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.