student to personally talk with them about appearances and activities on and off campus prior to November 2, 2010.
We will all get a chance to view how students deal with Marymount's Code of Conduct and see if and how Marymount officials might enforce the code this new semester compared to how it was enforced last semesters and for years earlier.
Walking a fine line. Watching "Ps and Qs". Taking the high ground. Treading over glass.
These and other terms can be used while watching student envolvement in the upcoming election process.
I hope someone looks into any voter registration forms that list the Marymount campus as the registrant's place of residence. If that happens, shame on those who do use that address as a residence UNLESS they feel their confirmation that residences already exist on the main campus allows opponents to render moot Marymount's attempts to get on-campus residences approved.
I know that last bit was very far-fetched, but what if?
Even though I also continue to assert that Marymount officials have not real plans to build according to the now-approved Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, without any approval of on-campus student housing, I wish they would.
Since Marymount's Administration or supporters have done one bit of work towards beginning actual construction or even preparation for construction according to The Project, why should anyone believe there is any intention of beginning to show how important the new "state-of-the-art Library" or "recreational center available to every Rancho Palos Verdes resident" truly is?
Marymount continues to provide all the answers by their own inaction and non-compliance with approved codes.
So here I sit and continue to blog. No official denials or requests to change any of what I purport to be facts have come to my attention.
Nothing seems to be happening with The Project except its being ignored completely in favor of addressing already approved items in The Marymount Plan and thus confirming to many of us that Marymount officials and supporters have not intention of building anything unless and until they get approval to have dorms built.
What might that really say about the current and newest 4-year degree candidates now beginning classes at Marymount? How much do those students really count in Marymount's eyes?
According to an article in today's Daily Breeze, enrollment jumped at Marymount from about 600 students to "750" students, now that the new four-year degree program has begun.
Enrollment at Marymount has not been as high as it is now for several years and it is a little under the current 793-full time student cap which Marymount officials claim they will not increase or seek to have increased.
During the studies conducted for the now-approved Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, a student enrollment figure of about 625-students was used.
With my support of The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, I am pleased that more students want to attend the "tiny" Liberal Arts College even though I will continue to oppose having any on-campus student housing approved at the college's Palos Verdes Drive East campus.
Having this large of student enrollment before the election can mean many things that could bode well for supporters of ballot measure P or could bring even more opposition toward The Marymount Plan.
I bet that Dr. Michael Brophy, the President of Marymount might consider contacting every single student to personally talk with them about appearances and activities on and off campus prior to November 2, 2010.
We will all get a chance to view how students deal with Marymount's Code of Conduct and see if and how Marymount officials might enforce the code this new semester compared to how it was enforced last semesters and for years earlier.
Walking a fine line. Watching "Ps and Qs". Taking the high ground. Treading over glass.
These and other terms can be used while watching student envolvement in the upcoming election process.
I hope someone looks into any voter registration forms that list the Marymount campus as the registrant's place of residence. If that happens, shame on those who do use that address as a residence UNLESS they feel their confirmation that residences already exist on the main campus allows opponents to render moot Marymount's attempts to get on-campus residences approved.
I know that last bit was very far-fetched, but what if?
Even though I also continue to assert that Marymount officials have not real plans to build according to the now-approved Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, without any approval of on-campus student housing, I wish they would.
Since Marymount's Administration or supporters have done one bit of work towards beginning actual construction or even preparation for construction according to The Project, why should anyone believe there is any intention of beginning to show how important the new "state-of-the-art Library" or "recreational center available to every Rancho Palos Verdes resident" truly is?
Marymount continues to provide all the answers by their own inaction and non-compliance with approved codes.
So here I sit and continue to blog. No official denials or requests to change any of what I purport to be facts have come to my attention.
Nothing seems to be happening with The Project except its being ignored completely in favor of addressing already approved items in The Marymount Plan and thus confirming to many of us that Marymount officials and supporters have not intention of building anything unless and until they get approval to have dorms built.
What might that really say about the current and newest 4-year degree candidates now beginning classes at Marymount? How much do those students really count in Marymount's eyes?
Monday, August 30, 2010
The Daily Breeze Article Concerning Another Lawsuit.
Here is Ms. Melissa Pamer's article about Mr. Jeffrey Lewis' lawsuit. The article appears in The Daily Breeze.
Second lawsuit filed over wording of Marymount College ballot argumentsBy Melissa Pamer Staff Writer
Posted: 08/30/2010 8:37 PM
A second lawsuit was filed Monday challenging ballot arguments filed for an initiative that Marymount College officials hope will allow the Rancho Palos Verdes campus to expand and build dormitories.
Similar to a petition filed last week, the suit seeks to have language stricken or changed in statements made in favor of Measure P, which is set to go before voters Nov. 2.
The new lawsuit was filed by Jeffrey Lewis, a Rancho Palos Verdes planning commissioner and former City Council candidate.
"I thought it was important that all of the ballot arguments correctly state the impact of the initiative," said Lewis, an attorney. "When I first read their rebuttal argument, I thought it was filled with inaccuracies."
The lawsuit comes on the heels of a legal petition filed Aug. 26 by college President Michael Brophy that sought to have language in his opponents' ballot argument changed. That suit called opponents' verbiage "false and misleading."
A Marymount spokeswoman on Monday directed a call for comment to the college's Los Angeles political consultant, saying that Brophy would focus on running the school and would no longer comment on the initiative.
"This lawsuit is obviously a retaliatory act based on fictitious legal theory, and we are confident we will prevail in court," said Ruben Gonzalez, one of Marymount's consultants.
The college is seeking voter approval for a construction program that includes dorms for
250 students, an athletic center, new library and other improvements. With the exception of the dorms, which were withdrawn by college officials, most of that plan was approved by the City Council earlier this year.
Barbara Ferraro, a former Rancho Palos Verdes mayor who is a target of Lewis' suit, expressed dismay at its filing. She said she had not seen the petition yet.
"They just take umbrage to having anyone have a different point of view," Ferraro said, adding that she was critical of her opponents' ballot arguments. "I thought what they did say was misleading. In fact, I think they were deliberately misleading."
At issue in the lawsuits are two sets of statements: arguments for and against the initiative, and rebuttals from each side to those arguments. The statements make conflicting claims about city oversight of the "campus specific plan" that the initiative would create.
Lewis' action is directed at Ferraro and four other rebuttal authors: Don Reeves, the co-editor of the newsletter PVP Watch; De De Hicks, a Rancho Palos Verdes resident; and Marymount trustees John Murnane and Dick Grotz.
Lewis' petition specifically targets one sentence in Measure P proponents' rebuttal that states that the initiative "guarantees that Marymount College meets all city codes and obtains city permits."
Lewis, who signed a rebuttal against the arguments in favor of Measure P, claims that language is contradicted by the initiative itself.
A judge will likely decide this week whether to combine Lewis' suit with Brophy's, Lewis said.
A hearing in Brophy's case is set for Sept. 8 - the last day on which the county clerk may send ballot pamphlets to the printer for distribution to voters.
"We're going to have to ask the court to make sure it is resolved by that time," said Judy Whitehurst, principal deputy county counsel.
California Elections Code, Whitehurst said, allows ballot arguments to be changed by a judge only if the legal action does not threaten the schedule for mailing voter material.
"You're only entitled to relief if it doesn't interfere with the conduct of the election," she said.
melissa.pamer@dailybreeze.com
--------------------------------------------------------------
It would be great to have a judge decide whether the 'Campus Specific Plan' would allow Marymount to have its desires supersede existing municipal code, whether folks are for or against ballot measure P.
Knowing that information, along with the fact that ballot measure also contains language that would add ONLY approval for on-campus student housing, and no other construction due to the fact that ALL other construction based on both The Marymarymount Plan and The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project has already been approved for months, now.
I found the statement that a woman contacted at Marymount referred all inquiries to the College's paid lobbyist is sad in that the woman I am pretty sure Ms. Pamer contacted was the Director of Communications for Marymount College and isn't it one of the tasks of someone charged with providing information to actually provide information?
It seems to me that the administration of Marymount College is either not willing or not able to tackle providing all the information requested from members of the press or others.
I should not think that any question I might wish to pose to any Marymount representative must pass through a paid lobbyist or the College's contracted public relations firm.
So along with 'good neighbor', responsible and respectful communications from Marymount's administration may have gone by the wayside in favor of 'circling the wagons' to keep inquiring minds away.
What might we find out new, tomorrow?
Second lawsuit filed over wording of Marymount College ballot argumentsBy Melissa Pamer Staff Writer
Posted: 08/30/2010 8:37 PM
A second lawsuit was filed Monday challenging ballot arguments filed for an initiative that Marymount College officials hope will allow the Rancho Palos Verdes campus to expand and build dormitories.
Similar to a petition filed last week, the suit seeks to have language stricken or changed in statements made in favor of Measure P, which is set to go before voters Nov. 2.
The new lawsuit was filed by Jeffrey Lewis, a Rancho Palos Verdes planning commissioner and former City Council candidate.
"I thought it was important that all of the ballot arguments correctly state the impact of the initiative," said Lewis, an attorney. "When I first read their rebuttal argument, I thought it was filled with inaccuracies."
The lawsuit comes on the heels of a legal petition filed Aug. 26 by college President Michael Brophy that sought to have language in his opponents' ballot argument changed. That suit called opponents' verbiage "false and misleading."
A Marymount spokeswoman on Monday directed a call for comment to the college's Los Angeles political consultant, saying that Brophy would focus on running the school and would no longer comment on the initiative.
"This lawsuit is obviously a retaliatory act based on fictitious legal theory, and we are confident we will prevail in court," said Ruben Gonzalez, one of Marymount's consultants.
The college is seeking voter approval for a construction program that includes dorms for
250 students, an athletic center, new library and other improvements. With the exception of the dorms, which were withdrawn by college officials, most of that plan was approved by the City Council earlier this year.
Barbara Ferraro, a former Rancho Palos Verdes mayor who is a target of Lewis' suit, expressed dismay at its filing. She said she had not seen the petition yet.
"They just take umbrage to having anyone have a different point of view," Ferraro said, adding that she was critical of her opponents' ballot arguments. "I thought what they did say was misleading. In fact, I think they were deliberately misleading."
At issue in the lawsuits are two sets of statements: arguments for and against the initiative, and rebuttals from each side to those arguments. The statements make conflicting claims about city oversight of the "campus specific plan" that the initiative would create.
Lewis' action is directed at Ferraro and four other rebuttal authors: Don Reeves, the co-editor of the newsletter PVP Watch; De De Hicks, a Rancho Palos Verdes resident; and Marymount trustees John Murnane and Dick Grotz.
Lewis' petition specifically targets one sentence in Measure P proponents' rebuttal that states that the initiative "guarantees that Marymount College meets all city codes and obtains city permits."
Lewis, who signed a rebuttal against the arguments in favor of Measure P, claims that language is contradicted by the initiative itself.
A judge will likely decide this week whether to combine Lewis' suit with Brophy's, Lewis said.
A hearing in Brophy's case is set for Sept. 8 - the last day on which the county clerk may send ballot pamphlets to the printer for distribution to voters.
"We're going to have to ask the court to make sure it is resolved by that time," said Judy Whitehurst, principal deputy county counsel.
California Elections Code, Whitehurst said, allows ballot arguments to be changed by a judge only if the legal action does not threaten the schedule for mailing voter material.
"You're only entitled to relief if it doesn't interfere with the conduct of the election," she said.
melissa.pamer@dailybreeze.com
--------------------------------------------------------------
It would be great to have a judge decide whether the 'Campus Specific Plan' would allow Marymount to have its desires supersede existing municipal code, whether folks are for or against ballot measure P.
Knowing that information, along with the fact that ballot measure also contains language that would add ONLY approval for on-campus student housing, and no other construction due to the fact that ALL other construction based on both The Marymarymount Plan and The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project has already been approved for months, now.
I found the statement that a woman contacted at Marymount referred all inquiries to the College's paid lobbyist is sad in that the woman I am pretty sure Ms. Pamer contacted was the Director of Communications for Marymount College and isn't it one of the tasks of someone charged with providing information to actually provide information?
It seems to me that the administration of Marymount College is either not willing or not able to tackle providing all the information requested from members of the press or others.
I should not think that any question I might wish to pose to any Marymount representative must pass through a paid lobbyist or the College's contracted public relations firm.
So along with 'good neighbor', responsible and respectful communications from Marymount's administration may have gone by the wayside in favor of 'circling the wagons' to keep inquiring minds away.
What might we find out new, tomorrow?
Bits and Pieces 11
Just before I began this edition of Bits and Pieces, I read the filing by Mr. Jeffrey Lewis, a lawsuit seeking to have the rebuttal arguments changed and something much more important, in my view.
Mr. Lewis, a good lawyer is asking that a judge determine whether it is a fact that approval of The Marymount Plan, using Measure P would factually allow Marymount College's representatives to have municipal laws, in conflict with guidelines established by and solely for Marymount College become moot or be found to have been superseded by legal documents within The Marymount Plan and ballot measure P.
But let's not stop there, shall we?
Since the folks named on the Rebuttal of Arguments Against the ballot measure aren't really the folks who originally created the Rebuttal of Arguments Against and they were legally allowed to have persons' changed, we will get to find who will pay the attorney fees for the parties named in Mr. Lewis' lawsuit.
I have also asked, but have as yet not received any answers to my number of questions regarding who can pay legal costs of the parties named.
Would Marymount's legal representatives be allowed to represent the parties listed on the Rebuttal of Arguments Against or would those individuals have to 'go-it-alone'?
Might Marymount be required to obtain outside counsel because the lawsuit filed by Dr. Brophy was filed by the College's contracted legal firm?
I did not read if or who any damages derived from Mr. Lewis' lawsuit have any chance of being awarded to, but I think he should naturally receive the largest chunk if his lawsuit is successful and he did seek damages from the parties named in his lawsuit.
If it is good enough for Marymount's representatives to demand things, then I feel it is very justified that Mr. Lewis, the person who very likely knows that greatest amount of information about all of the issues related to Marymount's expansion plans.
There are still many weeks until the election. Maybe we need a new poll to see what everyone thinks the total number of lawsuits will be filed before the election and then after the election.
_____________________________________________
It is the third Monday of the History of the now open Amalfitano Bakery.
What seems like ages ago, I began commenting on all the new eateries that were being planned to open in R.P.V., along Western Avenue.
Saladish won the race to offer good food at an even better value.
Amalfitano Bakery was the final one of the five to open its doors.
Pavich's Croatian Pizzafe may not legally be within the R.P.V. city limits and I still have to check on that. But it certainly is close enough, if it isn't actually within R.P.V.. It's only 1/2 of a driveway away.
The twins, neither serving sushi, of Asaka Grill Express and Denny's have found a way to coexist with shared parking lots and neither one of them seems as crowed as Amalfitano Bakery usually gets.
____________________________________________
As I was piloting our Element along Western Avenue this morning I noticed some water leaking out of a manhole cover on the southbound side of the Avenue.
Things like that scare me. I have been in hundreds and hundreds of manholes, but I suspect the manhole cover that has liquid coming out of it is not for the phone company, but perhaps for the Sanitation Districts' uses.
Any way one looks at it, whether it is Electric, phone, water, sewer, or any other manhole usage, H2O is not supposed to come out of it and head onto the highway.
I don't think it is from a storm drain failure because the roadway is not dipping. But anytime repairs become urgent along Western is anytime to begin to think about alternative routes of travel.
____________________________________________
PVPUSD goes back into session tomorrow.
