"Chamber endorses Measure P" is the title of an article in today's Palos Verdes Peninsula News.
It was written by Ms. Ashley Ratcliff the journalist most in the know about Marymount College and many other businesses on The Hill.
The Board of Directors of the Palos Verdes Peninsula Chamber of Commerce voted to endorse Measure P. In a post yesterday, I wrote that if it turns out the vote was fair and square, then Marymount College received an endorsement for its Measure P.
I posted true facts about some Guidelines and about some representation on the Board of Directors by Marymount's Communications Director.
While my opinion remains that something is amiss with the process that led to the endorsement, I want to hear and read more before I continue my online analysis of the events and outcome relating to the endorsement.
___________________________________________
Now, (and yes this might sound mean) for anyone with just about a 3rd grade education, let me remind everyone who looks or looked at Page 3 of today's Palos Verdes Peninsula News, please consider the facts.
"new athletic facilities" They were formally approved of during a meeting by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council in a meeting I attended that began on March 31, 2010 and ended very early on April 1, 2010
"meeting rooms" They were formally approved of during a meeting by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council in a meeting I attended that began on March 31, 2010 and ended very early on April 1, 2010
" great new library" It was formally approved of during a meeting by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council in a meeting I attended that began on March 31, 2010 and ended very early on April 1, 2010
"I am looking forward to a revitalized Marymount campus and the facilities that will be available to our families. Marymount is an important part of our community and we should support the college." -Christopher La Puma.
"I am also looking forward to a Marymount campus revitalized using the approved Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project with the facilities that will be available for residents and students and others. I fully support The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project which has many more than the three elements listed in the full page add." -Mark R. Wells
Apparently Mr. La Puma may not have read the new municipal code that allows Marymount College to build EVERYTHING brought to the City Council for a vote.
Perhaps Mr. La Puma doesn't know that only one soccer field is listed within The Marymount Plan/Measure P and not "fields" as he states in the full page advertisement.
I certainly support more playing fields for all types of sports and recreation being added to our city and the rest of The Hill. Of course new sports and recreation items have already been approved for Marymount's campus, so I guess the Marymount PR folks didn't have much new to offer, except.
"The rejuvenation of the Marymount campus required NO TAXPAYER MONEY." -unattributed
Since traffic mitigation IS REQUIRED for completion of "the rejuvenation of the Marymount campus" and at least one of Marymount's Administrator along with Mr. Don Davis, an attorney representing Marymount stated publicly that Marymount would pay it's "fair share" and provide some contributions for the REQUIRED traffic mitigation, TAXPAYER MONEY WILL BE INVOLVED to complete the rejuvenation of the Marymount Campus.
This is factually true for both The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project and The Marymount Plan, with just one caveat:
Should Measure P pass, some people more educated than I am strongly believe Marymount College would use the new Campus Specific Plan sought in Measure P to eliminate the required traffic mitigation that was included in both The Plan and The Project to lessen the effects of new traffic and added numbers of daily vehicle trips revolving around Marymount.
What is missing from the full page ad in real print is blasted all over the page by omission.
Today's ad does not mention the only major construction carried by Measure P that is not already approved for construction.
I guess 'student residence halls and their associated dining hall' is no big deal for Marymount.
It looks so unimportant that the PR folks didn't bother to mention that construction in the ad.
See folks, this is yet another example in which members of "The Marymount Community" do not want you to learn the facts and details of Measure P, The Marymount Plan.
The ad depicts a lack of very important information voters should know about before they decide to support or oppose Measure P, The Marymount Plan.
If it were not for the fact that has been truthfully documented, in which Marymount representatives voluntarily removed on-campus student housing for up to 250 Marymount students and for up to five advisers, there would be no Measure P and no need for the expenditure of one more penny seeking approval for that which has already been approved.
Is the advertisement an enticement for support by voters who Marymount hopes are ill informed or not interested in learning the whole truth?
Today's ad is not shocking or relevant in any manner or form. It repeats information about facilities already approved for development and it contains a misleading statement that has already be proven to be factually untrue, I believe.
If Marymount wants to waste other people's money on full page ads that tell us absolutely nothing new while avoiding "The Elephant In The Living Room" so be it. Thank goodness I am not providing Marymount with any donation.
And now to the letters.....
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Today's Lettors To The Editor
My oh my, there were sure plenty of letters to the editor in The Palos Verdes Peninsula News today.
I am going to respond to many of the letters to the editor by just mentioning the name of the letter author so if you haven't been able to read the actual letters to the editor, perhaps you might wish to ignore this post of read on for factual corrections to statements made in too many of the letters to the editor by too many authors.
I will simply list authors of the letters to the editor followed by comments I choose to write.
Mr. Stuart Friedland's letter began a large contribution of letters to the editor. I liked Mr. Friedland's letter and I am going through the General Election pamphlet along with other resources to figure out how I will vote on the Propositions, including Prop. 23.
Mr. Bob Lyon's letter is next.
The Rancho Palos Verdes City Council was mandated by State Law to either vote to accept every single word carried within The Marymount Plan or call for a vote by the residents of Rancho Palos Verds in a documented specified time frame. There was no 'rush' to put the initiative because it fell within the State mandated requirments.
Mr. Lyon doesn't seem to discriminate between The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project and The Marymount Plan. This is something that is probably very common among residents and he should not be begrudged for not knowing the differences.
For the last ten years or so, The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project contains the means and language to redevelop the Marymount Campus.
The Project did contain language supporting the construction of two Residence Halls, associated dining facilities for those living in dorms, and an art gallery slated to be a connection point between the two Halls.
Representatives of Marymount College removed (under duress) the two Residence Halls from further consideration by the Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission.
Those same representatives had the right and the opportunity to by-pass any vote on Residence Halls by the Planning Commission when The Project was given to the City Council for consideration. Those representatives could have brought the Residence Halls directly to the City Council for consideration, however they chose (probably under duress again) not to bring a rightful consideration by the City Council concerning Residence Halls.
I hope Mr. Lyon understands that I support the initiative process and I disagree with many other opponents of Measure P in that regard.
I think it is wrong to put The Marymount Plan along with support for the initiative process as a means to ask approval of Measure P because they are two very different things.
I support the initiative process while continuing to oppose Measure P and I hope you and Mr. Lyon vote "No" on Measure P, The Marymount Plan.
Magali Martin, an alumna of Marymount College (but didn't live on campus) has the third letter.
Magali Martin remained on a campus without on-campus housing so the statement made; "Voting "no" on Measure P would injure the students' ability to remain on campus and live the college life" didn't seem to injure Magali Martin.
Ms. Dina Dini wrote the fourth letter to the editor.
Apparently "737" equals 793 because Ms. Dini wrote "...Marymount is at full enrollment of 737 students." Marymount is rightfully authorized to have a full time filled enrollment of 793 students and both The Marymount Plan and The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project contain that fact.
New electrical resources have been approved at Marymount College so Ms. Dini's offering about the need for more electrical resources has been asked and answered.
Ms. Dini's letter contains a factual error. Since there are zero motor vehicle trips generated to and from the Marymount Campus currently under normal campus operation, adding motor vehicles to the campus 24 hours per day, seven days per week, by many drivers, there WILL BE MORE traffic than there is now.
I wonder if 'children' currently living at home anywhere on the peninsula would use on-campus housing at Marymount College if dorms are approved. It appears that Ms. Dini thinks so by her words.
Mr. Kenneth Goldman, a previous letter to the editor author held the fifth position and the first on the second page of letters to the editor.
Mr. Stephen Perestam's letter follows the fantastic letter written by Mr. Goldman.
Boy, what a letter! It just may end up on this blog. It was informative and direct.
Thank you Mr. Perestam.
Mr. Jim Gordon's letter is next.
I have written about and with Mr. Gordon and he can write really, really long pieces of information and comment.
Mr. Gordon is one of a number of people who think Mr. Arnolds 'fake' letter to the editor contained a criticism of me and this blog. I payed Mr. Arnold's comment about 'online blogging' hardly any mind as evidenced by my continued blogging.
Mr. Craig Whited's letter to the editor is next.
Burt M. Arnold, as the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Marymount College I believe has the right AND the responsibility to speak out about Marymount College no matter where he lives or where he works.
I certainly don't agree with much of what Mr. Arnold says or writes with regards to Marymount College, Meausre P or The Marymount Plan, but I have called out for him and other Trustees to get involved with working to repair many of the damages caused by the two lawsuits, the deceptive ads, false and misleading statements, and considered harassment of our city's elected representatives and others in Rancho Palos Verdes.
With news of the Palos Verdes Peninsula Chamber of Commerce's endorsement of Measure P, The Marymount Plan, far more business owners from outside R.P.V. made a statement of support for Measure P than just Mr. Arnold.
People have a right to support or oppose anything they wish, I believe. An individual counted a number of names listed by Marymount College as supporters of Measure P who do not live and cannot vote in the Special Election.
If anyone thinks all the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent to date attempting to get dorms approved at Marymount all came from sources living or doing business in Rancho Palos Verdes
, perhaps they should review the previous post.
Ms. Lorraine O'Grady's letter followed Mr. Whited's.
Like Ms. O'Grady, I support The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project. Thank you Ms. O'Grady for your wonderful letter to the editor.
We are down to the last four letters to the editor with Ms. Eva Cicoria's contribution.
I bet Ms. Cicoria would like to remind everyone that Rancho Palos Verdes has a very successful, wonderful and extremely contributory College that has had student residential housing for decades.
The Salvation Army's Officers' College provides a world of improvements to the world. Not only do students live on its campus. many students are also parents and their kids also live on campus.
The third to last (in order of when letters were received at the paper) letter is from Ms. Judy Christmas.
Ms. Christmas was among an unfortunate number of folks not supporting Measure P, The Marymount Plan that were listed in last Thursday's two-full page advertisement/ 'fake' letter to the editor concerning who supports Measure P, The Marymout Plan.
Ms. Christmas DOES NOT or endorse support for Measure P, The Marymount Plan.
In the second to last received letter to the editor, former Mayor Ann Shaw's letter appears. There are only two former Mayors of Rancho Palos Verdes that I have found supporting Measure P, so far. Mayor Shaw IS NOT one of them.
Finally there is the letter from Ms. Erin LaMonte.
Again I want to remind all that there already is a "strong college institution on the Peninsula..." as Ms. LaMonte stated.
I hope she was referring to both The Salvation Army Officers' College, but she might not know that this great institution is located in Rancho Palos Verdes and so are its dorms.
Ms. LaMonte wrote a question: "Is a strong, thriving college good for a community?"