L.A. Harbor College began its new semester this morning.
Mary Star of the Sea High School's Regular Schedule began today as well.
Christ Lutheran Church School opens on September, 8
LAUSD returns on September 13.
And last and perhaps least, Marymount's classes began today.
Let's be safe out there.
___________________________________________
No backpacks!
No backpacks?
Yes, no backpacks at Miraleste Intermediate School this school year.
I believe the other, smaller intermediate schools banned backpacks some time ago and they are on a very different environment than Miraleste is.
If you didn't already know, Miraleste Intermediate School sits on the site of the former Miraleste High School.
The high school was the original construction so changing the physical plant from a high school to an intermediate school was no problem except for the students who generally have shorter legs than former students had.
The opposite is true if you think about sending your child to what is now Palos Verdes High School.
That facility was not originally built as a high school and the suffering continues with its physical plant and size, or lack thereof.
____________________________________________
Eastview Little League apparently gets to stay atop Knoll Hill in San Pedro.
Whether the league had any opportunity or wish to play at our city's Eastview Park is now moot, at least for a while.
____________________________________________
Mr. Lewis, a good lawyer is asking that a judge determine whether it is a fact that approval of The Marymount Plan, using Measure P would factually allow Marymount College's representatives to have municipal laws, in conflict with guidelines established by and solely for Marymount College become moot or be found to have been superseded by legal documents within The Marymount Plan and ballot measure P.
But let's not stop there, shall we?
Since the folks named on the Rebuttal of Arguments Against the ballot measure aren't really the folks who originally created the Rebuttal of Arguments Against and they were legally allowed to have persons' changed, we will get to find who will pay the attorney fees for the parties named in Mr. Lewis' lawsuit.
I have also asked, but have as yet not received any answers to my number of questions regarding who can pay legal costs of the parties named.
Would Marymount's legal representatives be allowed to represent the parties listed on the Rebuttal of Arguments Against or would those individuals have to 'go-it-alone'?
Might Marymount be required to obtain outside counsel because the lawsuit filed by Dr. Brophy was filed by the College's contracted legal firm?
I did not read if or who any damages derived from Mr. Lewis' lawsuit have any chance of being awarded to, but I think he should naturally receive the largest chunk if his lawsuit is successful and he did seek damages from the parties named in his lawsuit.
If it is good enough for Marymount's representatives to demand things, then I feel it is very justified that Mr. Lewis, the person who very likely knows that greatest amount of information about all of the issues related to Marymount's expansion plans.
There are still many weeks until the election. Maybe we need a new poll to see what everyone thinks the total number of lawsuits will be filed before the election and then after the election.
_____________________________________________
It is the third Monday of the History of the now open Amalfitano Bakery.
What seems like ages ago, I began commenting on all the new eateries that were being planned to open in R.P.V., along Western Avenue.
Saladish won the race to offer good food at an even better value.
Amalfitano Bakery was the final one of the five to open its doors.
Pavich's Croatian Pizzafe may not legally be within the R.P.V. city limits and I still have to check on that. But it certainly is close enough, if it isn't actually within R.P.V.. It's only 1/2 of a driveway away.
The twins, neither serving sushi, of Asaka Grill Express and Denny's have found a way to coexist with shared parking lots and neither one of them seems as crowed as Amalfitano Bakery usually gets.
____________________________________________
As I was piloting our Element along Western Avenue this morning I noticed some water leaking out of a manhole cover on the southbound side of the Avenue.
Things like that scare me. I have been in hundreds and hundreds of manholes, but I suspect the manhole cover that has liquid coming out of it is not for the phone company, but perhaps for the Sanitation Districts' uses.
Any way one looks at it, whether it is Electric, phone, water, sewer, or any other manhole usage, H2O is not supposed to come out of it and head onto the highway.
I don't think it is from a storm drain failure because the roadway is not dipping. But anytime repairs become urgent along Western is anytime to begin to think about alternative routes of travel.
____________________________________________
PVPUSD goes back into session tomorrow.
L.A. Harbor College began its new semester this morning.
Mary Star of the Sea High School's Regular Schedule began today as well.
Christ Lutheran Church School opens on September, 8
LAUSD returns on September 13.
And last and perhaps least, Marymount's classes began today.
Let's be safe out there.
___________________________________________
No backpacks!
No backpacks?
Yes, no backpacks at Miraleste Intermediate School this school year.
I believe the other, smaller intermediate schools banned backpacks some time ago and they are on a very different environment than Miraleste is.
If you didn't already know, Miraleste Intermediate School sits on the site of the former Miraleste High School.
The high school was the original construction so changing the physical plant from a high school to an intermediate school was no problem except for the students who generally have shorter legs than former students had.
The opposite is true if you think about sending your child to what is now Palos Verdes High School.
That facility was not originally built as a high school and the suffering continues with its physical plant and size, or lack thereof.
____________________________________________
Eastview Little League apparently gets to stay atop Knoll Hill in San Pedro.
Whether the league had any opportunity or wish to play at our city's Eastview Park is now moot, at least for a while.
____________________________________________
And Now For Something Completely Different
First and foremost, I am a husband and a father. Nothing is more important to me than the health, happiness, and welfare of my family.
Humor also plays a big role in my life even though not enough of that aspect of my life has appeared recently on this blog.
All of that changes with this post. It also demonstrates that many of us aren't always the people we think other are. Who knew?
Rainbow Shannon DeAngelis married Daniel William Wells on August 28, 2010.
They wed during a 1940's theme inspired ceremony and reception that began with the music from a live swing band.
The wedding and reception took place in one of the hangars of the Planes of Fame Museum at Chino Airport, in California.
The photo above is of Rainbow and Daniel Wells in their dancing attire, during the reception.
As a social activity and for pure enjoyment, they discovered the world of swing dance and have been going for instruction and dancing at occasions for some time.
Terri and I attended Camp Hollywood to help learn how to dance and Rainbow and Dan were in the intermediate classes there while we (I) tried to learn at the beginners' level. (Very beginners).
The reception had lots of candies and other treats that were popular during the 1940's and in a future post, I will post their Life Magazine program that blew everyone, including the band leader who has seen it all, completely away.
As a matter of fact, that is me between the bride and groom, performing the wedding ceremony.
Very few people know that I am an ordained minister, authorized to perform ministerial responsibilities and privileges all over the U.S. and in foreign countries, too.
On days I do my 'Reverend Thing' as I call it, I am really, really the Reverend Doctor Mark Richard Wells. I also hold a Doctor of Divinity.
I very rarely use my credentials as a minister and I don't like being Doctor anything except during the time I taught CPR for the Red Cross. Many years ago I was called "Markus Wellsby, M.D." because I would take the Ambu Andys and Ambu Annies that sprung leaks and find and fix the leaks by using my above ground pool.
The "M.D." back then stood for 'mannequin doctor'.
O.K.! Now to the awkward, funny, awkward, unbelievable part of the whole thing.
The title of this photo is Daniel Dancing With His Mom, Lori, Daniel Dancing With His Mom, Terri.
The first joke that I thought up was: How does one tell who the mother of the groom is?
It's quite simple. She is wearing a black dress with red roses on it.
It seems Lori and Terri are wonderful at picking dresses and even better at picking a husband.
Our oldest son David quickly came up with, "It was TOTALLY planned!"
We don't think Lori was all that into the humor Terri and the rest of us found during the evening.
The one major goal of the evening was catching my wife (wives) close enough together to get them in the same shot.
Terri was able to stand a bit behind Lori when Daniel was talking to Lori, so once we all saw that, we turned off our flashes and clicked away.
My brother-in-law Phil was operating the video camera and he found a way to turn the camera towards the view without Lori noticing, we hope.
If you have facebook and know which Mark Wells I am, there are more photos you can see.
Actually it was a bit uncomfortable for me and I found some relief in the humor that was being projected. I think had both of my wives not found the situation at least a bit humorous, then the whole evening would have been problematic.
Lori and I married in 1976. David was born in 1978 and Daniel came along in 1979.
Lori divorced me in 1991 and I married Terri on July 4, 1992.
Rainbow talked to each of her future mothers-in-law and suggest a vintage-style clothing shop on Magnolia in Burbank.
What NONE of us suspected or could have dreamed about that was the possibility that both moms would select the same dress.
Well, if you think about it, it might not really be that far fetched, perhaps.
They both like to look good and they both selected for themselves an excellent choice for their husband (at least for some time in Lori's case).
None of us witnessed the first glances between the two of them when they realized they were wearing the same dress. Terri says both sets of jaws dropped.
Terri told Lori that Lori looked better in the dress than she (Terri) did. Being the husband of both women, I kept my mouth shut on that bit.
Terri had to wear a covering under her dress and Lori altered the top of her dress a bit. Lori also had a black shawl, but that made little difference.
The ceremony took about the seven minutes the kids, who wrote the ceremony wanted it to take. It was happy and nobody was nervous and smiles and laughter were heard quite apart from the dress fiasco.
The reception was also a huge hit with two historic WWII fighters in the hangar, the swing band playing, the good food and company, and the atmosphere of being in a not-too-hot hangar, in August, in Chino, California.
I reserved five rooms at the nearby Extended Stay America facility and I WON"T do that again.
The only 'extended stay' any of us could think about was the extended stay-away from the mattresses.
Had I remembered how slab-like mattresses lesser priced hotel rooms have I would have popped for pricier and, at least, comfortable bedding.
At Extended Stay, you hips don't sink into the mattress, the mattress sinks into your hips.
The next time I consider staying at an Extended Stay facility, I will train my body by sleeping on the ground along Rock Creek in the eastern Sierras where the ground is much softer than those beds.
All in all, it was a magical event and the happy couple will wing away to several of the Hawai'ian Islands after I drive them to LAX at 6:00 AM on what is now, today.
We enjoyed our break from issues here on the east side of R.P.V. even if it was for only a day or two.
Thanks for reading.
Humor also plays a big role in my life even though not enough of that aspect of my life has appeared recently on this blog.
All of that changes with this post. It also demonstrates that many of us aren't always the people we think other are. Who knew?
Rainbow Shannon DeAngelis married Daniel William Wells on August 28, 2010.They wed during a 1940's theme inspired ceremony and reception that began with the music from a live swing band.
The wedding and reception took place in one of the hangars of the Planes of Fame Museum at Chino Airport, in California.
The photo above is of Rainbow and Daniel Wells in their dancing attire, during the reception.
As a social activity and for pure enjoyment, they discovered the world of swing dance and have been going for instruction and dancing at occasions for some time.
Terri and I attended Camp Hollywood to help learn how to dance and Rainbow and Dan were in the intermediate classes there while we (I) tried to learn at the beginners' level. (Very beginners).
The reception had lots of candies and other treats that were popular during the 1940's and in a future post, I will post their Life Magazine program that blew everyone, including the band leader who has seen it all, completely away.
As a matter of fact, that is me between the bride and groom, performing the wedding ceremony.Very few people know that I am an ordained minister, authorized to perform ministerial responsibilities and privileges all over the U.S. and in foreign countries, too.
On days I do my 'Reverend Thing' as I call it, I am really, really the Reverend Doctor Mark Richard Wells. I also hold a Doctor of Divinity.
I very rarely use my credentials as a minister and I don't like being Doctor anything except during the time I taught CPR for the Red Cross. Many years ago I was called "Markus Wellsby, M.D." because I would take the Ambu Andys and Ambu Annies that sprung leaks and find and fix the leaks by using my above ground pool.
The "M.D." back then stood for 'mannequin doctor'.
O.K.! Now to the awkward, funny, awkward, unbelievable part of the whole thing.The title of this photo is Daniel Dancing With His Mom, Lori, Daniel Dancing With His Mom, Terri.
The first joke that I thought up was: How does one tell who the mother of the groom is?
It's quite simple. She is wearing a black dress with red roses on it.
It seems Lori and Terri are wonderful at picking dresses and even better at picking a husband.
Our oldest son David quickly came up with, "It was TOTALLY planned!"
We don't think Lori was all that into the humor Terri and the rest of us found during the evening.
The one major goal of the evening was catching my wife (wives) close enough together to get them in the same shot.
Terri was able to stand a bit behind Lori when Daniel was talking to Lori, so once we all saw that, we turned off our flashes and clicked away.
My brother-in-law Phil was operating the video camera and he found a way to turn the camera towards the view without Lori noticing, we hope.
If you have facebook and know which Mark Wells I am, there are more photos you can see.
Actually it was a bit uncomfortable for me and I found some relief in the humor that was being projected. I think had both of my wives not found the situation at least a bit humorous, then the whole evening would have been problematic.
Lori and I married in 1976. David was born in 1978 and Daniel came along in 1979.
Lori divorced me in 1991 and I married Terri on July 4, 1992.
Rainbow talked to each of her future mothers-in-law and suggest a vintage-style clothing shop on Magnolia in Burbank.
What NONE of us suspected or could have dreamed about that was the possibility that both moms would select the same dress.
Well, if you think about it, it might not really be that far fetched, perhaps.
They both like to look good and they both selected for themselves an excellent choice for their husband (at least for some time in Lori's case).
None of us witnessed the first glances between the two of them when they realized they were wearing the same dress. Terri says both sets of jaws dropped.
Terri told Lori that Lori looked better in the dress than she (Terri) did. Being the husband of both women, I kept my mouth shut on that bit.
Terri had to wear a covering under her dress and Lori altered the top of her dress a bit. Lori also had a black shawl, but that made little difference.
The ceremony took about the seven minutes the kids, who wrote the ceremony wanted it to take. It was happy and nobody was nervous and smiles and laughter were heard quite apart from the dress fiasco.
The reception was also a huge hit with two historic WWII fighters in the hangar, the swing band playing, the good food and company, and the atmosphere of being in a not-too-hot hangar, in August, in Chino, California.
I reserved five rooms at the nearby Extended Stay America facility and I WON"T do that again.
The only 'extended stay' any of us could think about was the extended stay-away from the mattresses.
Had I remembered how slab-like mattresses lesser priced hotel rooms have I would have popped for pricier and, at least, comfortable bedding.
At Extended Stay, you hips don't sink into the mattress, the mattress sinks into your hips.
The next time I consider staying at an Extended Stay facility, I will train my body by sleeping on the ground along Rock Creek in the eastern Sierras where the ground is much softer than those beds.
All in all, it was a magical event and the happy couple will wing away to several of the Hawai'ian Islands after I drive them to LAX at 6:00 AM on what is now, today.
We enjoyed our break from issues here on the east side of R.P.V. even if it was for only a day or two.
Thanks for reading.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
More Misleading Or Deception By Marymount Supporters?
Here are the names and signatures that appear for the Rebuttal of Argument Against Measure P on the November 2 ballot:
Barbara Ferraro, Former Mayor of Rancho Palos Verdes.
De De Hicks, Past President of League of Women Voters
Don Reeves, Co-Editor of PVP Watch
Dick Grotz, 37-Year resident of Rancho Palos Verdes
John Murname, Past President Ridgecrest Homeowners' Association
Now, what is legal and allowable is for others to authorize persons to sign in their place so that names of others will be in place of names of folks who may not wish to be associated with having their own names on a portion of either an argument for or against, or rebuttals to same.
In the case of the Rebuttal of Argument Against Measure P, here are the people who authorizes other to appear on the election material other than themselves.
Barbara Dye authorized Barbara Ferraro to sign.
Dr. Sue Soldoff, the person who sought to begin the Initiative process in the first place had De De Hicks authorized to sign rather than Sue herself signing.
Dr. Michael Brophy, the President of Marymount College authorized Don Reeves to sign in his place.
Dr. James Schmidt was replaced by Dick Grotz.
Marilyn Lyon authorized John Murname to sign in her place.
Now, here are some of the people who serve on the Marymount College Board of Trustees.
Dr. Michael Brophy
Dr. Sue Soldoff
Mr. John Murname
Richard Grotz, B.S.E.E.
Now it seems to me, if we take Dr. Brophy at his word (why anyone would do that is now quite beyond reason by a growing number of residents) because of his quote in Friday's Daily Breeze about his demand for nothing misleading on any ballot material, why would persons request and then authorize others to sign something in place of their own identity and signature on a legal document which is part of Measure P?
I can imagine that replacement of names, legal and authorized could also be a form of something designed to mislead potential voters of Measure P.
Why wouldn't Dr. Brophy, Dr. Soldoff, Barbara Dye, and others not wish to have their names and signatures associated with the Rebuttal of Argument Against Measure P?
Why will Dick Grotz's name appear instead of Dr. James Schmidt's?
Are all of these people hiding something? Isn't this misleading as to who the actual people are who created the Rebuttal of Argument Against Measure P?
In early 1992, then President George H. W. Bush uttered "Read my lips, no new taxes" and then went on to call for new taxes. It was widely thought back then that he was telegraphing that he knew he would not get reelected or that he had to tank his own reelection chances for reasons I won't get into on this blog, right now. (Casper Weinberger?)
I am heading towards an assertion that may find more proof in the future that it is beginning to look like there may be factions within the administration, Board of Trustees, and/or supporters of Marymount College that they MAY be taking steps to almost insure the rejection of Measure P, no matter how hard the opposition also fights against ballot measure P.
It just seems to me that quotes by Marymount's President are in direct conflict with authorized statements concerning Marymount College and aspects of the measure.
It also seems to me that when someone argues and sues the city because of statements they feel are misleading and then seemingly are part of an attempt to mislead voters, something is terribly wrong with that picture.
When the leadership of a company or Board Members of a company find that they cannot survive as they have been doing, for reasons they know, they sometimes 'swallow a poison pill' to make the company look very bad to others.
Is something like that going on at Marymount College?
I can't figure out why Dr. Brophy would stand up at the beginning of August and call for everyone to be nice, calm, and keep away from misleading statements, and not confuse the issues, and keep everything above board when, at the end of August, just about everything he called for at the start of the month, he himself seems to have gone against.
Now another thing. About Dr. Brophy's lawsuit against the County person and our City Clerk.
It seems that our City Attorney should probably not represent the city and the City Clerk because our City Attorney was a party participating in answering questions by the City Council members who eventually voted 5-0 to oppose The Marymount Plan and its Initiative, now known as ballot measure P.
I can certainly imagine that Marymount's lawyers will demand that the city not be allowed to use its City Attorney in matters so the city will need to get outside counsel to represent the city's interests and the defense of the City Clerk and possibly others.
If the city's insurance carrier does not fund outside counsel, then it looks like taxpayer funds will have to be used to pay to defend the city's interest and personnel.
Again, so much for "The Marymount Plan will be constructed at no taxpayer expense". I believe this is now a moot point because of Dr. Brophy's lawsuit seeking changes to a portion of the legal wording in part of the ballot documents related to The Marymount Plan in its Initiative form, measure P.
Dr. Brophy can and probably will contend factually that he did not sign the Rebuttal of Argument Against ballot measure P. But by authorizing someone else to sign in his place seems deceptive in my book and in a whole library of others' books.
Having the originator of the Initiative process omit her name dealing with the Rebuttal of Argument Against P by authorizing another person to 'take her place' on the signature line, also can be found to be misleading and deceptive to some residents of Rancho Palos Verdes.
It's late for me and it looks like it is getting later and later for Marymount's chances to find any real number of potential voters who would not be willing to see what may be going on.
Let's just end all of this on November 2 (Naturally I am quite sure Marymount will sue to get dorms, or sue to try to get dorms approved) and vote solidly against ballot measure P.
It is becoming more apparent to me and at least some others that any and all of our reasons for opposing The Marymount Plan are not needless to offer and repeat because Marymount's own representatives and some of its supporters are doing out jobs for us, and they aren't doing badly at all!
Now a pleading to Marymount's administration: Please don't pass out any of the Kool-aid to your students. After they transfer to others schools we will need them to help America grow and prosper.
Barbara Ferraro, Former Mayor of Rancho Palos Verdes.
De De Hicks, Past President of League of Women Voters
Don Reeves, Co-Editor of PVP Watch
Dick Grotz, 37-Year resident of Rancho Palos Verdes
John Murname, Past President Ridgecrest Homeowners' Association
Now, what is legal and allowable is for others to authorize persons to sign in their place so that names of others will be in place of names of folks who may not wish to be associated with having their own names on a portion of either an argument for or against, or rebuttals to same.
In the case of the Rebuttal of Argument Against Measure P, here are the people who authorizes other to appear on the election material other than themselves.
Barbara Dye authorized Barbara Ferraro to sign.
Dr. Sue Soldoff, the person who sought to begin the Initiative process in the first place had De De Hicks authorized to sign rather than Sue herself signing.
Dr. Michael Brophy, the President of Marymount College authorized Don Reeves to sign in his place.
Dr. James Schmidt was replaced by Dick Grotz.
Marilyn Lyon authorized John Murname to sign in her place.
Now, here are some of the people who serve on the Marymount College Board of Trustees.
Dr. Michael Brophy
Dr. Sue Soldoff
Mr. John Murname
Richard Grotz, B.S.E.E.
Now it seems to me, if we take Dr. Brophy at his word (why anyone would do that is now quite beyond reason by a growing number of residents) because of his quote in Friday's Daily Breeze about his demand for nothing misleading on any ballot material, why would persons request and then authorize others to sign something in place of their own identity and signature on a legal document which is part of Measure P?
I can imagine that replacement of names, legal and authorized could also be a form of something designed to mislead potential voters of Measure P.
Why wouldn't Dr. Brophy, Dr. Soldoff, Barbara Dye, and others not wish to have their names and signatures associated with the Rebuttal of Argument Against Measure P?
Why will Dick Grotz's name appear instead of Dr. James Schmidt's?
Are all of these people hiding something? Isn't this misleading as to who the actual people are who created the Rebuttal of Argument Against Measure P?
In early 1992, then President George H. W. Bush uttered "Read my lips, no new taxes" and then went on to call for new taxes. It was widely thought back then that he was telegraphing that he knew he would not get reelected or that he had to tank his own reelection chances for reasons I won't get into on this blog, right now. (Casper Weinberger?)
I am heading towards an assertion that may find more proof in the future that it is beginning to look like there may be factions within the administration, Board of Trustees, and/or supporters of Marymount College that they MAY be taking steps to almost insure the rejection of Measure P, no matter how hard the opposition also fights against ballot measure P.
It just seems to me that quotes by Marymount's President are in direct conflict with authorized statements concerning Marymount College and aspects of the measure.
It also seems to me that when someone argues and sues the city because of statements they feel are misleading and then seemingly are part of an attempt to mislead voters, something is terribly wrong with that picture.
When the leadership of a company or Board Members of a company find that they cannot survive as they have been doing, for reasons they know, they sometimes 'swallow a poison pill' to make the company look very bad to others.
Is something like that going on at Marymount College?
I can't figure out why Dr. Brophy would stand up at the beginning of August and call for everyone to be nice, calm, and keep away from misleading statements, and not confuse the issues, and keep everything above board when, at the end of August, just about everything he called for at the start of the month, he himself seems to have gone against.
Now another thing. About Dr. Brophy's lawsuit against the County person and our City Clerk.
It seems that our City Attorney should probably not represent the city and the City Clerk because our City Attorney was a party participating in answering questions by the City Council members who eventually voted 5-0 to oppose The Marymount Plan and its Initiative, now known as ballot measure P.
I can certainly imagine that Marymount's lawyers will demand that the city not be allowed to use its City Attorney in matters so the city will need to get outside counsel to represent the city's interests and the defense of the City Clerk and possibly others.
If the city's insurance carrier does not fund outside counsel, then it looks like taxpayer funds will have to be used to pay to defend the city's interest and personnel.
Again, so much for "The Marymount Plan will be constructed at no taxpayer expense". I believe this is now a moot point because of Dr. Brophy's lawsuit seeking changes to a portion of the legal wording in part of the ballot documents related to The Marymount Plan in its Initiative form, measure P.
Dr. Brophy can and probably will contend factually that he did not sign the Rebuttal of Argument Against ballot measure P. But by authorizing someone else to sign in his place seems deceptive in my book and in a whole library of others' books.
Having the originator of the Initiative process omit her name dealing with the Rebuttal of Argument Against P by authorizing another person to 'take her place' on the signature line, also can be found to be misleading and deceptive to some residents of Rancho Palos Verdes.
It's late for me and it looks like it is getting later and later for Marymount's chances to find any real number of potential voters who would not be willing to see what may be going on.
Let's just end all of this on November 2 (Naturally I am quite sure Marymount will sue to get dorms, or sue to try to get dorms approved) and vote solidly against ballot measure P.
It is becoming more apparent to me and at least some others that any and all of our reasons for opposing The Marymount Plan are not needless to offer and repeat because Marymount's own representatives and some of its supporters are doing out jobs for us, and they aren't doing badly at all!
Now a pleading to Marymount's administration: Please don't pass out any of the Kool-aid to your students. After they transfer to others schools we will need them to help America grow and prosper.
Friday, August 27, 2010
Ridiculous and So Far Beyond Belief!
An article appearing in Fridays Daily Breeze carries the following two sentences:
"This is the language that will be everywhere, in every voter's mailbox," Marymount President Michael Brophy said. "The college can't stand for there being misleading information in their mailbox."
Where, oh where, should I begin?
Marymount claims that The Marymount Plan will be completed at "no taxpayer expense". Those three words appeared already in mailboxes all over Rancho Palos Verdes.
The construction time for The Marymount Plan will be "36 months". That also appeared in mailboxes throughout the city.
If Dr. Brophy is to be believed, then Marymount's representatives have never mailed anything that could be considered untrue or misleading. Is there a rational person in the city of Rancho Palos Verdes that actually could believe Dr. Brophy at this point?
Passage of P allows Marymount the opportunity to build a state-of-the-art library and a recreational facility for use by all of the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes, as Dr. Brophy's argument in favor of P states.
No it doesn't. The passage or rejection of P has absolutely no factual bearing on the approval of a state-of-the-art library and recreation center that could be used by residents of Rancho Palos Verdes because those facilities and every other facility brought to a vote by Marymount College representatives have already been approved and the very statement that will arrive in mailboxes of residents and businesses in Rancho Palos Verdes if factually misleading on its face.
The gall of Dr. Brophy to claim he rejects misleading statements arriving in mailboxes is overshadowed only by the knowledge that he himself and/or others representatives of Marymount College are ready, willing, and wishing to do the exact same thing they feel those that Dr. Brophy is suing, are doing.
I have documented many statements that Dr. Brophy has NEVER DENIED being misleading and coming from those representing Marymount College.
Dr. Brophy has told me personally that he has not found any statement, assertion, or opinionated comment written by me that could be found to be misleading by him.
No other person claiming to represent Marymount College has ever contacted me in order to identify or condemn any of my writing for having any misleading statements about Marymount College, The Marymount Plan, or on any other matter.
Dr. Brophy and others, including the college's Director of Communications have commented that they are aware of this blog and I know for a fact that representatives and supporters of Marymount College read this blog, at least on occasion.
I suspect that even more folks associated with Marymount College, especially members of the college's legal team have read or will read posts and comments on this blog from now until at least November 2, 2010.
Councilman Stern, also within the article, mentions that he might consider that members of the public might fear making comments in opposition to Marymount's measure, at least partly because of the lawsuit Dr. Brophy is named as the Plaintiff in.
I hope and strongly feel that Councilman Stern is found to be completely wrong and that more and more residents of Rancho Palos Verdes will see what the lawsuit might really be about and that could be the stifling of speech and writing in opposition to Marymount's position and plans.
Naturally I will keep the article in my files and use it as I feel I need to.
I think reminding voters about quotes Dr. Brophy has made might be very important in measuring how far he would go to get approval to build on-campus student housing.
"This is the language that will be everywhere, in every voter's mailbox," Marymount President Michael Brophy said. "The college can't stand for there being misleading information in their mailbox."
Where, oh where, should I begin?
Marymount claims that The Marymount Plan will be completed at "no taxpayer expense". Those three words appeared already in mailboxes all over Rancho Palos Verdes.
The construction time for The Marymount Plan will be "36 months". That also appeared in mailboxes throughout the city.
If Dr. Brophy is to be believed, then Marymount's representatives have never mailed anything that could be considered untrue or misleading. Is there a rational person in the city of Rancho Palos Verdes that actually could believe Dr. Brophy at this point?
Passage of P allows Marymount the opportunity to build a state-of-the-art library and a recreational facility for use by all of the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes, as Dr. Brophy's argument in favor of P states.
No it doesn't. The passage or rejection of P has absolutely no factual bearing on the approval of a state-of-the-art library and recreation center that could be used by residents of Rancho Palos Verdes because those facilities and every other facility brought to a vote by Marymount College representatives have already been approved and the very statement that will arrive in mailboxes of residents and businesses in Rancho Palos Verdes if factually misleading on its face.
The gall of Dr. Brophy to claim he rejects misleading statements arriving in mailboxes is overshadowed only by the knowledge that he himself and/or others representatives of Marymount College are ready, willing, and wishing to do the exact same thing they feel those that Dr. Brophy is suing, are doing.
I have documented many statements that Dr. Brophy has NEVER DENIED being misleading and coming from those representing Marymount College.
Dr. Brophy has told me personally that he has not found any statement, assertion, or opinionated comment written by me that could be found to be misleading by him.
No other person claiming to represent Marymount College has ever contacted me in order to identify or condemn any of my writing for having any misleading statements about Marymount College, The Marymount Plan, or on any other matter.
Dr. Brophy and others, including the college's Director of Communications have commented that they are aware of this blog and I know for a fact that representatives and supporters of Marymount College read this blog, at least on occasion.
I suspect that even more folks associated with Marymount College, especially members of the college's legal team have read or will read posts and comments on this blog from now until at least November 2, 2010.
Councilman Stern, also within the article, mentions that he might consider that members of the public might fear making comments in opposition to Marymount's measure, at least partly because of the lawsuit Dr. Brophy is named as the Plaintiff in.
I hope and strongly feel that Councilman Stern is found to be completely wrong and that more and more residents of Rancho Palos Verdes will see what the lawsuit might really be about and that could be the stifling of speech and writing in opposition to Marymount's position and plans.
Naturally I will keep the article in my files and use it as I feel I need to.
I think reminding voters about quotes Dr. Brophy has made might be very important in measuring how far he would go to get approval to build on-campus student housing.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
I've Got Mine. Do You Have Yours?
Fanning out throughout Rancho Palos Verdes are the signs that state that our city is NOT for sale!
There are several ways to get your signs (did you notice the second sign in the shadows to the left?) and you can volunteer to help oppose The Marymount Plan's P all the while continuing to support The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project.
You can get a sign by leaving me an E-mail at mrichards2@hotmail.com or by visiting http://www.saverpv.com/ or asking anyone who already has a sign in their yard where they got theirs.