Well, I find that The Salvation Army Officers' College is and its 'community' spans the globe, including Rancho Palos Verdes.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you so much to Mr. Roland Hsen and Ms. Rosemary Vullo for offering their opinions on matters other than Marymount College, The Marymount Plan, The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, Measure P, city zoning statutes, and anything else dealing with Marymount College.
And now for an opinion from just old, fat, and retired me.
Reading each and every Email I listed the authors for demonstrates very clearly the type and amount of factual information supporters of Measure P have, compared to opponents of Measure P.
To date, I have found no better example of the division of education regarding Measure P, The Marymount Plan and if anyone disagrees with that, please re-read all of the letters.
Not everybody got all of the facts completely straight.
But it is quite clearly demonstrated by folks other than me that opponents of Measure P, The Marymount Plan know where of they write and they use public information and a keen interest in learning the facts and the whole truth.
Nobody needs to really believe me with my opinion because the truth is printed for everyone to see and learn.
The factual errors and misconception illustrated in many of the letters by 'supporters' of Measure P, The Marymount Plan, indicates to me and others that there is an amount of deception and false and misleading statements coming from Marymount College.
Do the majority of supporters really want a zoning change? Why do local residents want dorms at Marymount? Don't they know that historically at least 2/3 of the students attending Marymount during the last 10 years came from outside the L.A. Basin and were not 'local' at all?
If Marymount wishes to do what is found at the Officers' College and bring in students from all over the world or nation, then why won't they tell supporters that?
Really, today's letters to the editor could become a true learning item when dealing with educating one's self versus having an institution provide the 'facts' and talking points.
Heck, I think it should be required reading at college campuses. What about Marymount College?
What we see is the well informed writing and what I see as ill-informed writing. I don't blame the authors of the ill-informed writing because their sources are not able or willing to provide the true facts to them or they have a more specialized interest in having Measure P, The Marymount Plan approved.
Please vote "No" on Measure P, The Marymount Plan.
Safety. Everyone. Everywhere. Every hour.
I am going to respond to many of the letters to the editor by just mentioning the name of the letter author so if you haven't been able to read the actual letters to the editor, perhaps you might wish to ignore this post of read on for factual corrections to statements made in too many of the letters to the editor by too many authors.
I will simply list authors of the letters to the editor followed by comments I choose to write.
Mr. Stuart Friedland's letter began a large contribution of letters to the editor. I liked Mr. Friedland's letter and I am going through the General Election pamphlet along with other resources to figure out how I will vote on the Propositions, including Prop. 23.
Mr. Bob Lyon's letter is next.
The Rancho Palos Verdes City Council was mandated by State Law to either vote to accept every single word carried within The Marymount Plan or call for a vote by the residents of Rancho Palos Verds in a documented specified time frame. There was no 'rush' to put the initiative because it fell within the State mandated requirments.
Mr. Lyon doesn't seem to discriminate between The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project and The Marymount Plan. This is something that is probably very common among residents and he should not be begrudged for not knowing the differences.
For the last ten years or so, The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project contains the means and language to redevelop the Marymount Campus.
The Project did contain language supporting the construction of two Residence Halls, associated dining facilities for those living in dorms, and an art gallery slated to be a connection point between the two Halls.
Representatives of Marymount College removed (under duress) the two Residence Halls from further consideration by the Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission.
Those same representatives had the right and the opportunity to by-pass any vote on Residence Halls by the Planning Commission when The Project was given to the City Council for consideration. Those representatives could have brought the Residence Halls directly to the City Council for consideration, however they chose (probably under duress again) not to bring a rightful consideration by the City Council concerning Residence Halls.
I hope Mr. Lyon understands that I support the initiative process and I disagree with many other opponents of Measure P in that regard.
I think it is wrong to put The Marymount Plan along with support for the initiative process as a means to ask approval of Measure P because they are two very different things.
I support the initiative process while continuing to oppose Measure P and I hope you and Mr. Lyon vote "No" on Measure P, The Marymount Plan.
Magali Martin, an alumna of Marymount College (but didn't live on campus) has the third letter.
Magali Martin remained on a campus without on-campus housing so the statement made; "Voting "no" on Measure P would injure the students' ability to remain on campus and live the college life" didn't seem to injure Magali Martin.
Ms. Dina Dini wrote the fourth letter to the editor.
Apparently "737" equals 793 because Ms. Dini wrote "...Marymount is at full enrollment of 737 students." Marymount is rightfully authorized to have a full time filled enrollment of 793 students and both The Marymount Plan and The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project contain that fact.
New electrical resources have been approved at Marymount College so Ms. Dini's offering about the need for more electrical resources has been asked and answered.
Ms. Dini's letter contains a factual error. Since there are zero motor vehicle trips generated to and from the Marymount Campus currently under normal campus operation, adding motor vehicles to the campus 24 hours per day, seven days per week, by many drivers, there WILL BE MORE traffic than there is now.
I wonder if 'children' currently living at home anywhere on the peninsula would use on-campus housing at Marymount College if dorms are approved. It appears that Ms. Dini thinks so by her words.
Mr. Kenneth Goldman, a previous letter to the editor author held the fifth position and the first on the second page of letters to the editor.
Mr. Stephen Perestam's letter follows the fantastic letter written by Mr. Goldman.
Boy, what a letter! It just may end up on this blog. It was informative and direct.
Thank you Mr. Perestam.
Mr. Jim Gordon's letter is next.
I have written about and with Mr. Gordon and he can write really, really long pieces of information and comment.
Mr. Gordon is one of a number of people who think Mr. Arnolds 'fake' letter to the editor contained a criticism of me and this blog. I payed Mr. Arnold's comment about 'online blogging' hardly any mind as evidenced by my continued blogging.
Mr. Craig Whited's letter to the editor is next.
Burt M. Arnold, as the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Marymount College I believe has the right AND the responsibility to speak out about Marymount College no matter where he lives or where he works.
I certainly don't agree with much of what Mr. Arnold says or writes with regards to Marymount College, Meausre P or The Marymount Plan, but I have called out for him and other Trustees to get involved with working to repair many of the damages caused by the two lawsuits, the deceptive ads, false and misleading statements, and considered harassment of our city's elected representatives and others in Rancho Palos Verdes.
With news of the Palos Verdes Peninsula Chamber of Commerce's endorsement of Measure P, The Marymount Plan, far more business owners from outside R.P.V. made a statement of support for Measure P than just Mr. Arnold.
People have a right to support or oppose anything they wish, I believe. An individual counted a number of names listed by Marymount College as supporters of Measure P who do not live and cannot vote in the Special Election.
If anyone thinks all the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent to date attempting to get dorms approved at Marymount all came from sources living or doing business in Rancho Palos Verdes
, perhaps they should review the previous post.
Ms. Lorraine O'Grady's letter followed Mr. Whited's.
Like Ms. O'Grady, I support The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project. Thank you Ms. O'Grady for your wonderful letter to the editor.
We are down to the last four letters to the editor with Ms. Eva Cicoria's contribution.
I bet Ms. Cicoria would like to remind everyone that Rancho Palos Verdes has a very successful, wonderful and extremely contributory College that has had student residential housing for decades.
The Salvation Army's Officers' College provides a world of improvements to the world. Not only do students live on its campus. many students are also parents and their kids also live on campus.
The third to last (in order of when letters were received at the paper) letter is from Ms. Judy Christmas.
Ms. Christmas was among an unfortunate number of folks not supporting Measure P, The Marymount Plan that were listed in last Thursday's two-full page advertisement/ 'fake' letter to the editor concerning who supports Measure P, The Marymout Plan.
Ms. Christmas DOES NOT or endorse support for Measure P, The Marymount Plan.
In the second to last received letter to the editor, former Mayor Ann Shaw's letter appears. There are only two former Mayors of Rancho Palos Verdes that I have found supporting Measure P, so far. Mayor Shaw IS NOT one of them.
Finally there is the letter from Ms. Erin LaMonte.
Again I want to remind all that there already is a "strong college institution on the Peninsula..." as Ms. LaMonte stated.
I hope she was referring to both The Salvation Army Officers' College, but she might not know that this great institution is located in Rancho Palos Verdes and so are its dorms.
Ms. LaMonte wrote a question: "Is a strong, thriving college good for a community?"
Well, I find that The Salvation Army Officers' College is and its 'community' spans the globe, including Rancho Palos Verdes.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you so much to Mr. Roland Hsen and Ms. Rosemary Vullo for offering their opinions on matters other than Marymount College, The Marymount Plan, The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, Measure P, city zoning statutes, and anything else dealing with Marymount College.
And now for an opinion from just old, fat, and retired me.
Reading each and every Email I listed the authors for demonstrates very clearly the type and amount of factual information supporters of Measure P have, compared to opponents of Measure P.
To date, I have found no better example of the division of education regarding Measure P, The Marymount Plan and if anyone disagrees with that, please re-read all of the letters.
Not everybody got all of the facts completely straight.
But it is quite clearly demonstrated by folks other than me that opponents of Measure P, The Marymount Plan know where of they write and they use public information and a keen interest in learning the facts and the whole truth.
Nobody needs to really believe me with my opinion because the truth is printed for everyone to see and learn.
The factual errors and misconception illustrated in many of the letters by 'supporters' of Measure P, The Marymount Plan, indicates to me and others that there is an amount of deception and false and misleading statements coming from Marymount College.
Do the majority of supporters really want a zoning change? Why do local residents want dorms at Marymount? Don't they know that historically at least 2/3 of the students attending Marymount during the last 10 years came from outside the L.A. Basin and were not 'local' at all?
If Marymount wishes to do what is found at the Officers' College and bring in students from all over the world or nation, then why won't they tell supporters that?
Really, today's letters to the editor could become a true learning item when dealing with educating one's self versus having an institution provide the 'facts' and talking points.
Heck, I think it should be required reading at college campuses. What about Marymount College?
What we see is the well informed writing and what I see as ill-informed writing. I don't blame the authors of the ill-informed writing because their sources are not able or willing to provide the true facts to them or they have a more specialized interest in having Measure P, The Marymount Plan approved.
Please vote "No" on Measure P, The Marymount Plan.
Safety. Everyone. Everywhere. Every hour.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
What I Have Learned, So Far
The subtitle of this post is: Facts, Not Attacks.
Ms. Kay Finer, the President/CEO of the Palos Verdes Peninsula Chamber of Commerce is out of the office until Monday, I was informed.
The Chamber's Board of Directors met on September 28, 2010.
The Chamber's Executive Committee which normally meets on the second Monday of each month had its meeting on September 23, 2010 according to the Chamber's calendar.