Save Our City III and http://www.saverpv.com/ needs your financial support, too. Signs did not drop freely from the sky and it now appears that there could be legal fees that groups may have to save for.
Save Our City III and http://www.saverpv.com/ needs your financial support, too. Signs did not drop freely from the sky and it now appears that there could be legal fees that groups may have to save for.
It is not too early to demonstrate you opposition to one business' attempts to gain approvals and authority other businesses and no residents have, in Rancho Palos Verdes.
It is not too early to demonstrate your disapproval of Marymount's Presidents most recent events to quash First Amendment rights by members of our City Council and others.
It is not too early to join with a growing number of residents of Rancho Palos Verdes to restate the reasons Rancho Palos Verdes became a city in the first place and that on-campus student housing at the top of Palos Verdes Drive East is too unsafe to be approved.
It is not too early to help save our city from greed in the form of an institution that could potentially reap millions of dollars in revenue at the expense to our infrastructure, residents, and regulations.
It is never too early to consider safety.
Let The Law Firms Make More Money
Mr. Paul Gough, an attorney with the law firm of Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk, LLP,
will be filing the Petition for Writ of Mandate today in the matter of Brophy v. Logan et al seeking a writ of mandate to amend or delete language from the ballot argument against the Marymount Initiative. At filing the case will be assigned to either Dept. 85 or 86 of the Los Angeles Superior Court located at 111 N. Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA and Mr. Gough will be appearing in either Dept. 85 or 86 (depending on the assignment) tomorrow morning, Friday, August 27, 2010 at 8:30 a.m. on an ex parte basis seeking a briefing schedule for the matter or an alternative writ of mandate. This notice is being provided because the named Real Parties In Interest in the lawsuit are the five city council members from Rancho Palos Verdes authorized to submit the ballot argument against the Marymount Initiative in Rancho Palos Verdes Resolution 2010-51. Mr. Gough is seeking advise as to whether any of the parties will be appearing tomorrow morning or if they will be represented by counsel at the ex parte hearing.
Since all five members of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council are named in the lawsuit, whether they themselves are attorneys or not, means that at least up to five attorneys representing the parties could be present at the hearings, briefings, and other meetings, all charging necessary fees and costs to the city or the city's insurance carrier.
Are you still with me on Marymount's "good neighbor" claim?
Mr. Jeffrey Lewis, a find attorney in his own right has also agreed with me that it is not necessarily the right time to counter sue Marymount's representatives, but since it appears that Marymount is ramping up its fight with the city of Rancho Palos Verdes and by association, the residents represented by the five City Council members named in the lawsuit, it looks like all kindness, the prospect of Marymount really being a "good neighbor" and all future attempts to deal with The Marymount Plan as anything other than a special interest by a single business seeking a less-than honorable attempt to sidestep our residents wishes, is completely out of the window.
And it is not even Labor Day yet.
I know I have stated that my gloves are off and have been off for some time. I now hope that everyone else opposed to The Marymount Plan and opposed to the passage of Measure P will also remove their gloves and take this battle and all other battles out into the community and fight against what is becoming a seemingly corrupt organization's plan to take the rights bestowed on our representatives and place undo burdens on all of our residents, all just because of on-campus housing.
And now, for the next post.
will be filing the Petition for Writ of Mandate today in the matter of Brophy v. Logan et al seeking a writ of mandate to amend or delete language from the ballot argument against the Marymount Initiative. At filing the case will be assigned to either Dept. 85 or 86 of the Los Angeles Superior Court located at 111 N. Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA and Mr. Gough will be appearing in either Dept. 85 or 86 (depending on the assignment) tomorrow morning, Friday, August 27, 2010 at 8:30 a.m. on an ex parte basis seeking a briefing schedule for the matter or an alternative writ of mandate. This notice is being provided because the named Real Parties In Interest in the lawsuit are the five city council members from Rancho Palos Verdes authorized to submit the ballot argument against the Marymount Initiative in Rancho Palos Verdes Resolution 2010-51. Mr. Gough is seeking advise as to whether any of the parties will be appearing tomorrow morning or if they will be represented by counsel at the ex parte hearing.
Since all five members of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council are named in the lawsuit, whether they themselves are attorneys or not, means that at least up to five attorneys representing the parties could be present at the hearings, briefings, and other meetings, all charging necessary fees and costs to the city or the city's insurance carrier.
Are you still with me on Marymount's "good neighbor" claim?
Mr. Jeffrey Lewis, a find attorney in his own right has also agreed with me that it is not necessarily the right time to counter sue Marymount's representatives, but since it appears that Marymount is ramping up its fight with the city of Rancho Palos Verdes and by association, the residents represented by the five City Council members named in the lawsuit, it looks like all kindness, the prospect of Marymount really being a "good neighbor" and all future attempts to deal with The Marymount Plan as anything other than a special interest by a single business seeking a less-than honorable attempt to sidestep our residents wishes, is completely out of the window.
And it is not even Labor Day yet.
I know I have stated that my gloves are off and have been off for some time. I now hope that everyone else opposed to The Marymount Plan and opposed to the passage of Measure P will also remove their gloves and take this battle and all other battles out into the community and fight against what is becoming a seemingly corrupt organization's plan to take the rights bestowed on our representatives and place undo burdens on all of our residents, all just because of on-campus housing.
And now, for the next post.
UNLESS?
“Marymount College has been an important asset for Rancho Palos Verdes for 50 years. Your Yes Vote on Measure P will allow the school to build a state-of-the-art library and a recreational center available to every Rancho Palos Verdes resident"
Those are the words that begin the argument in favor of the ballot Initiative regarding The Marymount Plan.
On its surface, it would seem factually deceptive by not acknowledging that the exact same state-of-the-art library and a recreational center available to every Rancho Palos Verdes resident has already been approved of by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council.
Now please, consider the word 'unless' and the ramifications the first words may actually confirm, if one reads the words as fact and/or between the lines.
It has been my assertion for some time that should Marymount College and its representatives fail in their war to get on-campus student housing approved, by any means possible, they will simply abandon the construction of every other aspect of both The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project AND The Marymount Plan.
Both the Project and the Plan are almost completely identical except for on-campus student housing and legal language allowing Marymount's representatives to make moot a number of city regulations and municipal codes.
Looking at the first words in another light and still considering the word, unless, it now is almost a verified fact by Marymount, unless they publicly deny this coming statement that:
Unless Marymount College is allowed to construct on-campus student housing, there will be no new construction of a state-of-the-art library or even a recreational center available to every Rancho Palos Verdes resident.
Furthermore, I challenge and strongly request that representatives of Marymount College respond to the sentence I created above this one and either accept that sentence as fact or publicly deny it.
Bluntly put, I continue to believe that if Marymount's representatives and supporters do not find a means to have on-campus student housing approved for construction on the main campus of Marymount College, that College will eventually fail to attract enough students willing to attend it, whether it is a four-year college or a two-year college, and that is may close its doors without even beginning construction approved by The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, which I will continue to support.
Evidence of my assertions being truer than fictional are being brought to light by Marymount's representatives and legal team.
I strongly believe that no matter what the vote count is by November 3, 2010, litigation concerning on-campus student residential units will continue long after November, 2010 at a cost to the College, the city of Rancho Palos Verdes and/or the city's insurers.
I do not expect that Dr. Brophy will offer a decisive answer or correction to my assertions between now and November, 2, 2010, nor do I expect any truthful denial that my assertions are correct from anyone else representing Marymount College.
All of this can only be charged against Marymount's representatives' self interests in attempting to gain approval for something I find unsafe.
It continues to become more clear in terms that Marymount representatives do not want you to know is that it is dorms or no more Marymount.
It probably should come down to that as the most honest way of describing all of the fighting, lawsuits, and other problems that have grown during the last ten years.
At some point we all need to 'own' this fact and find personal responsibility for the potential outcome that might be in our city's future.
No dorms or no Marymount. That is what Proposition P is really about and I have had to assume personal responsibility that my consideration that on-campus student housing is so unsafe that I have to 'own' the concept that I could be a party in the disappearance of Marymount College as an active institution for higher learning in Rancho Palos Verdes. Even though I will continue to support it, I do not believe that The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project was ever really positively considered for implementation by representatives of Marymount College, without on-campus housing ever being approved.
Those are the words that begin the argument in favor of the ballot Initiative regarding The Marymount Plan.
On its surface, it would seem factually deceptive by not acknowledging that the exact same state-of-the-art library and a recreational center available to every Rancho Palos Verdes resident has already been approved of by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council.
Now please, consider the word 'unless' and the ramifications the first words may actually confirm, if one reads the words as fact and/or between the lines.
It has been my assertion for some time that should Marymount College and its representatives fail in their war to get on-campus student housing approved, by any means possible, they will simply abandon the construction of every other aspect of both The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project AND The Marymount Plan.
Both the Project and the Plan are almost completely identical except for on-campus student housing and legal language allowing Marymount's representatives to make moot a number of city regulations and municipal codes.
Looking at the first words in another light and still considering the word, unless, it now is almost a verified fact by Marymount, unless they publicly deny this coming statement that:
Unless Marymount College is allowed to construct on-campus student housing, there will be no new construction of a state-of-the-art library or even a recreational center available to every Rancho Palos Verdes resident.
Furthermore, I challenge and strongly request that representatives of Marymount College respond to the sentence I created above this one and either accept that sentence as fact or publicly deny it.
Bluntly put, I continue to believe that if Marymount's representatives and supporters do not find a means to have on-campus student housing approved for construction on the main campus of Marymount College, that College will eventually fail to attract enough students willing to attend it, whether it is a four-year college or a two-year college, and that is may close its doors without even beginning construction approved by The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, which I will continue to support.
Evidence of my assertions being truer than fictional are being brought to light by Marymount's representatives and legal team.
I strongly believe that no matter what the vote count is by November 3, 2010, litigation concerning on-campus student residential units will continue long after November, 2010 at a cost to the College, the city of Rancho Palos Verdes and/or the city's insurers.
I do not expect that Dr. Brophy will offer a decisive answer or correction to my assertions between now and November, 2, 2010, nor do I expect any truthful denial that my assertions are correct from anyone else representing Marymount College.
All of this can only be charged against Marymount's representatives' self interests in attempting to gain approval for something I find unsafe.
It continues to become more clear in terms that Marymount representatives do not want you to know is that it is dorms or no more Marymount.
It probably should come down to that as the most honest way of describing all of the fighting, lawsuits, and other problems that have grown during the last ten years.
At some point we all need to 'own' this fact and find personal responsibility for the potential outcome that might be in our city's future.
No dorms or no Marymount. That is what Proposition P is really about and I have had to assume personal responsibility that my consideration that on-campus student housing is so unsafe that I have to 'own' the concept that I could be a party in the disappearance of Marymount College as an active institution for higher learning in Rancho Palos Verdes. Even though I will continue to support it, I do not believe that The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project was ever really positively considered for implementation by representatives of Marymount College, without on-campus housing ever being approved.
Palos Verdes Truth Blog
Mr. Jeffrey Lewis is one of the most educated persons on Earth concerning The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project and The Marymount Plan.
Mr. Lewis also has a blog. It is at http://www.palosverdestruth.wordpress.com/ and he continues to provide quality information I feel all residents of Rancho Palos Verdes will find important.
Mr. Lewis' latest post on his blog can be found by clicking on the following URL:
http://palosverdestruth.wordpress.com/2010/08/25/the-truth-about-measure-ps-ballot-argument/
Marymount College's representatives have filed a lawsuit against the city of Rancho Palos Verdes apparently claiming that some statements included in the city's wording of the City Council's opposition to what is now known as Proposition P and some written arguments developed in opposition arguments against the passage of Proposition P are misleading or untruthful.
Naturally it is my opinion that Marymount College representatives are able to spot what they might consider misleading or untruthful statements quite easily as so many of us have already found out that those same individuals are more than likely responsible for doing the exact same thing they are now condemning that others have done.
How many times have you been able to read the undisputed truth about the many misstatements and down right untruths in advertisements and writings from Marymount College's representatives and/or supporters, on this blog? I haven't counted the number and I won't for this post.
If any of Marymount's representatives claim that misstatements have been made by representatives of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes, please ready the following taken directly from the ballot argument in favor of Proposition P and found on Jeffrey Lewis' blog:
"Marymount College has been an important asset for Rancho Palos Verdes for 50 years. Your Yes Vote on Measure (P) will allow the school to build a state-of-the-art library and a recreational center available to every Rancho Palos Verdes resident….”
In fact and in truth, your Yes vote on Measure P will do absolutely nothing concerning the already approved 'state-of-the-art library and a recreational center..." because, a) those buildings have already been approved by the Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission during the tenure of Mr. Jeffrey as its Chair AND by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council, the final determining body for the construction of those and other facilities within The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project.
In truth and in fact, no matter what election literature is produced attempting to get Yes votes from Rancho Palos Verdes voters on Measure P or Proposition P, Mr. Lewis, as Chair of the Planning Commission in which a majority of the voting members approved The Project and the majority of the current membership of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council have already approved every single request by Marymount representatives brought before the Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission AND the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council, by those very same Marymount representatives.
I would very much love to have anyone representing or supporting Marymount challenge the truth of that last paragraph. Go ahead, make our day.
Mr. Lewis today, began calling for the city to counter sue Marymount College due to the very obvious misleading statement at the very beginning of Marymount's argument in favor of the Measure or Proposition.
I am not quite yet sure that taxpayer funds should be spent this early in the campaign to sue or counter sue Marymount College. It appears that our taxes or our city's insurance carrier will already be charged for defense costs related to the lawsuit filed by Marymount representatives and/or supporters.
But that certainly doesn't mean that part of my recent contribution to Save Our City III at http://www.saverpv.com/ shouldn't be used as a citizen-brought suit against such an obviously deceptive argument for and rebuttal of argument against the ballot measure and I just might send in a second contribution to help that group's legal fund, after I pay for a bunch of yard signs.
And now another disclaimer:
As of today, not a single representative or supporter of Marymount College has challenged anything I have written on this blog about not being factual, truthful, or misleading. That includes Dr. Michael Brophy, Marymount's President, who has told me he reads this blog.
I continue to support The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project approved by the Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission and made into law by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council.
All of this, much of Mr. Lewis' blog, and just about everything coming from or about Marymount College has to do with just one issue: On campus student residential units. But they never brought that issue up for voting by the Planning Commission or even the City Council when they had every single right to do so.
Mr. Lewis also has a blog. It is at http://www.palosverdestruth.wordpress.com/ and he continues to provide quality information I feel all residents of Rancho Palos Verdes will find important.
Mr. Lewis' latest post on his blog can be found by clicking on the following URL:
http://palosverdestruth.wordpress.com/2010/08/25/the-truth-about-measure-ps-ballot-argument/
Marymount College's representatives have filed a lawsuit against the city of Rancho Palos Verdes apparently claiming that some statements included in the city's wording of the City Council's opposition to what is now known as Proposition P and some written arguments developed in opposition arguments against the passage of Proposition P are misleading or untruthful.
Naturally it is my opinion that Marymount College representatives are able to spot what they might consider misleading or untruthful statements quite easily as so many of us have already found out that those same individuals are more than likely responsible for doing the exact same thing they are now condemning that others have done.
How many times have you been able to read the undisputed truth about the many misstatements and down right untruths in advertisements and writings from Marymount College's representatives and/or supporters, on this blog? I haven't counted the number and I won't for this post.
If any of Marymount's representatives claim that misstatements have been made by representatives of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes, please ready the following taken directly from the ballot argument in favor of Proposition P and found on Jeffrey Lewis' blog:
"Marymount College has been an important asset for Rancho Palos Verdes for 50 years. Your Yes Vote on Measure (P) will allow the school to build a state-of-the-art library and a recreational center available to every Rancho Palos Verdes resident….”
In fact and in truth, your Yes vote on Measure P will do absolutely nothing concerning the already approved 'state-of-the-art library and a recreational center..." because, a) those buildings have already been approved by the Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission during the tenure of Mr. Jeffrey as its Chair AND by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council, the final determining body for the construction of those and other facilities within The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project.
In truth and in fact, no matter what election literature is produced attempting to get Yes votes from Rancho Palos Verdes voters on Measure P or Proposition P, Mr. Lewis, as Chair of the Planning Commission in which a majority of the voting members approved The Project and the majority of the current membership of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council have already approved every single request by Marymount representatives brought before the Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission AND the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council, by those very same Marymount representatives.
I would very much love to have anyone representing or supporting Marymount challenge the truth of that last paragraph. Go ahead, make our day.
Mr. Lewis today, began calling for the city to counter sue Marymount College due to the very obvious misleading statement at the very beginning of Marymount's argument in favor of the Measure or Proposition.
I am not quite yet sure that taxpayer funds should be spent this early in the campaign to sue or counter sue Marymount College. It appears that our taxes or our city's insurance carrier will already be charged for defense costs related to the lawsuit filed by Marymount representatives and/or supporters.
But that certainly doesn't mean that part of my recent contribution to Save Our City III at http://www.saverpv.com/ shouldn't be used as a citizen-brought suit against such an obviously deceptive argument for and rebuttal of argument against the ballot measure and I just might send in a second contribution to help that group's legal fund, after I pay for a bunch of yard signs.
And now another disclaimer:
As of today, not a single representative or supporter of Marymount College has challenged anything I have written on this blog about not being factual, truthful, or misleading. That includes Dr. Michael Brophy, Marymount's President, who has told me he reads this blog.
I continue to support The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project approved by the Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission and made into law by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council.
All of this, much of Mr. Lewis' blog, and just about everything coming from or about Marymount College has to do with just one issue: On campus student residential units. But they never brought that issue up for voting by the Planning Commission or even the City Council when they had every single right to do so.
A "Good Neighbor" Is Suing The City
Information provided to me this evening stated that a certain entity, claiming to be a "good neighbor" in Rancho Palos Verdes has filed a lawsuit against the city of Rancho Palos Verdes.
My, that didn't take long after the yard signs started being displayed.
The suit is NOT about the yard signs but apparently about the language chosen by our city objection to passage of Proposition P, The Marymount Plan's attempt to have dorms approved by voters and other negative things that are not part of the approved Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project.
So now the certain entity will cost taxpayer monies because the city has to defend itself, but the "good neighbor" doesn't seem to care.
I thought I read that The Marymount Plan will be done with "no taxpayer expense". Well, that statement has not been proven to be misleading, as of today, hasn't it?
Marymount College representatives suing the city of Rancho Palos Verdes is exactly what many of us predicted it would do.
What we didn't figure is how long before the election they would take that step.
I don't think suing a city representing residents who one wishes Yes votes on Proposition P should sit well with the electorate. Might this be another piece of evidence of desperation on the part of Marymount's representatives and supporters.
So Marymount heads to court first. I can imagine and find almost certain that it won't be the last lawsuit filed by Marymount's representatives and/or supporters, dealing with The Marymount Plan.
Perhaps part of my very recent donation at www.saverpv.com should be set aside to go towards a growing legal fund so that no matter what happens on November 2, 2010, the opposition side of the Prop P arguments will be able to go forward either to block implementation of The Marymount Plan or help defend against lawsuits brought in the future by Marymount's representatives and/or supporters, when Prop P goes down in a crushing defeat.
And another thing. If you have been noticing the commercials on T.V. about Marymount and all the good works they are doing?
Where in that commercial is there any "good neighbor" works illustrating what Marymount and its students are doing in and for Rancho Palos Verdes?
I would think that being a "good neighbor" means that one would volunteer services in the actual community one was in, along with helping other communities, which is also honorable.
So let us all note that on Wednesday, August 25, 2010 Marymount College, its students, representatives and supporters have completely and voluntarily given up their status and claim to being "good neighbors", not that they really were in the first place.
If Marymount attempts to use "good neighbor" in any future advertisement, statement, position, claim, proclamation, or doctrine, let it be known to all that they are not and have voluntarily decided to not be "good neighbors" to anyone in Rancho Palos Verdes.
My, that didn't take long after the yard signs started being displayed.
The suit is NOT about the yard signs but apparently about the language chosen by our city objection to passage of Proposition P, The Marymount Plan's attempt to have dorms approved by voters and other negative things that are not part of the approved Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project.
So now the certain entity will cost taxpayer monies because the city has to defend itself, but the "good neighbor" doesn't seem to care.
I thought I read that The Marymount Plan will be done with "no taxpayer expense". Well, that statement has not been proven to be misleading, as of today, hasn't it?
Marymount College representatives suing the city of Rancho Palos Verdes is exactly what many of us predicted it would do.
What we didn't figure is how long before the election they would take that step.
I don't think suing a city representing residents who one wishes Yes votes on Proposition P should sit well with the electorate. Might this be another piece of evidence of desperation on the part of Marymount's representatives and supporters.
So Marymount heads to court first. I can imagine and find almost certain that it won't be the last lawsuit filed by Marymount's representatives and/or supporters, dealing with The Marymount Plan.
Perhaps part of my very recent donation at www.saverpv.com should be set aside to go towards a growing legal fund so that no matter what happens on November 2, 2010, the opposition side of the Prop P arguments will be able to go forward either to block implementation of The Marymount Plan or help defend against lawsuits brought in the future by Marymount's representatives and/or supporters, when Prop P goes down in a crushing defeat.
And another thing. If you have been noticing the commercials on T.V. about Marymount and all the good works they are doing?
Where in that commercial is there any "good neighbor" works illustrating what Marymount and its students are doing in and for Rancho Palos Verdes?
I would think that being a "good neighbor" means that one would volunteer services in the actual community one was in, along with helping other communities, which is also honorable.
So let us all note that on Wednesday, August 25, 2010 Marymount College, its students, representatives and supporters have completely and voluntarily given up their status and claim to being "good neighbors", not that they really were in the first place.
If Marymount attempts to use "good neighbor" in any future advertisement, statement, position, claim, proclamation, or doctrine, let it be known to all that they are not and have voluntarily decided to not be "good neighbors" to anyone in Rancho Palos Verdes.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
WWW.SAVERPV.COM
I may be not that early in finding www.saverpv.com but I found it and I am on board to help it and all residents of Rancho Palos Verdes vote down a completely unnecessary, expensive, and disturbing measure.
As you all may know by now, my opposition to P is quite different than almost everyone else, but I strongly share with them their conviction that this measure MUST NOT PASS!
Since I first read through The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project's initial files, I have been unable to find that on-campus housing of students is safer than keeping student housing as it currently is.
Furthermore, I strongly believe that there is no possible way that any mitigation can be provided to insure greater safety for students, faculty, staff, residents, visitors, and others in and around Marymount's Palos Verdes Drive East campus.
Additionally, I have found that no one has offered to debate me on safety issues related to having students living on the campus of Marymount College even though I created that challenge many months ago.
While I also agree that the particular measure was designed specifically for one single private entity and if approved, would subject our city to having less oversight, a specially created district not having to follow many codes and requirements every other resident or business is required to follow, and loss of abilities to control greater noise, traffic, and events in a largely residential area, I understand that these concerns provide many the need to oppose the measure on those grounds.
There are also concerns that should Marymount receive approval to build dorms on their campus, they may contractually remove themselves from many liabilities while receiving the construction of the dorms at no cost to the College AND then receiving payments from an entity that Marymount may contract with for the construction, maintenance, and running of the on-campus housing.
There are also residents who strongly believe Marymount could gain rights they now do not have to rent, lease, or in other ways, provide companies, even profit-making companies access to Marymount's plant and premises for, as yet, undisclosed events.
Some of the events considered by some residents as being in the future, should measure P pass are concerts, sporting events, summer camps, and other occasions where noise, traffic, crowds, and other factors could pose a greater problems for local residents, law enforcement, fire and medical responders, and others due to the location of the College and the strategic requirements of keeping Palos Verdes Drive East open and drivable.
www.saverpv.com needs your input. www.saverpv.com needs your volunteerism. www.saverpv.com needs your donations of money, time, efforts, a piece of your yard, and more if we are going to halt Marymount's attempt to get revenue generating housing where it is unsafe and simply does not belong.
Please visit www.saverpv.com.
If and when I find other sites opposing "P" I will write about them, too.
And now for my usual disclaimer:
I fully support The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project approved for implementation by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council and I oppose Measure P and The Marymount Plan.
As you all may know by now, my opposition to P is quite different than almost everyone else, but I strongly share with them their conviction that this measure MUST NOT PASS!
Since I first read through The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project's initial files, I have been unable to find that on-campus housing of students is safer than keeping student housing as it currently is.
Furthermore, I strongly believe that there is no possible way that any mitigation can be provided to insure greater safety for students, faculty, staff, residents, visitors, and others in and around Marymount's Palos Verdes Drive East campus.
Additionally, I have found that no one has offered to debate me on safety issues related to having students living on the campus of Marymount College even though I created that challenge many months ago.
While I also agree that the particular measure was designed specifically for one single private entity and if approved, would subject our city to having less oversight, a specially created district not having to follow many codes and requirements every other resident or business is required to follow, and loss of abilities to control greater noise, traffic, and events in a largely residential area, I understand that these concerns provide many the need to oppose the measure on those grounds.
There are also concerns that should Marymount receive approval to build dorms on their campus, they may contractually remove themselves from many liabilities while receiving the construction of the dorms at no cost to the College AND then receiving payments from an entity that Marymount may contract with for the construction, maintenance, and running of the on-campus housing.
There are also residents who strongly believe Marymount could gain rights they now do not have to rent, lease, or in other ways, provide companies, even profit-making companies access to Marymount's plant and premises for, as yet, undisclosed events.
Some of the events considered by some residents as being in the future, should measure P pass are concerts, sporting events, summer camps, and other occasions where noise, traffic, crowds, and other factors could pose a greater problems for local residents, law enforcement, fire and medical responders, and others due to the location of the College and the strategic requirements of keeping Palos Verdes Drive East open and drivable.
www.saverpv.com needs your input. www.saverpv.com needs your volunteerism. www.saverpv.com needs your donations of money, time, efforts, a piece of your yard, and more if we are going to halt Marymount's attempt to get revenue generating housing where it is unsafe and simply does not belong.
Please visit www.saverpv.com.
If and when I find other sites opposing "P" I will write about them, too.
And now for my usual disclaimer:
I fully support The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project approved for implementation by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council and I oppose Measure P and The Marymount Plan.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Bits and Pieces 10
The first new thing I learned this morning is that cannolis aren't ready until after 11:00 AM at Amalfitano. And they sell out every day.
So, I ordered and paid for two cannolis for pickup later today and 'settled' for a zappala.
Naturally I enjoyed the zappala with its thick pastry texture and all that sugar on the top. Was it the only thing I ate during my first visit to Amalfitano Bakery this morning? Absolutely YES and certainly NO.
I also purchased a chocolate chip covered pastry and fully intended on taking it all the way home before eating it later today. I got just two doors away from the bakery and the treat came out of its bag and into my tummy.
Terri was with me, too. She sat and enjoyed her first "delicious" cheese danish at Amalfitano Bakery and she was pleased that "the price was right".
It took a week and less than one hour after opening, but my inaugural visit to this great new establishment is history.
We were told that 'breakfast' pastries are available at opening and that most of the other baked goods come out 'after 11:00 AM'. That is fine with me because there really is nothing I should eat in the morning and I should probably not enjoy much of anything else from there, either.
But I won't help it all that much. It will be hard not taking that very short stroll during a morning when I normally eat the breakfast I have eaten for months and months. Scales inform me that I need to remain on my new eating plan and sadly, Amalfitano Bakery has little the plan's menu carries.
I still await my first cannoli from Amalfitano Bakery. It will be waiting for me and there is one for Terri, after we return from 'Rookie Camp' at Miraleste I.S..
__________________________________________
Hawai'i is now filling our memories after emptying our wallets but those memories are all wonderful and the wallets don't have much to complain about.
__________________________________________
Hawai'i is now filling our memories after emptying our wallets but those memories are all wonderful and the wallets don't have much to complain about.
As refreshed as we can be, Terri and I have an end of summer and a fall full of all kinds of things to think about and do. One of the issues that will take up much of my time is a pestering item that portends to populate a portion of my time, energy, thoughts, and psyche.
Measure P is our problem child that needs to be dealt with until at least November 2.
The Marymount Plan's "P" is a way representatives and supporters of Marymount's plans to acquire approvals to build dorms on campus are trying to get something that many of them know, or should know, is not in the true best interests of students, residents, and others, in my opinion.
In later posts, I will expand on the two articles that appeared last Thursday in The Palos Verdes Peninsula News.
I will also be gearing up for reactions to and about upcoming articles and propaganda from Marymount about their drive to get on-campus student housing approved for up to 250 students, or perhaps more, by going to voters for approval rather than methods done by developers and residents throughout the entire history of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes.
___________________________________________
___________________________________________
'Summer' is finally here, right near the end of the established season. There is under one month left in the official summer season, but the heat is here and I hope everyone takes safety first into consideration when living in and with the heat.
Hot air temperatures in August are normal but this summer hasn't been normal. It makes me wonder what September and October will be like because both of those months also have periods of extreme heat.
Please stay safe and cool when you read this blog and at all other times.
_________________________________________
'Rookie Camp' is a one-day event for incoming 6th graders to our intermediate schools. Terri has worked as a library aide for years at Miraleste I.S. and I have been volunteering there for more years than I can remember.
_________________________________________
'Rookie Camp' is a one-day event for incoming 6th graders to our intermediate schools. Terri has worked as a library aide for years at Miraleste I.S. and I have been volunteering there for more years than I can remember.
As the new school year nears, rejoicing that kids are back in school is permitted, accepted, and somewhat wonderful. This year should be no exception and I hope all had a great time away from classrooms and crowded common areas.
This year, Terri and I can comment with some equality on where we went when students tell us how and where they spent part of their summer vacation.
I bet many students can talk about the exotic places they traveled to but they can't claim they were inside Keck II observatory as its dome was rotating and its telescope was moving.
For once in a long while, Terri has the best story of summer. Way to go!
___________________________________________
I also read that Eastview Little League gets to stay atop Knoll Hill in San Pedro, apparently past their contractual limitations.
___________________________________________
I also read that Eastview Little League gets to stay atop Knoll Hill in San Pedro, apparently past their contractual limitations.
I will deal with that on its own post.
__________________________________________
Since folks like me living in the Eastview area of R.P.V. still have a portion of property taxes we pay going to L.A.U.S.D. and not P.V.P.U.S.D., I feel there needs to be comments made and coming about the $500,000,000.00 set of schools where the Ambassador Hotel used to sit.
__________________________________________
Since folks like me living in the Eastview area of R.P.V. still have a portion of property taxes we pay going to L.A.U.S.D. and not P.V.P.U.S.D., I feel there needs to be comments made and coming about the $500,000,000.00 set of schools where the Ambassador Hotel used to sit.
That sum does not sit well with me, even for schools for grades K-12 built for 4,200 students.