The Director of Communications of Marymount College sits on the Board of Directors of the Chamber of Commerce
I have published some of the Emails I was provided in a prior post.
Mr. Jeffrey Lewis offered his letter to Ms. Finer for my use within this post.
Several individuals sent me the Guidelines of the Chamber's Legislative Action Committee. Those guidelines are posted below for your information and you opinion.
The Chamber's Legislative Action Committee offered support or opposition to Statewide Propositions 19-27 from a September 14, 2010 statement.
The Legislative Action Committee made no recommendation about Measure P, The Marymount Plan on September 14, 2010.
Please click on image to enlarge.
Those are the facts and I will leave it up to you to wonder what and when I will write about this again.
Ms. Kay Finer, the President/CEO of the Palos Verdes Peninsula Chamber of Commerce is out of the office until Monday, I was informed.
The Chamber's Board of Directors met on September 28, 2010.
The Chamber's Executive Committee which normally meets on the second Monday of each month had its meeting on September 23, 2010 according to the Chamber's calendar.
The Director of Communications of Marymount College sits on the Board of Directors of the Chamber of Commerce
I have published some of the Emails I was provided in a prior post.
Mr. Jeffrey Lewis offered his letter to Ms. Finer for my use within this post.
Several individuals sent me the Guidelines of the Chamber's Legislative Action Committee. Those guidelines are posted below for your information and you opinion.
The Chamber's Legislative Action Committee offered support or opposition to Statewide Propositions 19-27 from a September 14, 2010 statement.
The Legislative Action Committee made no recommendation about Measure P, The Marymount Plan on September 14, 2010.
Please click on image to enlarge.
Those are the facts and I will leave it up to you to wonder what and when I will write about this again.
Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, please vote "No" on Measure P.
Safety. Everyone. Everywhere. Every hour.
Are ALL The Back Rooms At Marymount 'Back Rooms'?
Here are some extremely recent Emails I viewed concerning what appears to me to be yet another back room deal between Marymount College and an organization on The Hill.
One thing that may help you understand is the fact that the majority of businesses on The Hill are NOT in Rancho Palos Verdes, where Marymount College's Measure P's passage would have a very detrimental impact on that city's residents while businesses all over other cities on The Hill and elsewhere would reap rewards at the expense of the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Ms. Kay Finer is the President/CEO of the Palos Verdes Chamber of Commerce.
Below are some Emails which I have posted the body of. My Email to Ms. Finer is after the other Email bodies:
"I have some disappointing news. The PV Chamber of Commerce previously indicated that it was going to take no position on Measure P. It now is going to take the position that it supports Measure P. The manner in which this decision was reached disappoints me as much as the decision itself. If you feel the same way I do, I would encourage you to voice your opinion to Kay Finer of the PV Chamber of Commerce at kay@palosverdeschamber.com"
-----------------------------------------------------------
I understand that the chamber has decided to endorse a yes vote on Measure P. I am extremely disappointed in the manner in which the chamber handled this matter. While I could accept this outcome had this decision been reached after an open debate with all voices represented, it appears this was handled quietly in a back room with the outcome pre-determined. I would have appreciated the opportunity to weigh in on the issue.
Not the chamber's finest hour in my humble opinion."
--------------------------------------------------------------
"Kay, this is a sad day for the PV Chamber.
Fair minded people wouldn’t mind a decision being made, but to do it in this manner is disappointing. No notice. Apparently only Marymount being represented. Other PV Board Members not notified in advance. Very disappointing.
The apparently pre determined way in which this was handled will be long remembered by residents in RPV, particularly the homeowners that will be most affected and how the PV Chamber sold them out.
This sounds similar to what happened at the CRA (California Republican Assembly) endorsing meeting 10 days ago. Rules were illegitimately changed on the fly to accommodate a Marymount slanted and pre arranged vote of support, and the state Board of the CRA had to intervene the next day to reverse the entire disgraceful process.
I think that even legitimate backers of Yes should be disturbed at what transpired at the PV Chamber last night.
Councilman Misetich covered many of these troubling campaign tactics well on video at: www.saverpv.com
Just my opinion as an individual business member of the Chamber"
------------------------------------------------------------
"Dear Ms. Finer:
I am extremely disappointed that the Chamber of Commerce would favor a Measure that is not only wholly unnecessary (given that Marymount has already received from the City Council nearly everything that it requested from it, having purposely deleted its request for dormitories when it appeared before the Council), but that also threatens the continued viability of our City's zoning, safety and traffic laws by exempting from them any property owner with sufficient funds to place its issue on the ballot.
By placing Measure P on the ballot, Marymount is attempting to take the decision-making process away from those officials who were elected by the City precisely for the purpose of understanding and making such decisions in the best interest of the City, who have significant expertise on the subject and who devoted considerable (and, in this case, inordinate) time on the matter and give it instead to a general public that it hopes to mislead with a ubiquitous campaign that was determined by a Superior Court Judge as misstating the effect of Measure P's passage.
I would have hoped, and I expected, that the Chamber of Commerce to show more wisdom on this matter by recognizing that Measure P is not about whether Marymount should be allowed to modernize its campus (everyone agrees that it should, and the City Council has already authorized it to do so), but whether the City can be manipulated by this kind of tactic. And does anyone really doubt that other large property owners in the City are watching the results of Measure P, and hoping that it sets a precedent that will allow them to seek the same special treatment by this same unjustified approach.
It is not too late for the Chamber to reconsider its position. In the interests of our City, it must."
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Finer,
I am Mark Wells and I first came to my home in what is now Rancho Palos Verdes on May 4, 1955.
If you read any large number of my posts on my www.eastrpv.blogspot.com blog you will probably learn there is probably no bigger supporter of businesses along Western Avenue in R.P.V. than I am.
I am writing to learn the facts about how an endorsement for Measure P, The Marymount Plan came to be after many of us learned your group originally decided not to take a position on the matter.
One way or another I will learn the true facts about how the endorsement came about so I am offering you a chance to explain the Chamber's position before I write too much more than I am writing today, on my blog.
If two members of the Chamber believe a 'back room' deal was reached and one of them happens to be a sitting Rancho Palos Verdes City Councilman, I think your full membership should be allowed the chance to discuss and debate what seems to be another endorsement deal that could eventually cause your group some embarrassment.
Should the entire membership vote to endorse Measure P, The Marymount Plan, then I would honor a full membership's endorsement without negative response.
But when I learn the details and make my opinion and that opinion is that yet another 'back room' deal was reached, I shall write extensively of this and probably mention it during a forthcoming C.C. meeting.
Whether you support Measure P or not, the Chamber's endorsing an organization that has already been found to use deceptive and misleading statements, by a Superior Court Judge, says a volume about what your group and Marymount is attempting to do in Rancho Palos Verdes.
Since R.P.V. is still the only city on The Hill that has dorms at a College Campus, perhaps your membership might wish to suggest one of the other cities on The Hill and/or San Pedro host a College with on-campus housing.
Please rethink any endorsement by the Chamber of Measure P, The Marymount Plan.
Thank you for taking the time to read this long Email.
Mark Wells
aka M Richards
www.eastrpv.blogspot.com
www.pontevista.blogspot.com
___________________________________________
I guess we will just have to see what happens next. We won't need to wait long, though.
One thing that may help you understand is the fact that the majority of businesses on The Hill are NOT in Rancho Palos Verdes, where Marymount College's Measure P's passage would have a very detrimental impact on that city's residents while businesses all over other cities on The Hill and elsewhere would reap rewards at the expense of the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Ms. Kay Finer is the President/CEO of the Palos Verdes Chamber of Commerce.
Below are some Emails which I have posted the body of. My Email to Ms. Finer is after the other Email bodies:
"I have some disappointing news. The PV Chamber of Commerce previously indicated that it was going to take no position on Measure P. It now is going to take the position that it supports Measure P. The manner in which this decision was reached disappoints me as much as the decision itself. If you feel the same way I do, I would encourage you to voice your opinion to Kay Finer of the PV Chamber of Commerce at kay@palosverdeschamber.com"
-----------------------------------------------------------
I understand that the chamber has decided to endorse a yes vote on Measure P. I am extremely disappointed in the manner in which the chamber handled this matter. While I could accept this outcome had this decision been reached after an open debate with all voices represented, it appears this was handled quietly in a back room with the outcome pre-determined. I would have appreciated the opportunity to weigh in on the issue.
Not the chamber's finest hour in my humble opinion."
--------------------------------------------------------------
"Kay, this is a sad day for the PV Chamber.
Fair minded people wouldn’t mind a decision being made, but to do it in this manner is disappointing. No notice. Apparently only Marymount being represented. Other PV Board Members not notified in advance. Very disappointing.
The apparently pre determined way in which this was handled will be long remembered by residents in RPV, particularly the homeowners that will be most affected and how the PV Chamber sold them out.
This sounds similar to what happened at the CRA (California Republican Assembly) endorsing meeting 10 days ago. Rules were illegitimately changed on the fly to accommodate a Marymount slanted and pre arranged vote of support, and the state Board of the CRA had to intervene the next day to reverse the entire disgraceful process.
I think that even legitimate backers of Yes should be disturbed at what transpired at the PV Chamber last night.
Councilman Misetich covered many of these troubling campaign tactics well on video at: www.saverpv.com
Just my opinion as an individual business member of the Chamber"
------------------------------------------------------------
"Dear Ms. Finer:
I am extremely disappointed that the Chamber of Commerce would favor a Measure that is not only wholly unnecessary (given that Marymount has already received from the City Council nearly everything that it requested from it, having purposely deleted its request for dormitories when it appeared before the Council), but that also threatens the continued viability of our City's zoning, safety and traffic laws by exempting from them any property owner with sufficient funds to place its issue on the ballot.
By placing Measure P on the ballot, Marymount is attempting to take the decision-making process away from those officials who were elected by the City precisely for the purpose of understanding and making such decisions in the best interest of the City, who have significant expertise on the subject and who devoted considerable (and, in this case, inordinate) time on the matter and give it instead to a general public that it hopes to mislead with a ubiquitous campaign that was determined by a Superior Court Judge as misstating the effect of Measure P's passage.
I would have hoped, and I expected, that the Chamber of Commerce to show more wisdom on this matter by recognizing that Measure P is not about whether Marymount should be allowed to modernize its campus (everyone agrees that it should, and the City Council has already authorized it to do so), but whether the City can be manipulated by this kind of tactic. And does anyone really doubt that other large property owners in the City are watching the results of Measure P, and hoping that it sets a precedent that will allow them to seek the same special treatment by this same unjustified approach.