I hope and think it does not sit well with you, either. Especially if you live near Crestwood or Dodson.
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Yes! But I'm Supposed To Be On Vacation
Yes! I did read both of Ms. Ashley Ratcliff's articles in today's Palos Verdes Peninsula News.
I found them very good, as usual and as informative as Ms. Ratcliff always writes them.
I shall ponder more on them if I remain awake for a long period of time when we fly home.
But for now, I hope you will learn all you can about "P" and make up your own mind to not be overly influenced by Marymount supporters who continue to attempt to muddy the waters by mentioning items in The Marymount Plan that have already been approved of by the City Council. They will try their best to make you believe that the Council has not approved things like a state-of-the-art Library or new athletic facilities or new construction other than dorms. But the Council has approved construction of EVERYTHING brought to them by Marymount's representatives for discussion and approval.
Please contribute you knowledge, time, energy, and funds to Save Our City III and other groups opposed to measure "P".
If you are of a like mind as me, please vote NO on measure "P" because having up to 250 college-age students living high up on Palos Verdes Drive East poses safety concerns that cannot be mitigated to be safe enough for students, residents, visitors, and others. I am still waiting for anyone willing to debate me about the safety of placing students in dorms on the Marymount campus as opposed to having students live in off-campus housing and being transported to and from the campus with trained shuttle bus drivers more familiar with roads and traffic patterns that the mostly out of area students would be.
For whatever reasons you feel are justified to oppose measure "P", please use them, tell your neighbors of your concerns and join with a growing number of individuals and groups seeking to support The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project as I do and oppose The Marymount Plan and its measure "P".
I found them very good, as usual and as informative as Ms. Ratcliff always writes them.
I shall ponder more on them if I remain awake for a long period of time when we fly home.
But for now, I hope you will learn all you can about "P" and make up your own mind to not be overly influenced by Marymount supporters who continue to attempt to muddy the waters by mentioning items in The Marymount Plan that have already been approved of by the City Council. They will try their best to make you believe that the Council has not approved things like a state-of-the-art Library or new athletic facilities or new construction other than dorms. But the Council has approved construction of EVERYTHING brought to them by Marymount's representatives for discussion and approval.
Please contribute you knowledge, time, energy, and funds to Save Our City III and other groups opposed to measure "P".
If you are of a like mind as me, please vote NO on measure "P" because having up to 250 college-age students living high up on Palos Verdes Drive East poses safety concerns that cannot be mitigated to be safe enough for students, residents, visitors, and others. I am still waiting for anyone willing to debate me about the safety of placing students in dorms on the Marymount campus as opposed to having students live in off-campus housing and being transported to and from the campus with trained shuttle bus drivers more familiar with roads and traffic patterns that the mostly out of area students would be.
For whatever reasons you feel are justified to oppose measure "P", please use them, tell your neighbors of your concerns and join with a growing number of individuals and groups seeking to support The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project as I do and oppose The Marymount Plan and its measure "P".
"P" Is For Pandering?
I am far away from the locale where the fight goes on against what will probably become a Million Dollar PLUS attempt to get dorms approved at Marymount College.
It is all about dorms because they are the only major construction item not already approved for construction at the Marymount Campus.
The initiative now has an identity and it is "P". I can consider many 'P' words but pandering comes to mind first because it seems to me that Marymount's representatives are pandering to less informed voters about The Marymount Plan and how they feel it is different that The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, already approved for construction.
Problematic is also a potent and potentially plague producing proposition that I am considering because of the many problems Marymount officials have had attempting to remain truthful and not succeeding well at all, in that regard.
Protesting Marymount's attempts to try and claim that The Marymount Plan will allow for a new state of the art library and athletic facilities when they haven't shared that those items have been approved and are exactly as Marymount has requested they be*.
* Yes, the new athletic field will be moved 60 feet east and the gym roof will be ten feet shorter, but Marymount hasn't objected to that when the Council approved their construction.
Pungent is a good word to consider when you think about the smell of untruths, misinformation, and incomplete answers coming from Marymount representatives, concerning The Marymount Plan.
Plastering is what we all can expect in the way of advertisements, mailers, phone calls, and other forms of.....dare I write.....propaganda about The Marymount Plan's "P".
Propaganda is actually a great word to use in consideration of what Marymount representatives and supporters have used and will probably use between now and November 2.
They won't use the actual, factual, and complete truth that is simply, The Marymount Plan has been specifically created to attempt to have on-campus student housing approved AND to have a specific zone district created for just one business where that business can supersede local codes and guidelines and moot the will of the voters who elected City Council members to represent them.
When Dr. Brophy pronounces that the voters should have the choice to decide whether Marymount gets dorms or not, he is not willing to tell you that voters already decided that issue when they elected the five Council Members who acted based on their beliefs of what the voters who elected them wanted.
Pandering. Propaganda. Problematic. Poor. These are just four "P" words I have come up with in just a few minutes of pondering.
Vote NO on Propaganda.
Vote NO on Pandering.
Vote NO on Problems created by youthful drivers living above the switchbacks.
Vote NO on Poor judgement by Marymount officials who seek to nullify what our City Council has already done on behalf of Marymount College and all the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Vote NO on measure P.
Now, I must get back to watching for manta rays outside our hotel room at Keahou Bay.
It is all about dorms because they are the only major construction item not already approved for construction at the Marymount Campus.
The initiative now has an identity and it is "P". I can consider many 'P' words but pandering comes to mind first because it seems to me that Marymount's representatives are pandering to less informed voters about The Marymount Plan and how they feel it is different that The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, already approved for construction.
Problematic is also a potent and potentially plague producing proposition that I am considering because of the many problems Marymount officials have had attempting to remain truthful and not succeeding well at all, in that regard.
Protesting Marymount's attempts to try and claim that The Marymount Plan will allow for a new state of the art library and athletic facilities when they haven't shared that those items have been approved and are exactly as Marymount has requested they be*.
* Yes, the new athletic field will be moved 60 feet east and the gym roof will be ten feet shorter, but Marymount hasn't objected to that when the Council approved their construction.
Pungent is a good word to consider when you think about the smell of untruths, misinformation, and incomplete answers coming from Marymount representatives, concerning The Marymount Plan.
Plastering is what we all can expect in the way of advertisements, mailers, phone calls, and other forms of.....dare I write.....propaganda about The Marymount Plan's "P".
Propaganda is actually a great word to use in consideration of what Marymount representatives and supporters have used and will probably use between now and November 2.
They won't use the actual, factual, and complete truth that is simply, The Marymount Plan has been specifically created to attempt to have on-campus student housing approved AND to have a specific zone district created for just one business where that business can supersede local codes and guidelines and moot the will of the voters who elected City Council members to represent them.
When Dr. Brophy pronounces that the voters should have the choice to decide whether Marymount gets dorms or not, he is not willing to tell you that voters already decided that issue when they elected the five Council Members who acted based on their beliefs of what the voters who elected them wanted.
Pandering. Propaganda. Problematic. Poor. These are just four "P" words I have come up with in just a few minutes of pondering.
Vote NO on Propaganda.
Vote NO on Pandering.
Vote NO on Problems created by youthful drivers living above the switchbacks.
Vote NO on Poor judgement by Marymount officials who seek to nullify what our City Council has already done on behalf of Marymount College and all the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Vote NO on measure P.
Now, I must get back to watching for manta rays outside our hotel room at Keahou Bay.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Bits and Pieces 9 Days Early, I Know
According to Ms. Angela Romero of "San Pedro Block By Block", Amalfitano Bakery is now scheduled to open Monday August 16, 2010. How partially fantastic!
I have been waiting. We have been waiting. I will wait longer than you all have to, to enjoy my first cannoli from the new Bakery. I knew is could happen and I will miss the opening, but I will smile all morning when everyone else has the chance I will take on another day.
I think and hope the waiting has been worth it. My personal delay in entering the new establishment is not without its own pleasure and I promise to not eat a cannoli or any other Bakery treat where I am going.
___________________________________________
I am still wondering why Marymount is paying for all those T.V. spots where their initiative or even any of the expansion plans are not mentioned.
It probably is a buttering-up of viewers into thinking that the students viewed in the commercials deserve to live on Marymount's main campus.
Naturally, unless any of those viewed on the spots are workers or students at the College in years to come, they don't and won't have the chance to live in on-campus residential housing.
___________________________________________
Jim Gordon's letter to the editor in yesterday's Palos Verdes Peninsula News was very good and quite informative, both on the lines and between the lines.
As you may have read, Marymount's two previous approvals for on-campus housing were very much different than what Marymount now seeks to have.
There is precident in California for a Junior College campus to have ALL of its students residing on its campus. That college is located near the California/Nevada border, in the desert. it also have about 16 students learning ranching and agriculture.
Even though Marymount received approval for on-campus housing for up to 200 students, ALL students able to enroll at that student-count limit, Marymount did not have the funds to procees.
Now by extension, IF Marymount gets its victory in November, AFTER is originally sought to have on-campus housing for ALL of its students, where is the logic that says they won't then seek in increase the housing to the current 793-student enrollment limits or a number much more than just 250-students?
Since the measure allows them to build dorms AND supercede some codes and guidelines, what makes anyone truly believe they won't seek to raise the number of students and/or dorm rooms in the not-too-distant future, should the initiative succeed?
____________________________________________
I do realize that this post is days early. I won't necessarily be able to publish it on Monday.
I could have scheduled a publishing date of this coming Monday, but I wanted to get the news out about Amalfitano Bakery and not have to think about this post for the remainder of this weekend, which is already one of the busiest for Terri and I.
____________________________________________
I have been waiting. We have been waiting. I will wait longer than you all have to, to enjoy my first cannoli from the new Bakery. I knew is could happen and I will miss the opening, but I will smile all morning when everyone else has the chance I will take on another day.
I think and hope the waiting has been worth it. My personal delay in entering the new establishment is not without its own pleasure and I promise to not eat a cannoli or any other Bakery treat where I am going.
___________________________________________
I am still wondering why Marymount is paying for all those T.V. spots where their initiative or even any of the expansion plans are not mentioned.
It probably is a buttering-up of viewers into thinking that the students viewed in the commercials deserve to live on Marymount's main campus.
Naturally, unless any of those viewed on the spots are workers or students at the College in years to come, they don't and won't have the chance to live in on-campus residential housing.
___________________________________________
Jim Gordon's letter to the editor in yesterday's Palos Verdes Peninsula News was very good and quite informative, both on the lines and between the lines.
As you may have read, Marymount's two previous approvals for on-campus housing were very much different than what Marymount now seeks to have.
There is precident in California for a Junior College campus to have ALL of its students residing on its campus. That college is located near the California/Nevada border, in the desert. it also have about 16 students learning ranching and agriculture.
Even though Marymount received approval for on-campus housing for up to 200 students, ALL students able to enroll at that student-count limit, Marymount did not have the funds to procees.
Now by extension, IF Marymount gets its victory in November, AFTER is originally sought to have on-campus housing for ALL of its students, where is the logic that says they won't then seek in increase the housing to the current 793-student enrollment limits or a number much more than just 250-students?
Since the measure allows them to build dorms AND supercede some codes and guidelines, what makes anyone truly believe they won't seek to raise the number of students and/or dorm rooms in the not-too-distant future, should the initiative succeed?
____________________________________________
I do realize that this post is days early. I won't necessarily be able to publish it on Monday.
I could have scheduled a publishing date of this coming Monday, but I wanted to get the news out about Amalfitano Bakery and not have to think about this post for the remainder of this weekend, which is already one of the busiest for Terri and I.
____________________________________________
Monday, August 9, 2010
Bits and Pieces 8
The doors are locked. The lights were off this morning. Amalfitano Bakery did not open today.
Maybe this week.
_____________________________________________
Now that we know over one-half of a Million Dollars was spent on getting the Marymount ballot measure on the November ballot, can anyone tell me all the differences that Marymount would get that have not already been approved of by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council?
Naturally I know the differences, both big and small and it comes down to dorm.
When you consider that the construction and maintenance of on-campus student housing won't be cheap and over $500.000.00 has already been spent JUST to attempt to get the measure qualified, I hope you can understand that Marymount must have motivation they are not willing to let the public know as to why they are spending all the money at this time and for the election marketing.
Might it now make more sense to you that there could be a company contracted with Marymount to build dorms at no cost to the college and maintain those dorms with company funds?
Is the half of a Million plus the money that is going to be spent by Marymount's supporters and others going to reap even much larger sums of money coming into the college?
____________________________________________
The T.V. commercials I have seen lately about Marymount College offers views of students with wording about how active and helpful the students are throughout many communities.
There is what I feel is a careful choice to NOT put anything about The Marymount Plan or The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project in those recent commercials.
It appears that Marymount's marketing folks are trying to butter up the voters by showing all the good that students to.
But here is the hitch. IF all those scenes showed real Marymount students doing great works and good things for so many, every single one of them DID NOT live in a room of a residential building on the main campus of Marymount College.
None of those students lived in on-campus housing and it appears they didn't suffer or cause many difficulties in offering their good deeds and great service.
If they could do so well without on-campus students housing, is Marymount's marketing staff going to try and say the students could do more and better if there were on-campus student residential rooms?
_____________________________________________
Maybe this week.
_____________________________________________
Now that we know over one-half of a Million Dollars was spent on getting the Marymount ballot measure on the November ballot, can anyone tell me all the differences that Marymount would get that have not already been approved of by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council?
Naturally I know the differences, both big and small and it comes down to dorm.
When you consider that the construction and maintenance of on-campus student housing won't be cheap and over $500.000.00 has already been spent JUST to attempt to get the measure qualified, I hope you can understand that Marymount must have motivation they are not willing to let the public know as to why they are spending all the money at this time and for the election marketing.
Might it now make more sense to you that there could be a company contracted with Marymount to build dorms at no cost to the college and maintain those dorms with company funds?
Is the half of a Million plus the money that is going to be spent by Marymount's supporters and others going to reap even much larger sums of money coming into the college?
____________________________________________
The T.V. commercials I have seen lately about Marymount College offers views of students with wording about how active and helpful the students are throughout many communities.
There is what I feel is a careful choice to NOT put anything about The Marymount Plan or The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project in those recent commercials.
It appears that Marymount's marketing folks are trying to butter up the voters by showing all the good that students to.
But here is the hitch. IF all those scenes showed real Marymount students doing great works and good things for so many, every single one of them DID NOT live in a room of a residential building on the main campus of Marymount College.
None of those students lived in on-campus housing and it appears they didn't suffer or cause many difficulties in offering their good deeds and great service.
If they could do so well without on-campus students housing, is Marymount's marketing staff going to try and say the students could do more and better if there were on-campus student residential rooms?
_____________________________________________
Thursday, August 5, 2010
A Half Of A Million Dollars For Just About Everything Already Approved!
The following if from the South Bay Daily Breeze.
Marymount spent $543,000 to get expansion initiative on ballot
By Melissa Pamer Staff Writer
Posted: 08/05/2010 06:45:05 PM PDT
Updated: 08/05/2010 07:18:03 PM PDT
For a tiny private school in a fairly small suburban town, Marymount College has spent a surprisingly large amount of money to place its campus expansion plans before voters this fall.
The Rancho Palos Verdes college paid political consultants, lawyers, production companies and mail houses nearly $543,000 in its bid to gather signatures for a controversial initiative.
That's about $132 for each of the 4,094 signatures that earned the measure a spot on the Nov. 2 ballot.