It is not too late for the Chamber to reconsider its position. In the interests of our City, it must."
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Finer,
I am Mark Wells and I first came to my home in what is now Rancho Palos Verdes on May 4, 1955.
If you read any large number of my posts on my www.eastrpv.blogspot.com blog you will probably learn there is probably no bigger supporter of businesses along Western Avenue in R.P.V. than I am.
I am writing to learn the facts about how an endorsement for Measure P, The Marymount Plan came to be after many of us learned your group originally decided not to take a position on the matter.
One way or another I will learn the true facts about how the endorsement came about so I am offering you a chance to explain the Chamber's position before I write too much more than I am writing today, on my blog.
If two members of the Chamber believe a 'back room' deal was reached and one of them happens to be a sitting Rancho Palos Verdes City Councilman, I think your full membership should be allowed the chance to discuss and debate what seems to be another endorsement deal that could eventually cause your group some embarrassment.
Should the entire membership vote to endorse Measure P, The Marymount Plan, then I would honor a full membership's endorsement without negative response.
But when I learn the details and make my opinion and that opinion is that yet another 'back room' deal was reached, I shall write extensively of this and probably mention it during a forthcoming C.C. meeting.
Whether you support Measure P or not, the Chamber's endorsing an organization that has already been found to use deceptive and misleading statements, by a Superior Court Judge, says a volume about what your group and Marymount is attempting to do in Rancho Palos Verdes.
Since R.P.V. is still the only city on The Hill that has dorms at a College Campus, perhaps your membership might wish to suggest one of the other cities on The Hill and/or San Pedro host a College with on-campus housing.
Please rethink any endorsement by the Chamber of Measure P, The Marymount Plan.
Thank you for taking the time to read this long Email.
Mark Wells
aka M Richards
www.eastrpv.blogspot.com
www.pontevista.blogspot.com
___________________________________________
I guess we will just have to see what happens next. We won't need to wait long, though.
Preparing For The Next Five Thursdays And Other Days
Fiction in the form of usually full page ads for Measure P, The Marymount Plan, will probably be provided tomorrow and for the following four Thursdays.
If any proof that fiction is the mainstay of the ads in both The Palos Verdes Peninusla News and The South Bay Daily Breeze, all one has to do is read the ads and supporters' letters to the editors. Those are also very fictional.
So with this in mind, please be prepared for reading something that has some pretty odd claims.
Some claims you might read circles around the requirement (my word) that voters have to approve Measure P, The Marymount Plan so that a state-of the art library and a recreation center that all residents of Rancho Palos Verdes can use.
You might read that other new student facilities, other than residents halls, will only get approved if Measure P passes.
You could read that the parking lot at Marymount College would only receive approval for renovation as long as The Marymount Plan passes.
Factually, all of those items have already been approved for construction and don't need any more legal approval to move forward, other than permits.
Please watch out for two statements that I have already demonstrated are deceptive and misleading.
Every time you read anything exactly or similarly like "construction will take 36 months" PLEASE add "over an eight year period already approved".
Should Measure P pass the statement changes a bit. You should remind yourself that The Marymount Plan with take "36 month" over an unlimited period of years to complete.
Now about the "at no taxpayer expense" wording. That has already been demonstrated, proven, and determined to be a false statement both physically and theoretically.
Somebody had to pay our city's clerk's attorney's fees representing Ms. Carla Morreale as a Respondant in a lawsuit filed then lost by Dr. Michael Brophy, Marymount's President. I doubt Dr. Brophy or any member of the "Marymount Community" provided private funds to pay for Ms. Morreale's attorney or attorney's fees for the County Registrar.
Naturally, members of the "Marymount Community" will fail to mention that the exact same traffic mitigation approved with The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project is also contained in The Marymount Plan and that all traffic mitigation will have some component of funding required of taxpayers' funds.
So any claim that The Marymount Plan could be completed according to the current wording of the Plan without using some taxpayer funds is false and the facts that proves this are contained within The Marymount Plan.
Unless of course, Marymount receives its Campus Specific Plan and they just do not provide any traffic mitigation by using adopted language and another trip to court.
There was a fellow who wrote a letter to the editor earlier this week in The Daily Breeze.
As demonstrated by practically every single supporter of The Marymount Plan and Measure P, the gentlemen got the truth wrong, facts he purported to be true, aren't, and he provided yet again, a continuing witness to the fact that too many supporters of Measure P just don't understand what it is all about.
For the record and to remind folks considering on writing letters to the editors, please use the truth when you believe you are writing facts.
The five members of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council have every right to INDIVIDUALLY support or oppose anything as long as they do not state that their support or opposition is related to more than one other member of the City Council.
The City Council can not authorize the expenditure of any taxpayer funds to support or oppose Measure P! They have not authorized the payment of one penny of our money to support or oppose Measure P other than the record keeping of their opposition vote of Measure P and the educational items that neither support or oppose Measure P, The Marymount Plan.
Nobody said that Councilman Misetich's words could not be used in the advertisement. What the letter to the editor writer doesn't seem to understand that even though it might be legal to use Councilman Misetich's words, Marymount should have used ethics over quests for revenue and they should not have used words spoken about a different subject by Councilman Misetich as a way to try and get less informed voters supporting Measure P.
Why, oh why do I need to remind Marymount College about ethics? It would seem to me by Councilman Misetich's words along with what I heard from Councilman Campbell, that ethics should be paramount at a College as affiliated to a particular structure as Marymount is.
The attacks we find weekly and sometimes daily are attacks FROM Marymount as the large business it is in our city.
These attacks Marymount pursues are attacking facts, potential voters, ethics, and the quality of information needed to be considered to have an informed choice about Measure P.
A Superior Court Judge has already stated that Marymount provided false and misleading statements, but opponents of Measure P never have!
While I do appreciate the letter to the editor writer's willingness to write something, I can only wonder if the person previewed it with the Measure P campaign first.
I write about being previewed because we have been instructed that anything and everything relating to support of Measure P, The Marymount Plan needs to go to Marymount FIRST, no matter what we would like to do. That came from the College's President directly.
So get ready for tomorrow morning and know that I will be ready, too.
Please vote "No" on Measure P. Safety. Everyone. Everywhere. Every hour.
If any proof that fiction is the mainstay of the ads in both The Palos Verdes Peninusla News and The South Bay Daily Breeze, all one has to do is read the ads and supporters' letters to the editors. Those are also very fictional.
So with this in mind, please be prepared for reading something that has some pretty odd claims.
Some claims you might read circles around the requirement (my word) that voters have to approve Measure P, The Marymount Plan so that a state-of the art library and a recreation center that all residents of Rancho Palos Verdes can use.
You might read that other new student facilities, other than residents halls, will only get approved if Measure P passes.
You could read that the parking lot at Marymount College would only receive approval for renovation as long as The Marymount Plan passes.
Factually, all of those items have already been approved for construction and don't need any more legal approval to move forward, other than permits.
Please watch out for two statements that I have already demonstrated are deceptive and misleading.
Every time you read anything exactly or similarly like "construction will take 36 months" PLEASE add "over an eight year period already approved".
Should Measure P pass the statement changes a bit. You should remind yourself that The Marymount Plan with take "36 month" over an unlimited period of years to complete.
Now about the "at no taxpayer expense" wording. That has already been demonstrated, proven, and determined to be a false statement both physically and theoretically.
Somebody had to pay our city's clerk's attorney's fees representing Ms. Carla Morreale as a Respondant in a lawsuit filed then lost by Dr. Michael Brophy, Marymount's President. I doubt Dr. Brophy or any member of the "Marymount Community" provided private funds to pay for Ms. Morreale's attorney or attorney's fees for the County Registrar.
Naturally, members of the "Marymount Community" will fail to mention that the exact same traffic mitigation approved with The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project is also contained in The Marymount Plan and that all traffic mitigation will have some component of funding required of taxpayers' funds.
So any claim that The Marymount Plan could be completed according to the current wording of the Plan without using some taxpayer funds is false and the facts that proves this are contained within The Marymount Plan.
Unless of course, Marymount receives its Campus Specific Plan and they just do not provide any traffic mitigation by using adopted language and another trip to court.
There was a fellow who wrote a letter to the editor earlier this week in The Daily Breeze.
As demonstrated by practically every single supporter of The Marymount Plan and Measure P, the gentlemen got the truth wrong, facts he purported to be true, aren't, and he provided yet again, a continuing witness to the fact that too many supporters of Measure P just don't understand what it is all about.
For the record and to remind folks considering on writing letters to the editors, please use the truth when you believe you are writing facts.
The five members of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council have every right to INDIVIDUALLY support or oppose anything as long as they do not state that their support or opposition is related to more than one other member of the City Council.
The City Council can not authorize the expenditure of any taxpayer funds to support or oppose Measure P! They have not authorized the payment of one penny of our money to support or oppose Measure P other than the record keeping of their opposition vote of Measure P and the educational items that neither support or oppose Measure P, The Marymount Plan.
Nobody said that Councilman Misetich's words could not be used in the advertisement. What the letter to the editor writer doesn't seem to understand that even though it might be legal to use Councilman Misetich's words, Marymount should have used ethics over quests for revenue and they should not have used words spoken about a different subject by Councilman Misetich as a way to try and get less informed voters supporting Measure P.
Why, oh why do I need to remind Marymount College about ethics? It would seem to me by Councilman Misetich's words along with what I heard from Councilman Campbell, that ethics should be paramount at a College as affiliated to a particular structure as Marymount is.
The attacks we find weekly and sometimes daily are attacks FROM Marymount as the large business it is in our city.
These attacks Marymount pursues are attacking facts, potential voters, ethics, and the quality of information needed to be considered to have an informed choice about Measure P.
A Superior Court Judge has already stated that Marymount provided false and misleading statements, but opponents of Measure P never have!
While I do appreciate the letter to the editor writer's willingness to write something, I can only wonder if the person previewed it with the Measure P campaign first.
I write about being previewed because we have been instructed that anything and everything relating to support of Measure P, The Marymount Plan needs to go to Marymount FIRST, no matter what we would like to do. That came from the College's President directly.
So get ready for tomorrow morning and know that I will be ready, too.
Please vote "No" on Measure P. Safety. Everyone. Everywhere. Every hour.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Bits and Pieces 15
Recent developments with new plans being unveiled for Ponte Vista at San Pedro got me searching the Web a bit more on the matter.
I came across an article published just this September 21 that seems to indicate that Ponte Vista's financial backer may seek bankruptcy protection in the near future.
You may read the article by visiting: http://www.pontevista.blogspot.com/.
I can't imagine that Ponte Vista is anything other than a horrible asset for iStar Financial.
Ponte Vista's original developer, Bob Bisno, paid 252% of the opening bid for a portion of the site and paid the Volunteers of America what is probably far too much for the remaining land he had to purchase.
After reading the article I now feel iStar is seeking entitlements for the property to then sell them or the land might be an asset another financial institution might pick up due to the possible bankruptcy.
Any way I look at it, after reading the article, raises even more questions about this newest plan.
___________________________________________
The poll on this blog about whether our Denny's should become a 24/7 operation continues.
I spoke with one of Denny's Managers who said that San Pedro's Carrow's Restaurant will soon be a 24/7 restaurant and that could play either way for or against Denny's chances.
Having the Denny's open 24/7 would bring even more revenue into our city with portions of sales taxes and perhaps some kind of new permit proceedure for businesses allowed to remain open 24/7 in Rancho Palos Verdes.
I think should 70% of the adult residents of the Western View Homes tract and probably about 60% of those living in the rest of the Mira Vista HOA signed petitions allowing Denny's remaining open 24/7, that could help sway the City Council in changing the conditions of operations for Denny's.
If Coco's ever had its management considering that R.P.V. restaurant becoming 24/7 I would support that more that Denny's being open 24/7.
Coco's has a larger parking lot and is located quite a bit further away from residential units than Denny's is.
I still do not object to Denny's becoming a 24/7 operation and I live quite close to it.
___________________________________________
Notre Dame de Namur University is located in Belmont, California.
According to the schools Web site: http://www.ndnu.edu/, "Notre Dame de Namur University is a fully accredited, independent, Catholic, co-educational, master's university founded in 1851 by the Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur in San Jose and moved to Belmont, California, in 1923."
The College has on-campus housing. The Web site includes the following information I found interesting: "A substance free floor and the Social Justice and Diversity Living Learning Community are located in Julie Billiart Hall."
So what the heck is a "substance free floor" anyway? I looked that up, too.
"Parents, school administrators, and students are counted among the fans of substance-free dorms, which ban the use of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs."
http://www.jointogether.org/news/headlines/inthenews/2005/substance-free-dorms-get-good.html is the source for this information.
The school has 2-two story Residence Halls along with other housing options.
Only one of the four floors in the Residence Halls is a 'substance free floor' bringing my conclusion to be the other three floors of the Residence Halls allow substances like alcohol for students of legal age.
Since Measure P, The Marymount Plan contains wording for a Campus Specific Plan that would allow pretty much anything and everything Marymount wants to offer in dorm life, possibly.
Also, since there are currently 40 students attending classes in upper division studies, it is pretty much guaranteed that there could be students 21 years of age and older residing in any on-campus dorms and both off-campus housing sites provided by Marymount College.
The potential of adding alcohol to the mix of dorm rooms on the campus of Marymount College, no matter what anyone says these days, is something I and everyone else needs to be concerned about.
After all, many proponents of Measure P want students to have a 'complete' experience of living on campus.
____________________________________________
I still contend that we need a Paramedic Unit at Station 83 near the intersection of Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East.
The closest Paramedic Squad to east R.P.V. and the unincorporated area of the community of San Pedro is housed at Station 6, in Lomita.
Now with new plans unveiled for Ponte Vista, the thought of having "The Sixes" traveling along Western, past the Ponte Vista site, to places in the Eastview and La Rambla areas of L.A. County or R.P.V. adds some measure of need to move the ball further toward probably moving Patrol 83 to Station 53 and putting a Paramedic Squad (83) at 'our' Station.
____________________________________________
The 'crickets' ad now running for Marymount's drive for dorms and NO, nobody traveled into the future to record sounds around Marymount 'after' dorms were built.
Since motor vehicles will be allowed on and off the campus between 11:00 PM and 6:00 AM, even with sign ins and sign outs, there would be increased noise, just from vehicles.
Should one of the students residing in a dorm room at Marymount own and operate a Harley Davidson motorcycle and need to go someplace on their bike during 'quiet hours', now can you 'hear' what that might sound like?
Let's say that the Marymount La Crosse team plays an away game during the evening and students living in on-campus housing attend a game where Marymount wins a very exciting game.
Can anyone truly claim that some revelry won't go on late into the evening by returning students and friends gathering to celebrate the returning players?
Here again is another of the 'complete' experience of living on campus.
______________________________________________
Which one of the following companies might Marymount use for dorms and which of these companies might have Board of Trustee members investing in them, or even other supporters of Measure P, for that matter?
http://www.assetcampushousing.com/
http://www.americancampus.com/
http://www.campusadv.com/index.htm
I came across an article published just this September 21 that seems to indicate that Ponte Vista's financial backer may seek bankruptcy protection in the near future.
You may read the article by visiting: http://www.pontevista.blogspot.com/.
I can't imagine that Ponte Vista is anything other than a horrible asset for iStar Financial.
Ponte Vista's original developer, Bob Bisno, paid 252% of the opening bid for a portion of the site and paid the Volunteers of America what is probably far too much for the remaining land he had to purchase.
After reading the article I now feel iStar is seeking entitlements for the property to then sell them or the land might be an asset another financial institution might pick up due to the possible bankruptcy.
Any way I look at it, after reading the article, raises even more questions about this newest plan.
___________________________________________
The poll on this blog about whether our Denny's should become a 24/7 operation continues.
I spoke with one of Denny's Managers who said that San Pedro's Carrow's Restaurant will soon be a 24/7 restaurant and that could play either way for or against Denny's chances.
Having the Denny's open 24/7 would bring even more revenue into our city with portions of sales taxes and perhaps some kind of new permit proceedure for businesses allowed to remain open 24/7 in Rancho Palos Verdes.
I think should 70% of the adult residents of the Western View Homes tract and probably about 60% of those living in the rest of the Mira Vista HOA signed petitions allowing Denny's remaining open 24/7, that could help sway the City Council in changing the conditions of operations for Denny's.
If Coco's ever had its management considering that R.P.V. restaurant becoming 24/7 I would support that more that Denny's being open 24/7.
Coco's has a larger parking lot and is located quite a bit further away from residential units than Denny's is.
I still do not object to Denny's becoming a 24/7 operation and I live quite close to it.
___________________________________________
Notre Dame de Namur University is located in Belmont, California.
According to the schools Web site: http://www.ndnu.edu/, "Notre Dame de Namur University is a fully accredited, independent, Catholic, co-educational, master's university founded in 1851 by the Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur in San Jose and moved to Belmont, California, in 1923."
The College has on-campus housing. The Web site includes the following information I found interesting: "A substance free floor and the Social Justice and Diversity Living Learning Community are located in Julie Billiart Hall."
So what the heck is a "substance free floor" anyway? I looked that up, too.
"Parents, school administrators, and students are counted among the fans of substance-free dorms, which ban the use of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs."
http://www.jointogether.org/news/headlines/inthenews/2005/substance-free-dorms-get-good.html is the source for this information.
The school has 2-two story Residence Halls along with other housing options.
Only one of the four floors in the Residence Halls is a 'substance free floor' bringing my conclusion to be the other three floors of the Residence Halls allow substances like alcohol for students of legal age.
Since Measure P, The Marymount Plan contains wording for a Campus Specific Plan that would allow pretty much anything and everything Marymount wants to offer in dorm life, possibly.
Also, since there are currently 40 students attending classes in upper division studies, it is pretty much guaranteed that there could be students 21 years of age and older residing in any on-campus dorms and both off-campus housing sites provided by Marymount College.
The potential of adding alcohol to the mix of dorm rooms on the campus of Marymount College, no matter what anyone says these days, is something I and everyone else needs to be concerned about.
After all, many proponents of Measure P want students to have a 'complete' experience of living on campus.
____________________________________________
I still contend that we need a Paramedic Unit at Station 83 near the intersection of Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East.
The closest Paramedic Squad to east R.P.V. and the unincorporated area of the community of San Pedro is housed at Station 6, in Lomita.
Now with new plans unveiled for Ponte Vista, the thought of having "The Sixes" traveling along Western, past the Ponte Vista site, to places in the Eastview and La Rambla areas of L.A. County or R.P.V. adds some measure of need to move the ball further toward probably moving Patrol 83 to Station 53 and putting a Paramedic Squad (83) at 'our' Station.
____________________________________________
The 'crickets' ad now running for Marymount's drive for dorms and NO, nobody traveled into the future to record sounds around Marymount 'after' dorms were built.
Since motor vehicles will be allowed on and off the campus between 11:00 PM and 6:00 AM, even with sign ins and sign outs, there would be increased noise, just from vehicles.
Should one of the students residing in a dorm room at Marymount own and operate a Harley Davidson motorcycle and need to go someplace on their bike during 'quiet hours', now can you 'hear' what that might sound like?
Let's say that the Marymount La Crosse team plays an away game during the evening and students living in on-campus housing attend a game where Marymount wins a very exciting game.
Can anyone truly claim that some revelry won't go on late into the evening by returning students and friends gathering to celebrate the returning players?
Here again is another of the 'complete' experience of living on campus.
______________________________________________
Which one of the following companies might Marymount use for dorms and which of these companies might have Board of Trustee members investing in them, or even other supporters of Measure P, for that matter?
http://www.assetcampushousing.com/
http://www.americancampus.com/
http://www.campusadv.com/index.htm
Sunday, September 26, 2010
A Book. Some Sites. Where To Invest?
Profit by Investing in Student Housing: Cash in on the Campus Housing Shortage
By: Michael H. Zaransky, is a book that informs investors on where to look to earn more income and profits for investing in companies that deal with On-campus and Off-campus student housing.
I have not read the book, but somebody may have in the "Marymount Community" as Dr. Michael Brophy seems to refer to anyone associated with Marymount College or possibly all supporters of Measure P, The Marymount Plan.
Here are three Web sites of different companies providing campus housing and investment opportunities for those who may be interested in making money from Marymount's dorms, should Measure P pass and all the legal hurdles are jumped over:
http://www.assetcampushousing.com/
http://www.americancampus.com/
http://www.campusadv.com/index.htm
I have no idea is Marymount Board of Trustees have any financial interests in any of the three companies I have listed the Web site of.
I have no idea which, if any, company Marymount Board of Trustees or College Administrators might go with, should Measure P pass.
I have no idea whether talks are already underway with any campus-housing company for any rights or financials based on Measure P's passage.
But after ten years of study and contemplation, if some folks associated with Marymount College have not yet begun talks with a company or companies or even made careful study of a company's ability to provide the revenue Marymount may be seeking, it is unreasonable to consider they (Marymount representatives) haven't looked into these matters.