"It's a huge investment," college President Michael Brophy said. "We're sorry to have to make it but we really had no choice."
Campaign finance records released this week show Marymount's expenditures from the beginning of the year through June 30, a period when the school launched a signature-gathering campaign, placed advertisements in local papers and on cable television, and sent several well-produced mailers and a DVD to city residents.
The Catholic college is seeking voter approval for a $50 million campus improvement plan that would include dormitories for 250 students.
After a lengthy review process, the 650-student school earlier this year earned the City Council nod for a library, athletic center and other upgrades to its Palos Verdes Drive East campus. But the plan did not include the school's long-sought dormitories, which had been dropped by the college officials when it became clear student housing would not be approved.
In March, Marymount officials announced they would take their plans directly to voters, a path that would circumvent a then-pending council decision. Sufficient signatures were certified in June.
On Thursday, Brophy said the college's investment in its initiative campaign was small compared to the "millions" Marymount has spent on the planning and review process, which began in 2000 and was marked by starts and stops.
"We're not interested in spending even greater amounts of money on legal defenses in the future, and the initiative is a way for us not to have to deal with legal attacks," Brophy said.
"We're the underdog here and we don't have a bully pulpit. For years we've had to hear what the City Council thinks, what the Planning Commission thinks, what Lois Karp thinks," Brophy added, referring to the leader of an effort by residents to limit the expansion. "That's all the public hears."
Organized critics of the ballot initiative say that - because of Marymount's deep pockets - the residents are the underdogs now.
They say theirs is a "grass-roots" campaign that is a resurrection of a citizen-led effort to incorporate the city in 1973 and, about a decade ago, to prevent development of a private golf course on public land.
The anti-initiative group, which goes by Save Our City III in reference to those previous efforts, is led by former Mayor Ken Dyda.
"Rancho Palos Verdes is not for sale," Dyda said.
Dyda acknowledged that SOC III could not compete with Marymount, but he said fundraising was ramping up.
The group's campaign finance disclosure shows about $5,400 raised through June 30, including a $1,000 contribution from Mayor Steve Wolowicz and donations from other former elected officials.
Councilman Doug Stern, who has been strident in his verbal attacks on the initiative, compared Marymount's spending to a military operation. He questioned why they had to spend so much to "massage the message."
"They may say ... that's what it takes to get the truth out," Stern said. "But in our community, it's not that difficult to communicate to the public. ... Why did it take so much behind-the-scenes professional effort?"
Dyda, meanwhile, said his group was reaching out to homeowners groups to talk about differences between the 50-page Marymount proposal before voters and the plan approved by the City Council.
"Marymount should not get carte blanche to do whatever they want," Dyda said. "We are not opposed to Marymount at all. We are opposed to the initiative, which is development by ballot box."
At a City Council meeting this week, Brophy criticized council comments that had led to a resolution last month condemning the ballot initiative.
On Thursday, he said he intended to avoid a negative campaign and wanted to ensure that city and college officials would be cordial following the election.
"My biggest concern is ... making sure the tenor of the conversation is such that on Nov. 3 we can talk to these good individuals about other items and not have any mistrust or anger," Brophy said. "This is a very small community. We see each other at church."
melissa.pamer@dailybreeze.com
--------------------------------------------------------------
Well, perhaps you may be wondering WHY Marymount has already spent so much money and why they will probably shell out multiples of that amount attempting to get the measure passed.
If you have read other posts on this blog, you already know that there are companies in America the build and maintain on-campus student housing at no cost to the institution AND there are payments provided TO the institution by the management company.
Might that be one reason?
Or perhaps having on-campus student housing is demanded by the well-healed parents of potential students from other locations, including other countries that want more monitoring and 'student-sitting of their kids who are far away from home?
Marymount now has far fewer foreign students than is has had in the past and one could wonder whether Marymount wants dorms to attract more income from out of town, out of State, or out of Country parents and their kids.
If you ask Dr. Brophy what the real reason he and his Board of Trustees want dorms, don't expect a full and truthful answer. I have asked and the only thing we continue to see and hear are the same talking points about making Marymount a great place to live and learn.
Perhaps all the graduates of Marymount over the years may have received an education from a less-than-first-class institution.
Why would JUST DORMS make the difference between what has already been approved by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council and what Marymount's supporters demand. After all, EVERYTHING that Marymount asked for from the City Council, was approved with only the location of the large field moved. Yes, moved. A total of 60 feet.
Oh, the Council approved the new gym with the overall height of the roof being 10 feet lower than what was in Marymount's paperwork AND Marymount agreed.
Could it be that Marymount officials want the ability to rent out their facilities for concerts, filming, summer camps, and other activities to generate more revenue in a residential neighborhood?
Might it be that should the measure pass, Marymount's "Special District" status would kick in allowing for less oversight from the city and the ability to supersede some current municipal codes and some regulations that all other residents and businesses are subject to?
It can't have anything to do with safety because Marymount agreed to kick in partial costs for a late addition to the Project that calls for the placement of a concrete center median along 1,000 feet of Palos Verdes Drive East at the large curve around the campus. This new addition to the already approved Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project was not and still may not be included in the ballot measure, but whether it comes to pass or not, Rancho Palos Verdes taxpayers may be on the hook for a portion of the construction costs for the barrier and three other mitigation projects that are required in both The Project and The Marymount Plan.
So, a small college with lowering student enrollment figures over the last several years, believes it can become fully enrolled by allowing up to 250-students to live on its campus for up to four years.
I forgot to mention that it appears as a tactic to get more voters to approve their measure, the college sought and received permission to offer up to three four-year degrees and also be included in a national sports group.
According to Marymount's own figures, about 37% of last year's student body were 'locals' who commuted from their home or their parents home to attend classes.
Also, more than 90% of the junior college enrollment were full time students. Where else in the Los Angeles area do you see figures like that for a two year college?
I live miles from Marymount and I won't join SOC III because although I applaud their reasoning, my opposition to having on-campus student housing is related to the safety of all students, faculty, staff, and residents who live and/or drive in the vicinity of Marymount College.
Putting a young driver, unfamiliar with driving in this local area, on Palos Verdes Drive East, is a real safety concern.
Having the shuttle bus drivers transport students from off-campus student housing sites seems quite a bit safer to me when you consider that the drivers of the buses may live 'down the hill' from Marymount, but they are trained in driving and know who to deal with fog.
Now with the prospect that 21-year old and older students could live at the location, when the legal minimum age to purchase alcohol blended drinks is 21-year's old should send shutters down the spine of anyone who attended college and 'sampled' or 'partied' using those types of drinks.
Marymount spent $543,000 to get expansion initiative on ballot
By Melissa Pamer Staff Writer
Posted: 08/05/2010 06:45:05 PM PDT
Updated: 08/05/2010 07:18:03 PM PDT
For a tiny private school in a fairly small suburban town, Marymount College has spent a surprisingly large amount of money to place its campus expansion plans before voters this fall.
The Rancho Palos Verdes college paid political consultants, lawyers, production companies and mail houses nearly $543,000 in its bid to gather signatures for a controversial initiative.
That's about $132 for each of the 4,094 signatures that earned the measure a spot on the Nov. 2 ballot.
"It's a huge investment," college President Michael Brophy said. "We're sorry to have to make it but we really had no choice."
Campaign finance records released this week show Marymount's expenditures from the beginning of the year through June 30, a period when the school launched a signature-gathering campaign, placed advertisements in local papers and on cable television, and sent several well-produced mailers and a DVD to city residents.
The Catholic college is seeking voter approval for a $50 million campus improvement plan that would include dormitories for 250 students.
After a lengthy review process, the 650-student school earlier this year earned the City Council nod for a library, athletic center and other upgrades to its Palos Verdes Drive East campus. But the plan did not include the school's long-sought dormitories, which had been dropped by the college officials when it became clear student housing would not be approved.
In March, Marymount officials announced they would take their plans directly to voters, a path that would circumvent a then-pending council decision. Sufficient signatures were certified in June.
On Thursday, Brophy said the college's investment in its initiative campaign was small compared to the "millions" Marymount has spent on the planning and review process, which began in 2000 and was marked by starts and stops.
"We're not interested in spending even greater amounts of money on legal defenses in the future, and the initiative is a way for us not to have to deal with legal attacks," Brophy said.
"We're the underdog here and we don't have a bully pulpit. For years we've had to hear what the City Council thinks, what the Planning Commission thinks, what Lois Karp thinks," Brophy added, referring to the leader of an effort by residents to limit the expansion. "That's all the public hears."
Organized critics of the ballot initiative say that - because of Marymount's deep pockets - the residents are the underdogs now.
They say theirs is a "grass-roots" campaign that is a resurrection of a citizen-led effort to incorporate the city in 1973 and, about a decade ago, to prevent development of a private golf course on public land.
The anti-initiative group, which goes by Save Our City III in reference to those previous efforts, is led by former Mayor Ken Dyda.
"Rancho Palos Verdes is not for sale," Dyda said.
Dyda acknowledged that SOC III could not compete with Marymount, but he said fundraising was ramping up.
The group's campaign finance disclosure shows about $5,400 raised through June 30, including a $1,000 contribution from Mayor Steve Wolowicz and donations from other former elected officials.
Councilman Doug Stern, who has been strident in his verbal attacks on the initiative, compared Marymount's spending to a military operation. He questioned why they had to spend so much to "massage the message."
"They may say ... that's what it takes to get the truth out," Stern said. "But in our community, it's not that difficult to communicate to the public. ... Why did it take so much behind-the-scenes professional effort?"
Dyda, meanwhile, said his group was reaching out to homeowners groups to talk about differences between the 50-page Marymount proposal before voters and the plan approved by the City Council.
"Marymount should not get carte blanche to do whatever they want," Dyda said. "We are not opposed to Marymount at all. We are opposed to the initiative, which is development by ballot box."
At a City Council meeting this week, Brophy criticized council comments that had led to a resolution last month condemning the ballot initiative.
On Thursday, he said he intended to avoid a negative campaign and wanted to ensure that city and college officials would be cordial following the election.
"My biggest concern is ... making sure the tenor of the conversation is such that on Nov. 3 we can talk to these good individuals about other items and not have any mistrust or anger," Brophy said. "This is a very small community. We see each other at church."
melissa.pamer@dailybreeze.com
--------------------------------------------------------------
Well, perhaps you may be wondering WHY Marymount has already spent so much money and why they will probably shell out multiples of that amount attempting to get the measure passed.
If you have read other posts on this blog, you already know that there are companies in America the build and maintain on-campus student housing at no cost to the institution AND there are payments provided TO the institution by the management company.
Might that be one reason?
Or perhaps having on-campus student housing is demanded by the well-healed parents of potential students from other locations, including other countries that want more monitoring and 'student-sitting of their kids who are far away from home?
Marymount now has far fewer foreign students than is has had in the past and one could wonder whether Marymount wants dorms to attract more income from out of town, out of State, or out of Country parents and their kids.
If you ask Dr. Brophy what the real reason he and his Board of Trustees want dorms, don't expect a full and truthful answer. I have asked and the only thing we continue to see and hear are the same talking points about making Marymount a great place to live and learn.
Perhaps all the graduates of Marymount over the years may have received an education from a less-than-first-class institution.
Why would JUST DORMS make the difference between what has already been approved by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council and what Marymount's supporters demand. After all, EVERYTHING that Marymount asked for from the City Council, was approved with only the location of the large field moved. Yes, moved. A total of 60 feet.
Oh, the Council approved the new gym with the overall height of the roof being 10 feet lower than what was in Marymount's paperwork AND Marymount agreed.
Could it be that Marymount officials want the ability to rent out their facilities for concerts, filming, summer camps, and other activities to generate more revenue in a residential neighborhood?
Might it be that should the measure pass, Marymount's "Special District" status would kick in allowing for less oversight from the city and the ability to supersede some current municipal codes and some regulations that all other residents and businesses are subject to?
It can't have anything to do with safety because Marymount agreed to kick in partial costs for a late addition to the Project that calls for the placement of a concrete center median along 1,000 feet of Palos Verdes Drive East at the large curve around the campus. This new addition to the already approved Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project was not and still may not be included in the ballot measure, but whether it comes to pass or not, Rancho Palos Verdes taxpayers may be on the hook for a portion of the construction costs for the barrier and three other mitigation projects that are required in both The Project and The Marymount Plan.
So, a small college with lowering student enrollment figures over the last several years, believes it can become fully enrolled by allowing up to 250-students to live on its campus for up to four years.
I forgot to mention that it appears as a tactic to get more voters to approve their measure, the college sought and received permission to offer up to three four-year degrees and also be included in a national sports group.
According to Marymount's own figures, about 37% of last year's student body were 'locals' who commuted from their home or their parents home to attend classes.
Also, more than 90% of the junior college enrollment were full time students. Where else in the Los Angeles area do you see figures like that for a two year college?
I live miles from Marymount and I won't join SOC III because although I applaud their reasoning, my opposition to having on-campus student housing is related to the safety of all students, faculty, staff, and residents who live and/or drive in the vicinity of Marymount College.
Putting a young driver, unfamiliar with driving in this local area, on Palos Verdes Drive East, is a real safety concern.
Having the shuttle bus drivers transport students from off-campus student housing sites seems quite a bit safer to me when you consider that the drivers of the buses may live 'down the hill' from Marymount, but they are trained in driving and know who to deal with fog.
Now with the prospect that 21-year old and older students could live at the location, when the legal minimum age to purchase alcohol blended drinks is 21-year's old should send shutters down the spine of anyone who attended college and 'sampled' or 'partied' using those types of drinks.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
I Forgot. Plus Other Stuff From The C.C. Meeting
I forgot what happens when a member of the public gets up to speak about a topic he or she is not in favor of when some or even most of the Council strongly supports the topic.
It happened to me a long time ago when I opposed giving Terranea a rebate on the Transportation Occupancy Tax that the then Council very much supported.
You see, when you make comments for up to three minutes using your opinion, every member of the council seems to have almost unlimited time to make comments about your comments and sometimes those comments from them feel more like attacks.
Council members are politicians, and don't let anyone even try to get you to think otherwise. When they have all that time in front the camera and on the record to make comments about your comments to them, sometimes it seems like campaigning to oppose your comments and support the topic you came to question or object to.
The truth about how anyone could have the ability to counter that is to run for a Council seat ant then they would be in a position to critique comments from others.
Councilman Brian Campbell offered a wonderful comment praising my and my work on this blog and I know he is now one of the "Gang of Three" that brought the Charter City matter to the forefront.
Councilman Anthony Misetich did not participate in commenting about my comments and he too, is one of the "Gang of Three" along with Mayor Pro Tem, Tom Long.
I did make a terrible and regrettable comment that could have been misunderstood about non-prevailing wage workers versus prevailing wage workers and I completely apologize for that.
I didn't follow my written comments well enough and I misspoke.
I don't mean to slight non-prevailing wage workers but there are differences in the way prevailing wage work is controlled and some of the oversight of the contracts that are mandated. But good workers are good workers, whether they receive the prevailing wage or not.
I am completely confident that our city staff is on top of every contract our tax money and any other money is spent on.
I am still 'mildly' opposed to having Rancho Palos Verdes becoming a Charter City but I know that 'mildly opposed' is about as opposed as I am going to get.
There are real benefits in becoming a Charter City and I know I need much more education about the good, bad, and ugly parts and I hope to learn which questions to ask to help me decide whether I remain as my current thinking is or become supportive.
I wonder if any Charter city in California has ever gone back to being a General Law city and if so, why and how was that done?