So, is there a company that provides, administers, maintain, and provides revenue to a college that Marymount might be leaning towards?
Have members of the Marymount Community already invested in one particular company dealing with student housing?
Whatever has been done regarding personal investment in any company associated with student housing is perfectly legal and part of our economic system.
If funds in accounts of Marymount College been invested in a particular company or perhaps more than one student housing company, whether that is legal or not is something for real lawyers and accountants to determine.
I wonder how much support for Measure P is out there by folks who just might happen to know if Marymount is leaning towards a particular student-housing business, which company that might be, and how much they have invested or are ready to invest in, should Measure P pass.
I think that would be legal to do, too. But I think full disclosure is the most truthful and honest thing for those in the "Marymount Community" and those described as opponents of The Marymount Plan could do to help provide voters with the best information possible.
I am a Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project supporter and I have not invested one penny, to the best of my knowledge, in any company providing, maintain, or administering on and/or off campus student housing.
But I have a rather large portfolio of businesses that are parts of funds and I haven't looked at each and every company in any of the different funds I have, to date.
I guess retirement should also mean reading up on every company in each fund group retirement investments go into. I wish I had the time.
Maybe only some members of the "Marymount Community" have a heads up on where to put some investment money relating to student housing and if Measure P passes, those of us who don't have their information might lose out on an investment opportunity.
Of course there is always a chance that a new company might get formed to deal exclusively with any on-campus student housing affiliated with Marymount College.
And for the record, I don't know if a company affiliated with Marymount College maintains and administers the two off-campus housing sites for Marymount College. I should have done my homework on that by now. In the next five weeks I should know more facts about this particular topic.
By: Michael H. Zaransky, is a book that informs investors on where to look to earn more income and profits for investing in companies that deal with On-campus and Off-campus student housing.
I have not read the book, but somebody may have in the "Marymount Community" as Dr. Michael Brophy seems to refer to anyone associated with Marymount College or possibly all supporters of Measure P, The Marymount Plan.
Here are three Web sites of different companies providing campus housing and investment opportunities for those who may be interested in making money from Marymount's dorms, should Measure P pass and all the legal hurdles are jumped over:
http://www.assetcampushousing.com/
http://www.americancampus.com/
http://www.campusadv.com/index.htm
I have no idea is Marymount Board of Trustees have any financial interests in any of the three companies I have listed the Web site of.
I have no idea which, if any, company Marymount Board of Trustees or College Administrators might go with, should Measure P pass.
I have no idea whether talks are already underway with any campus-housing company for any rights or financials based on Measure P's passage.
But after ten years of study and contemplation, if some folks associated with Marymount College have not yet begun talks with a company or companies or even made careful study of a company's ability to provide the revenue Marymount may be seeking, it is unreasonable to consider they (Marymount representatives) haven't looked into these matters.
So, is there a company that provides, administers, maintain, and provides revenue to a college that Marymount might be leaning towards?
Have members of the Marymount Community already invested in one particular company dealing with student housing?
Whatever has been done regarding personal investment in any company associated with student housing is perfectly legal and part of our economic system.
If funds in accounts of Marymount College been invested in a particular company or perhaps more than one student housing company, whether that is legal or not is something for real lawyers and accountants to determine.
I wonder how much support for Measure P is out there by folks who just might happen to know if Marymount is leaning towards a particular student-housing business, which company that might be, and how much they have invested or are ready to invest in, should Measure P pass.
I think that would be legal to do, too. But I think full disclosure is the most truthful and honest thing for those in the "Marymount Community" and those described as opponents of The Marymount Plan could do to help provide voters with the best information possible.
I am a Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project supporter and I have not invested one penny, to the best of my knowledge, in any company providing, maintain, or administering on and/or off campus student housing.
But I have a rather large portfolio of businesses that are parts of funds and I haven't looked at each and every company in any of the different funds I have, to date.
I guess retirement should also mean reading up on every company in each fund group retirement investments go into. I wish I had the time.
Maybe only some members of the "Marymount Community" have a heads up on where to put some investment money relating to student housing and if Measure P passes, those of us who don't have their information might lose out on an investment opportunity.
Of course there is always a chance that a new company might get formed to deal exclusively with any on-campus student housing affiliated with Marymount College.
And for the record, I don't know if a company affiliated with Marymount College maintains and administers the two off-campus housing sites for Marymount College. I should have done my homework on that by now. In the next five weeks I should know more facts about this particular topic.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Friday, September 24, 2010
No on P Mailer
Click on image to enlarge.Here is the first mailer I have seen from a group opposed to Measure P, The Marymount Plan.
I made only a few subtle changes to the text on the second image.
I added information about the fact that had Marymount not offer to pay the entire cost of the Special Election called for by the City Council, Rancho Palos Verdes taxpayers would have had funds already collected as taxes used to pay for the election that would only benefit Marymount College.
In essence, had Marymount not 'offered' to pay for the measure concerning The Marymount Plan, taxpayers would be on the hook for that part of The Marymount Plan that involves approving it in the first place. They would also be on the hook for paying the election's bills when the measure fails. This means that no matter what the outcome of the voting is, had Marymount not offered, taxpayers would get stuck with the Special Election costs.
For the question about whether the City Council already approved most of The Marymount Plan when it approved The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, I changed "Much of it." to "Almost all of it." because my words are factually more accurate.
The City Council also added an element, which they approved, that makes The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project safer, many believe than The Marymount Plan which I feel offers too little safety because of dorms on campus.
As for looking for our names on http://www.saverpv.com/, they are not on the list of those endorsing the group.
Terri and I do endorse all opposition groups opposed to The Marymount Plan, Measure P, while we do continue to strongly support The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project.
Terri and I disagreed with the Appeal filed by CCC/ME and were heartened when the City Council denied that Appeal.
Ponte Vista and Eastern Rancho Palos Verdes
The news is out and about. Folks are making comments and are sharing opinions based on the newest plans and numbers for the Ponte Vista at San Pedro Development.
For those who do not already know a bit of my history with the project, here is some history, followed by some numbers, all injected with comments and opinions and facts, true facts.
Back in 2005 my wife and I first learned of Bob Bisno's plans to build 2,300 condominium units on a 61.53-acre land mass that he bought from the Federal Government at auction and purchased the rest from the Volunteers of America organization.
My wife Terri was preliminarily asked if she wanted to seek a position as part of the marketing team that was being set up in trailers on the Ponte Vista site which is along Western Avenue across the road from Green Hills Cemetary.
My wife said no thank you and I eventually became involved in a community organization that opposed Bob Bisno's plans to bring such a huge development to an area that shares a portion of its border with Rancho Palos Verdes.
I served on Los Angeles Councilwoman Janice Hahn's Community Advisory Committee for the Ponte Vista at San Pedro Development as one of three R.P.V. residents selected by our City Council to serve on the Committee and represent the interests of our city.
In September, 2006 I began my: www.pontevista.blogspot.com blog and it now is approaching 900 posts in the last four years.
Bob Bisno was booted out of the mix and he has since gone both personally bankrupt and his business has also gone bankrupt. This wasn't the first time for Bob and it probably won't be the last, I suppose.
iStar Financial and some of the 'players' from older plans for Ponte Vista finally looked and listened and suffered the economic downturns of the last several years and now they have come up with this newest plan.
The plan involves building 1,135 condominium units. None of the units are planned to be exclusively Seniors only units.
iStar Financial claims they would NOT utilize rights to build a project with a density bonus that would allow for up to 35% more units, that could bring the total number of units up to 1,532.
Councilwoman Janice Hahn called me yesterday with some of the details and she said she would try to work with staff and others to seek a way to prevent iStar Financial and any future owners of the Development from using the density bonus provisions.
I was quoted in today's South Bay Daily Breeze.
STOP THE PRESSES! I just found the first No on P mailer and I will address that in a future post!
There are still many in the community who basically demand that the Ponte Vista at San Pedro property remain with its current zoning of R1, allowing for only single-family detached housing on lots of not less than 5,000 square feet, being built.
After hearing what I feel I heard in Ms. Hahn's voice yesterday, I very highly doubt that will happen.
My current consideration about the number of units for Ponte Vista is based on the housing density at the closest large condominium development to Ponte Vista.
The Gardens sits on 80 acres of land in San Pedro and the 1,100-units there have residents who can access either Western Avenue OR Gaffey Street easily.
That would not be the same for any resident of Ponte Vista. They will only have Western Avenue to ingress and egress the Ponte Vista site.
Although I feel the owners of the land could make some profit building up to 429 houses using the existing zoning, I doubt they would and I think there is now enough time distance from the older plans and sight distance by folks hating the blight in the area, to consider more than 429 units.
Keeping to an equivalent housing density as The Gardens, I feel no more than 831-units should be built at Ponte Vista at San Pedro.
I very much doubt that my wishes will come true but I am not as opposed to 1,135 as I would be with any higher number.
I am sad that some housing specifically designed and built for seniors is not included in these new plans. All the senior housing in San Pedro is full and the third tallest building in San Pedro is a Senior Housing building.
The two sticking points I can initially see as potential real roadblocks to these newest plans are traffic and the density bonus potential.
Should the density bonus issue not get settled to where iStar Financial or any future developer/owner remain allowed to have a density bonus, that would be a sticking point that quite a bit more opposition would come with this new plan than what I would expect if the density bonus was not allowed for iStar Financial or any future developer/owner.
It is going to take some study by all sides and probably some court ruling before the new plans are brought before the Los Angeles City Council for approval, I feel.
By far for everyone, including all of us who live in the east side of Rancho Palos Verdes, the impacts on traffic along Western Avenue has been and will always be the single most important issue in determining the size, support, and opposition to anything new being built at Ponte Vista.
In the coming months during the time new traffic studies are done and a new Environmental Impact Report is prepared, I will share on my Ponte Vista blog all the information I have already gathered about traffic and all the new information that will come in.
Now that we have news about numbers of units proposed for Ponte Vista I need to remind everyone that both the original Ponte Vista at San Pedro E.I.R. and the Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project/Marymount Plan E.I.R. did not take into account the other's traffic studies and were independent of each other.
Also, since nothing was new at Ponte Vista, the Marymount E.I.R. contained no numbers or even potential numbers as to the increased number of daily trips for Ponte Vista.
On the other hand, during the time the Ponte Vista E.I.R. had its traffic studies done, they were done prior to the traffic studies for Marymount's expansion and therefore the added daily trips for Marymount were not counted in the Ponte Vista E.I.R.