If a city's Charter can be changed by ordinance, then that means at least three out of five Council Members must approve the change because ordinances are normally voted up or down by the City Council and would R.P.V. fall into a type of city that has that?
If it does, could a future Council makeup vote to end term limits?
See, there are really many questions to ask and find answers for.
I must also repeat something I told the Council tonight. I strongly believe any person who even blinks to think that any R.P.V. Council member now or into the future would ever try and consider what the foul folks on the Bell Council did, that person missed their bus to the funny farm because they are crazy!
Dr. Michael Brophys used "honor, integrity, and truth in his remarks tonight. I must state that our City Council members to a person have all of those in abundance and I have to remind all of you that, perhaps, Dr. Brophy also made comments tonight that were not truthful, but they were a bit dishonorable, and it demonstrated again, that his integrity is questioned by a more than small number of our city's residents.
During Dr. Brophy's comments that were supposed to last no more than three minutes, but he took longer, he claimed that if his plan failed it was because of the city using "death by 10,000 cuts".
In truth and in fact, the vast majority of cuts were actually begun and continued by those in support of Marymount's Expansion plans.
Dr. Brophy stated that the issues that began causing the "death by 10,000 cuts" started when the college applied for its expansion, "ten years ago."
Dr. Brophy also stated that the Application for the Marymount Expansion that was eventually approved this year was "presented in 2005" according to his comments this evening.
Now I know I never graduated college. But if the "death by 10,000 cuts" began "ten years ago" on an expansion project that had it 2005 application approved in 2010, I think I remember that if you take 2005 from 2010, that would probably end up with something that is a single digit looking exactly like a "5".
Now also in truth and in fact, Marymount's expansion supporters attempted to put at least one hold on the process, Dr. Brophy had to have one meeting postponed on his expansion because he was in Cuba, and except for a one-month delay, just about every one of the "death by 10,000 cuts" actually originated because of something Marymount's supporters or administration did.
Some of the cuts must have been when Marymount caused the progress to stop when it decided to try and become a four-year college.
Dr. Brophy also stated that there are "no do overs". Well, if he is telling the truth with honor and integrity, why is he attempting to have a do over with his Marymount Plan when The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project has already been approved?
It seem like a do over to me when he and his Communications Director state in public that everything already approved in the Expansion Project is included in the Marymount Plan and the initiative.
Dr. Brophy didn't get what he wanted from the Planning Commission and so he aborted on-campus student housing and he opted for a do over, in my book.
Now the fact that our City Council could have approved on-campus student housing without any recommendation from the Planning Commission seems to escape Dr. Brophy's grasp and he never really talks about that.
Instead he wants a do over when he himself publicly stated that "there are no do overs".
Back to the Charter city matter.
I was pleased that several Council members have some trouble with having the vote as soon as March, 2011. I was very pleased that they don't have to decide on when to have the election until this December.
I feel that with the Marymount initiative looming over our heads, trying to ramp up the marketing and lobbying for the Charter city vote should not come before November 2 and it appears the majority of members think that same way.
Yes Tom, I do understand that the Charter committee will be set up to market, sell, do outreach and support the Council's vote to become a Charter city.
But since there is no community advisory group to weigh the pros and cons of the matter to offer open, honest, and transparent objective opinions about the matter, I still have to consider the committee a unpaid lobbying group.
We don't see anything like that on the Traffic Safety Commission, Planning Commission, Emergency Preparedness Committee or any other Commission or Committee in the city, or am I missing one that is basically a lobbying forum for the Council's opinion?
The biggest news of today came from Mr. Anthony Amalfitano. I spoke with him very early this morning and he is just waiting for the health inspector to give him the go ahead to open the Bakery.
I think the next time I am even mildly opposed to something the Council really supports, I'll write to them or a letter to the editor and avoid getting spoken to after I make my comments.
It happened to me a long time ago when I opposed giving Terranea a rebate on the Transportation Occupancy Tax that the then Council very much supported.
You see, when you make comments for up to three minutes using your opinion, every member of the council seems to have almost unlimited time to make comments about your comments and sometimes those comments from them feel more like attacks.
Council members are politicians, and don't let anyone even try to get you to think otherwise. When they have all that time in front the camera and on the record to make comments about your comments to them, sometimes it seems like campaigning to oppose your comments and support the topic you came to question or object to.
The truth about how anyone could have the ability to counter that is to run for a Council seat ant then they would be in a position to critique comments from others.
Councilman Brian Campbell offered a wonderful comment praising my and my work on this blog and I know he is now one of the "Gang of Three" that brought the Charter City matter to the forefront.
Councilman Anthony Misetich did not participate in commenting about my comments and he too, is one of the "Gang of Three" along with Mayor Pro Tem, Tom Long.
I did make a terrible and regrettable comment that could have been misunderstood about non-prevailing wage workers versus prevailing wage workers and I completely apologize for that.
I didn't follow my written comments well enough and I misspoke.
I don't mean to slight non-prevailing wage workers but there are differences in the way prevailing wage work is controlled and some of the oversight of the contracts that are mandated. But good workers are good workers, whether they receive the prevailing wage or not.
I am completely confident that our city staff is on top of every contract our tax money and any other money is spent on.
I am still 'mildly' opposed to having Rancho Palos Verdes becoming a Charter City but I know that 'mildly opposed' is about as opposed as I am going to get.
There are real benefits in becoming a Charter City and I know I need much more education about the good, bad, and ugly parts and I hope to learn which questions to ask to help me decide whether I remain as my current thinking is or become supportive.
I wonder if any Charter city in California has ever gone back to being a General Law city and if so, why and how was that done?
If a city's Charter can be changed by ordinance, then that means at least three out of five Council Members must approve the change because ordinances are normally voted up or down by the City Council and would R.P.V. fall into a type of city that has that?
If it does, could a future Council makeup vote to end term limits?
See, there are really many questions to ask and find answers for.
I must also repeat something I told the Council tonight. I strongly believe any person who even blinks to think that any R.P.V. Council member now or into the future would ever try and consider what the foul folks on the Bell Council did, that person missed their bus to the funny farm because they are crazy!
Dr. Michael Brophys used "honor, integrity, and truth in his remarks tonight. I must state that our City Council members to a person have all of those in abundance and I have to remind all of you that, perhaps, Dr. Brophy also made comments tonight that were not truthful, but they were a bit dishonorable, and it demonstrated again, that his integrity is questioned by a more than small number of our city's residents.
During Dr. Brophy's comments that were supposed to last no more than three minutes, but he took longer, he claimed that if his plan failed it was because of the city using "death by 10,000 cuts".
In truth and in fact, the vast majority of cuts were actually begun and continued by those in support of Marymount's Expansion plans.
Dr. Brophy stated that the issues that began causing the "death by 10,000 cuts" started when the college applied for its expansion, "ten years ago."
Dr. Brophy also stated that the Application for the Marymount Expansion that was eventually approved this year was "presented in 2005" according to his comments this evening.
Now I know I never graduated college. But if the "death by 10,000 cuts" began "ten years ago" on an expansion project that had it 2005 application approved in 2010, I think I remember that if you take 2005 from 2010, that would probably end up with something that is a single digit looking exactly like a "5".
Now also in truth and in fact, Marymount's expansion supporters attempted to put at least one hold on the process, Dr. Brophy had to have one meeting postponed on his expansion because he was in Cuba, and except for a one-month delay, just about every one of the "death by 10,000 cuts" actually originated because of something Marymount's supporters or administration did.
Some of the cuts must have been when Marymount caused the progress to stop when it decided to try and become a four-year college.
Dr. Brophy also stated that there are "no do overs". Well, if he is telling the truth with honor and integrity, why is he attempting to have a do over with his Marymount Plan when The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project has already been approved?
It seem like a do over to me when he and his Communications Director state in public that everything already approved in the Expansion Project is included in the Marymount Plan and the initiative.
Dr. Brophy didn't get what he wanted from the Planning Commission and so he aborted on-campus student housing and he opted for a do over, in my book.
Now the fact that our City Council could have approved on-campus student housing without any recommendation from the Planning Commission seems to escape Dr. Brophy's grasp and he never really talks about that.
Instead he wants a do over when he himself publicly stated that "there are no do overs".
Back to the Charter city matter.
I was pleased that several Council members have some trouble with having the vote as soon as March, 2011. I was very pleased that they don't have to decide on when to have the election until this December.
I feel that with the Marymount initiative looming over our heads, trying to ramp up the marketing and lobbying for the Charter city vote should not come before November 2 and it appears the majority of members think that same way.
Yes Tom, I do understand that the Charter committee will be set up to market, sell, do outreach and support the Council's vote to become a Charter city.
But since there is no community advisory group to weigh the pros and cons of the matter to offer open, honest, and transparent objective opinions about the matter, I still have to consider the committee a unpaid lobbying group.
We don't see anything like that on the Traffic Safety Commission, Planning Commission, Emergency Preparedness Committee or any other Commission or Committee in the city, or am I missing one that is basically a lobbying forum for the Council's opinion?
The biggest news of today came from Mr. Anthony Amalfitano. I spoke with him very early this morning and he is just waiting for the health inspector to give him the go ahead to open the Bakery.
I think the next time I am even mildly opposed to something the Council really supports, I'll write to them or a letter to the editor and avoid getting spoken to after I make my comments.
Monday, August 2, 2010
Bits and Pieces 7
Mayor Pro Tem Tom Long and Coucilman Doug Stern occasionally send out comments using Listserver. Here is the latest from Tom Long, received earlier this morning:
Dear RPV Residents,
The RPV city council has a number of issues coming forward over the next several months. The most important is that we will be considering placing a proposed city charter on the ballot for voters to consider. You can see the staff report and the proposed language at
http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/citycouncil/agendas/2010_Agendas/MeetingDate-2010-08-03/RPVCCA_SR_2010_08_03_12_Adopting_The_City_Charter.pdf
The proposed language is less than 2 pages long. It is a simple charter that is designed to provide the city with more local control. Being a charter city will allow the city to avoid prevailing wage requirements and thus likely save as much as $1 million per year on public works projects. The charter may also better protect the city's hotel tax revenue generated by Terranea from raids by state government. A city charter would also allow the city to set higher signature requirements for initiatives like the Marymount initiative. The council unanimously supports the charter and will be deciding (perhaps as soon as tomorrow August 2nd) which election to schedule it for next year. The charter has been carefully crafted to keep state law restrictions on salaries in place. RPV will never be another Bell.
Although there is no city council election this fall, your state election ballot will have an important local issue on it. Marymount College has qualified an initiative for the ballot that would allow the college to build dormitories in a residential neighborhood. The college abandoned its application for dormitories before it was decided by the planning commission or heard by the council. The college did get entitlements for all of the other improvements it applied for. But by pressing ahead with the initiative, the college could escape city oversight, gain approval of dormitories and avoid city regulation through conditions of approval. Although the college is a valuable part of the city, I do not favor planning by initiative nor do I think dormitories would be good for the neighborhood. The college has existing housing not far away that only needs to be rehabilitated and its existing site in RPV is more appropriately reserved for educational and athletic facilities. You can get more information on reasons to oppose the initiative on my webpage at
://www.palosverdes.com/tomlong/index.cfm?go=initiative
I will try to add a link to discussions on the other side of the initiative to my webpage to give you more information.
I will cover other issues in an subsequent update.
Tom Long
Mayor Pro Tem, Rancho Palos Verdes
tomlong@palosverdes.com
____________________________________________
Amalfitano Bakery did not open this morning but it sure looks like it could be as soon as tomorrow or a bit later this week.
No one was inside the Bakery when I drove by so I couldn't ask when opening day is.
____________________________________________
This is 'build week' for me with the Little Fish Theatre Company in San Pedro.
I am the carpenter for "Dixie Swim Club" opening on August 13, 2010.
The dramedy deals with the lives of five fine southern gentlewomen during a 35-year period of time and we see relationships and lives change at reunion weekends at a beach house.
The set is designed by Phil Buono, the former San Pedro High School Counselor, stage crew teacher, and art teacher.
Please come and enjoy an evening of live theatre with a wonderful cast and a story that will lift you up and entertain you.
www.littlefishtheatre.org has all the information on this show and "Foursome" the midweek show.
_________________________________________
If you can't attend the August 3 regular meeting of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council, perhaps you may watch it beginning around 7:00 PM on Cox Communications.
There may be some fireworks if Dr. Brophy shows up and wants to speak and there could be more bombs bursting in air over the vote to schedule the charter city measure.
__________________________________________
Dear RPV Residents,
The RPV city council has a number of issues coming forward over the next several months. The most important is that we will be considering placing a proposed city charter on the ballot for voters to consider. You can see the staff report and the proposed language at
http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/citycouncil/agendas/2010_Agendas/MeetingDate-2010-08-03/RPVCCA_SR_2010_08_03_12_Adopting_The_City_Charter.pdf
The proposed language is less than 2 pages long. It is a simple charter that is designed to provide the city with more local control. Being a charter city will allow the city to avoid prevailing wage requirements and thus likely save as much as $1 million per year on public works projects. The charter may also better protect the city's hotel tax revenue generated by Terranea from raids by state government. A city charter would also allow the city to set higher signature requirements for initiatives like the Marymount initiative. The council unanimously supports the charter and will be deciding (perhaps as soon as tomorrow August 2nd) which election to schedule it for next year. The charter has been carefully crafted to keep state law restrictions on salaries in place. RPV will never be another Bell.
Although there is no city council election this fall, your state election ballot will have an important local issue on it. Marymount College has qualified an initiative for the ballot that would allow the college to build dormitories in a residential neighborhood. The college abandoned its application for dormitories before it was decided by the planning commission or heard by the council. The college did get entitlements for all of the other improvements it applied for. But by pressing ahead with the initiative, the college could escape city oversight, gain approval of dormitories and avoid city regulation through conditions of approval. Although the college is a valuable part of the city, I do not favor planning by initiative nor do I think dormitories would be good for the neighborhood. The college has existing housing not far away that only needs to be rehabilitated and its existing site in RPV is more appropriately reserved for educational and athletic facilities. You can get more information on reasons to oppose the initiative on my webpage at
://www.palosverdes.com/tomlong/index.cfm?go=initiative
I will try to add a link to discussions on the other side of the initiative to my webpage to give you more information.
I will cover other issues in an subsequent update.
Tom Long
Mayor Pro Tem, Rancho Palos Verdes
tomlong@palosverdes.com
____________________________________________
Amalfitano Bakery did not open this morning but it sure looks like it could be as soon as tomorrow or a bit later this week.
No one was inside the Bakery when I drove by so I couldn't ask when opening day is.
____________________________________________
This is 'build week' for me with the Little Fish Theatre Company in San Pedro.
I am the carpenter for "Dixie Swim Club" opening on August 13, 2010.
The dramedy deals with the lives of five fine southern gentlewomen during a 35-year period of time and we see relationships and lives change at reunion weekends at a beach house.
The set is designed by Phil Buono, the former San Pedro High School Counselor, stage crew teacher, and art teacher.
Please come and enjoy an evening of live theatre with a wonderful cast and a story that will lift you up and entertain you.
www.littlefishtheatre.org has all the information on this show and "Foursome" the midweek show.
_________________________________________
If you can't attend the August 3 regular meeting of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council, perhaps you may watch it beginning around 7:00 PM on Cox Communications.
There may be some fireworks if Dr. Brophy shows up and wants to speak and there could be more bombs bursting in air over the vote to schedule the charter city measure.
__________________________________________
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)