With the new Ponte Vista traffic study, we should see the traffic study numbers for Marymount calculated in the new studies. This could be very important numbers for both Marymount and Ponte Vista.
What is striking for me during the last 10 years that Marymount has sought approval for its expansion and the five years since I first learned about Ponte Vista is that one entity finally listened to the community.
I found that it took many long and hard hours, many days of study, quite a few face to face meetings with community members and late evenings dealing with both Marymount and Ponte Vista to realize that the Ponte Vista developers finally look, learned, listened, and offered the community a plan that just might find ultimate passage with support from the majority of the communities nearby the site.
As I remember what I have received recently from Marymount and remembering the court cases, the anger from one City Councilman, and the quite obvious divisions growing in the Rancho Palos Verdes community, I am pleased that iStar Financial and the development team of Ponte Vista at San Pedro is working hard WITH the community and NOT AGAINST local residents like we sadly see with Measure P, The Marymount Plan.
All anyone has to do is look at the histories of both projects. One started out with a greedy developer demanding from the community something the community was not willing to give up.
The other also seems to have some greed involved but has not been willing to look towards the community and ultimately respect residents who would be so greatly impacted.
If there is any better sign of a development changing direction in a positive way compared to a development growing farther away from the community and becoming more negative on an almost daily basis, I don't know where else to look other than The Marymount Plan and its Measure P.
Dr. Brophy and the other members of the Board of Trustees of Marymount College now have a template to look at on how not working with the community can lead to bankruptcy and how working with the community AND making changes in very flawed plans, might lead to a successful Ponte Vista at San Pedro that the entire community could work to support and have a new neighborhood established that brings folks together rather than tearing them apart.
Sadly, there are lessons here that Marymount will probably ignore.
For those who do not already know a bit of my history with the project, here is some history, followed by some numbers, all injected with comments and opinions and facts, true facts.
Back in 2005 my wife and I first learned of Bob Bisno's plans to build 2,300 condominium units on a 61.53-acre land mass that he bought from the Federal Government at auction and purchased the rest from the Volunteers of America organization.
My wife Terri was preliminarily asked if she wanted to seek a position as part of the marketing team that was being set up in trailers on the Ponte Vista site which is along Western Avenue across the road from Green Hills Cemetary.
My wife said no thank you and I eventually became involved in a community organization that opposed Bob Bisno's plans to bring such a huge development to an area that shares a portion of its border with Rancho Palos Verdes.
I served on Los Angeles Councilwoman Janice Hahn's Community Advisory Committee for the Ponte Vista at San Pedro Development as one of three R.P.V. residents selected by our City Council to serve on the Committee and represent the interests of our city.
In September, 2006 I began my: www.pontevista.blogspot.com blog and it now is approaching 900 posts in the last four years.
Bob Bisno was booted out of the mix and he has since gone both personally bankrupt and his business has also gone bankrupt. This wasn't the first time for Bob and it probably won't be the last, I suppose.
iStar Financial and some of the 'players' from older plans for Ponte Vista finally looked and listened and suffered the economic downturns of the last several years and now they have come up with this newest plan.
The plan involves building 1,135 condominium units. None of the units are planned to be exclusively Seniors only units.
iStar Financial claims they would NOT utilize rights to build a project with a density bonus that would allow for up to 35% more units, that could bring the total number of units up to 1,532.
Councilwoman Janice Hahn called me yesterday with some of the details and she said she would try to work with staff and others to seek a way to prevent iStar Financial and any future owners of the Development from using the density bonus provisions.
I was quoted in today's South Bay Daily Breeze.
STOP THE PRESSES! I just found the first No on P mailer and I will address that in a future post!
There are still many in the community who basically demand that the Ponte Vista at San Pedro property remain with its current zoning of R1, allowing for only single-family detached housing on lots of not less than 5,000 square feet, being built.
After hearing what I feel I heard in Ms. Hahn's voice yesterday, I very highly doubt that will happen.
My current consideration about the number of units for Ponte Vista is based on the housing density at the closest large condominium development to Ponte Vista.
The Gardens sits on 80 acres of land in San Pedro and the 1,100-units there have residents who can access either Western Avenue OR Gaffey Street easily.
That would not be the same for any resident of Ponte Vista. They will only have Western Avenue to ingress and egress the Ponte Vista site.
Although I feel the owners of the land could make some profit building up to 429 houses using the existing zoning, I doubt they would and I think there is now enough time distance from the older plans and sight distance by folks hating the blight in the area, to consider more than 429 units.
Keeping to an equivalent housing density as The Gardens, I feel no more than 831-units should be built at Ponte Vista at San Pedro.
I very much doubt that my wishes will come true but I am not as opposed to 1,135 as I would be with any higher number.
I am sad that some housing specifically designed and built for seniors is not included in these new plans. All the senior housing in San Pedro is full and the third tallest building in San Pedro is a Senior Housing building.
The two sticking points I can initially see as potential real roadblocks to these newest plans are traffic and the density bonus potential.
Should the density bonus issue not get settled to where iStar Financial or any future developer/owner remain allowed to have a density bonus, that would be a sticking point that quite a bit more opposition would come with this new plan than what I would expect if the density bonus was not allowed for iStar Financial or any future developer/owner.
It is going to take some study by all sides and probably some court ruling before the new plans are brought before the Los Angeles City Council for approval, I feel.
By far for everyone, including all of us who live in the east side of Rancho Palos Verdes, the impacts on traffic along Western Avenue has been and will always be the single most important issue in determining the size, support, and opposition to anything new being built at Ponte Vista.
In the coming months during the time new traffic studies are done and a new Environmental Impact Report is prepared, I will share on my Ponte Vista blog all the information I have already gathered about traffic and all the new information that will come in.
Now that we have news about numbers of units proposed for Ponte Vista I need to remind everyone that both the original Ponte Vista at San Pedro E.I.R. and the Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project/Marymount Plan E.I.R. did not take into account the other's traffic studies and were independent of each other.
Also, since nothing was new at Ponte Vista, the Marymount E.I.R. contained no numbers or even potential numbers as to the increased number of daily trips for Ponte Vista.
On the other hand, during the time the Ponte Vista E.I.R. had its traffic studies done, they were done prior to the traffic studies for Marymount's expansion and therefore the added daily trips for Marymount were not counted in the Ponte Vista E.I.R.
With the new Ponte Vista traffic study, we should see the traffic study numbers for Marymount calculated in the new studies. This could be very important numbers for both Marymount and Ponte Vista.
What is striking for me during the last 10 years that Marymount has sought approval for its expansion and the five years since I first learned about Ponte Vista is that one entity finally listened to the community.
I found that it took many long and hard hours, many days of study, quite a few face to face meetings with community members and late evenings dealing with both Marymount and Ponte Vista to realize that the Ponte Vista developers finally look, learned, listened, and offered the community a plan that just might find ultimate passage with support from the majority of the communities nearby the site.
As I remember what I have received recently from Marymount and remembering the court cases, the anger from one City Councilman, and the quite obvious divisions growing in the Rancho Palos Verdes community, I am pleased that iStar Financial and the development team of Ponte Vista at San Pedro is working hard WITH the community and NOT AGAINST local residents like we sadly see with Measure P, The Marymount Plan.
All anyone has to do is look at the histories of both projects. One started out with a greedy developer demanding from the community something the community was not willing to give up.
The other also seems to have some greed involved but has not been willing to look towards the community and ultimately respect residents who would be so greatly impacted.
If there is any better sign of a development changing direction in a positive way compared to a development growing farther away from the community and becoming more negative on an almost daily basis, I don't know where else to look other than The Marymount Plan and its Measure P.
Dr. Brophy and the other members of the Board of Trustees of Marymount College now have a template to look at on how not working with the community can lead to bankruptcy and how working with the community AND making changes in very flawed plans, might lead to a successful Ponte Vista at San Pedro that the entire community could work to support and have a new neighborhood established that brings folks together rather than tearing them apart.
Sadly, there are lessons here that Marymount will probably ignore.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
VERY IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT COMING-PONTE VISTA!
FINALLY!
I just got a phone call from a very high places source that offered me a sneak preview of a press release coming out later today or very early tomorrow morning.
This is about Ponte Vista at San Pedro and I hope you will visit www.pontevista.blogspot.com by sometime tomorrow to read the press release.
I also expect the press release to be mentioned in the real press with The South Bay Daily Breeze.
Naturally I will opine on what I have recently learned and you are all wecome to offer your opinions as well.
Something new is on the table and discussions have led to new studies planned for the 61.53-acre project.
The community spoke and the backers of Ponte Vista at San Pedro have listen and are offering a much smaller development than many of us had thought they would.
Now if only a certain institution of higher learning would look and listen to what is about to come out, perhaps they will finally understand that listening to all of the community creates opportunities to finally go forward.
I just got a phone call from a very high places source that offered me a sneak preview of a press release coming out later today or very early tomorrow morning.
This is about Ponte Vista at San Pedro and I hope you will visit www.pontevista.blogspot.com by sometime tomorrow to read the press release.
I also expect the press release to be mentioned in the real press with The South Bay Daily Breeze.
Naturally I will opine on what I have recently learned and you are all wecome to offer your opinions as well.
Something new is on the table and discussions have led to new studies planned for the 61.53-acre project.
The community spoke and the backers of Ponte Vista at San Pedro have listen and are offering a much smaller development than many of us had thought they would.
Now if only a certain institution of higher learning would look and listen to what is about to come out, perhaps they will finally understand that listening to all of the community creates opportunities to finally go forward.
Councilman Misetich's Statement
Rancho Palos Verdes City Councilman Anthony Misetich delivered statements during the September 21 meeting of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council concerning an advertisement paid for by Marymount College and he also provided some other comments.
Here is Councilman Misetich's statement:
"Last Thursday September 16th, voters in Rancho Palos Verdes received a mailer and an ad in the PV News that implied that I- Councilman Anthony Misetich am in support of Marymount’s Measure P. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I was shocked that Marymount had hijacked my comments that were made during a discussion regarding a completely unrelated matter. Those comments were in reference to the contrast between the city of Rancho Palos Verdes electorate being an engaged electorate and the electorate of another city not being as engaged in their civic affairs. Marymount never asked for my permission to use my comments in their materials, but rather chose to manipulate my comments to suit their own purposes. In my opinion, this is deceptive and unethical conduct by Marymount College.
For the record, I oppose measure P. I along with my council colleagues voted to oppose the Marymount Initiative. I along with Councilman Stern wrote the City Council resolution against the Marymount Initiative. Additionally, I was one of the authors of the argument against the Initiative. For that action, I was sued along with my colleagues by Dr. Michael Brophy, President of Marymount College. Dr. Brophy lost that suit, in court on September 3rd, where the Judge in the case ruled that his lawsuit against the city council was in effect trying to censor political speech. In another lawsuit, that same judge found that the Marymount rebuttal argument was misleading.
For the last three months, Marymount has been sitting upon a modernization plan that was approved by this city council, with two slight modifications; the athletic building was reduced in height by 10 feet in order to preserve views, and the athletic field was moved 60 feet farther away from PVDE to create a buffer. This was very similar to an alternative option for the field proposed by Marymount. In fact, Marymount could start putting shovels in the ground tomorrow if they wanted to start their expansion plans. This initiative is completely unnecessary.
What the Initiative is really about is Marymount’s plan to add two high density dormitories in one of our single family residential neighborhoods. Marymount chose not to ask the City Council to consider or even evaluate Dormitories. Instead, Marymount chose to qualify an initiative to create its own special district; to become a land use island unto itself with special provisions to eliminate important city oversight as an end run around the City’s processes.
The city council voted unanimously to oppose the Initiative. Since then, Mayor Wolowicz, Councilman Campbell and I have had false criminal accusations manufactured against us by Marymount; the entire council has been sued by the President of Marymount College, as I previously mentioned, for writing a ballot argument –in essence for exercising our first amendment rights. And they are now using my name and comments without my permission to intentionally mislead voters.
Why would Marymount use these false and misleading tactics? I believe it is because the city council took the wind out of their sails when we gave them the expansion plan that they asked for. Now they have to create a straw man; a bad guy, to fire up voters to support their Initiative. That bad guy is the city and the city council of Rancho Palos Verdes. Furthermore, they were deceptive by not presenting the dorms to the council but instead embedded the dorms in the initiative.
Finally, I feel that it is sad that a Catholic liberal arts college would use tactics like manufacturing criminal accusations against council members, and use innuendos, half-truths, and intimidation. These aren’t the tactics of a college that teaches its students to seek the truth, but rather are the tactics that were employed by Totalitarian regimes during the 1930’s. So much for Marymount’s pledge to take the High road in this election.
Mr. Mayor, I will be sending a letter to Marymount asking the College to formally retract the use of my name without my permission in its misleading mailer and in the Ad in the PV News and for a written apology. "
Here is Councilman Misetich's statement:
"Last Thursday September 16th, voters in Rancho Palos Verdes received a mailer and an ad in the PV News that implied that I- Councilman Anthony Misetich am in support of Marymount’s Measure P. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I was shocked that Marymount had hijacked my comments that were made during a discussion regarding a completely unrelated matter. Those comments were in reference to the contrast between the city of Rancho Palos Verdes electorate being an engaged electorate and the electorate of another city not being as engaged in their civic affairs. Marymount never asked for my permission to use my comments in their materials, but rather chose to manipulate my comments to suit their own purposes. In my opinion, this is deceptive and unethical conduct by Marymount College.
For the record, I oppose measure P. I along with my council colleagues voted to oppose the Marymount Initiative. I along with Councilman Stern wrote the City Council resolution against the Marymount Initiative. Additionally, I was one of the authors of the argument against the Initiative. For that action, I was sued along with my colleagues by Dr. Michael Brophy, President of Marymount College. Dr. Brophy lost that suit, in court on September 3rd, where the Judge in the case ruled that his lawsuit against the city council was in effect trying to censor political speech. In another lawsuit, that same judge found that the Marymount rebuttal argument was misleading.
For the last three months, Marymount has been sitting upon a modernization plan that was approved by this city council, with two slight modifications; the athletic building was reduced in height by 10 feet in order to preserve views, and the athletic field was moved 60 feet farther away from PVDE to create a buffer. This was very similar to an alternative option for the field proposed by Marymount. In fact, Marymount could start putting shovels in the ground tomorrow if they wanted to start their expansion plans. This initiative is completely unnecessary.
What the Initiative is really about is Marymount’s plan to add two high density dormitories in one of our single family residential neighborhoods. Marymount chose not to ask the City Council to consider or even evaluate Dormitories. Instead, Marymount chose to qualify an initiative to create its own special district; to become a land use island unto itself with special provisions to eliminate important city oversight as an end run around the City’s processes.
The city council voted unanimously to oppose the Initiative. Since then, Mayor Wolowicz, Councilman Campbell and I have had false criminal accusations manufactured against us by Marymount; the entire council has been sued by the President of Marymount College, as I previously mentioned, for writing a ballot argument –in essence for exercising our first amendment rights. And they are now using my name and comments without my permission to intentionally mislead voters.
Why would Marymount use these false and misleading tactics? I believe it is because the city council took the wind out of their sails when we gave them the expansion plan that they asked for. Now they have to create a straw man; a bad guy, to fire up voters to support their Initiative. That bad guy is the city and the city council of Rancho Palos Verdes. Furthermore, they were deceptive by not presenting the dorms to the council but instead embedded the dorms in the initiative.
Finally, I feel that it is sad that a Catholic liberal arts college would use tactics like manufacturing criminal accusations against council members, and use innuendos, half-truths, and intimidation. These aren’t the tactics of a college that teaches its students to seek the truth, but rather are the tactics that were employed by Totalitarian regimes during the 1930’s. So much for Marymount’s pledge to take the High road in this election.
Mr. Mayor, I will be sending a letter to Marymount asking the College to formally retract the use of my name without my permission in its misleading mailer and in the Ad in the PV News and for a written apology. "
Today, New Facts, No Personal Attacks From Me, And More!
Well, did you enjoy reading the names of those listed as supporting Measure P, The Marymount Plan in today's Palos Verdes Peninsula News?
Here's a fact- not an attack- on one person listed as a supporter.
Background- I served as one of the Rancho Palos Verdes representatives on L.A. Councilwoman Janice Hahn' Community Advisory Committee for Ponte Vista at San Pedro.
I resigned from that position after accepting a membership on the Rancho Palos Verdes Traffic Commission. However, I attended every single meeting of the Advisory Committee even though I was no longer a member of it in its last two months of active duties.
During Committee meetings, members of the public were welcome to provide comments and we didn't hold to many time limits like our City Council meetings have.
Now here is the fact; Ms. Linda D' Ambrosi, a resident of Rancho Palos Verdes provided comments during at least one meeting. At one of the meetings Ms. D'Ambrosi stated:
"Bob Bisno is going to save San Pedro!"
I believe that some might take my account of a factual event as an attack on a supporter of Measure P. That would be wrong. I am simply using this as an example as to how some might take facts and charge them as being attacks.
-------------------------------------------------------------
In Ms. Ashley Ratcliff's article aslo in the same edition as the two page advertisement, she wrote about Mr. Steve Kuykendall's opinions about Measure P, The Marymount Plan being a partisan issue.
So, let me provide you with some facts, Mr. Kuykendall and others.
I am one of the most far to the left progressives in Rancho Palos Verdes.
I have never voted for a Republican candidate in a partisan vote and I probably never will.
I stand shoulder to shoulder, toe to toe with some of the most conservative Republicans on The Hill in opposition to Measure P, The Marymount Plan.
No, Mr. Kuykendall and others, Measure P is not a Republican or a Democratic vote, it is a vote by the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes, no matter what political party they support or oppose.
---------------------------------------------------------------
I wonder how many folks named in the ad today are truly residents of Rancho Palos Verdes?
What might it say when a business has to spend money providing today, a two page advertisement for a measure that will only benefit that business?
What impact might opposition to Measure P have when the Yes on P campaign has to spend so much money attempting to attract more support?
--------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't see the names of the two former Mayors of Rancho Palos Verdes that support Measure P on the full page ad ("partial listing") of supporters.
I doubt two prominent members of the community would be left off the list unless they no longer lived in Rancho Palos Verdes or they have future aspirations for elected office in Rancho Palos Verdes.
I was also wondering if the list contains most of the names of residents or non residents who have no plans on running for elective office in Rancho Palos Verdes.
*Note* I have already stated in at least one previous post that I do not consider myself qualified for any elected office in Rancho Palos Verdes.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Also in today's paper were more than one 'real' letters to the editor from opponents of Measure P, The Marymount Plan.
There was another letter from a person that seem pleased about an upcoming vote but I could not tell if that person was pleased about the residents' vote on Measure P or the vote for the City becoming a Charter City, next year.
I think the person might have written about the November 2 Special Election, but he didn't cite any particular measure or proposition.
-------------------------------------------------------------
It seems that both the Measure P folks and the opposition folks listed folks on lists that really did not like having their names on lists they didn't want to be on.
Both sides claimed these were innocent errors. I hope both sides begin using a followup call to every person they want on their respective lists before they add them.
If a name of an opponent appears on Page 9 of today's paper, do you think the Measure P campaign would spend money on a retraction ad? I highly doubt it.
I hope both sides ask for and receive approval for names to be posted in advertisements.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Just one more fact before the end of this posting:
Bob Bisno is NOT going to save San Pedro!
Here's a fact- not an attack- on one person listed as a supporter.
Background- I served as one of the Rancho Palos Verdes representatives on L.A. Councilwoman Janice Hahn' Community Advisory Committee for Ponte Vista at San Pedro.
I resigned from that position after accepting a membership on the Rancho Palos Verdes Traffic Commission. However, I attended every single meeting of the Advisory Committee even though I was no longer a member of it in its last two months of active duties.
During Committee meetings, members of the public were welcome to provide comments and we didn't hold to many time limits like our City Council meetings have.
Now here is the fact; Ms. Linda D' Ambrosi, a resident of Rancho Palos Verdes provided comments during at least one meeting. At one of the meetings Ms. D'Ambrosi stated:
"Bob Bisno is going to save San Pedro!"
I believe that some might take my account of a factual event as an attack on a supporter of Measure P. That would be wrong. I am simply using this as an example as to how some might take facts and charge them as being attacks.
-------------------------------------------------------------
In Ms. Ashley Ratcliff's article aslo in the same edition as the two page advertisement, she wrote about Mr. Steve Kuykendall's opinions about Measure P, The Marymount Plan being a partisan issue.
So, let me provide you with some facts, Mr. Kuykendall and others.
I am one of the most far to the left progressives in Rancho Palos Verdes.
I have never voted for a Republican candidate in a partisan vote and I probably never will.
I stand shoulder to shoulder, toe to toe with some of the most conservative Republicans on The Hill in opposition to Measure P, The Marymount Plan.
No, Mr. Kuykendall and others, Measure P is not a Republican or a Democratic vote, it is a vote by the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes, no matter what political party they support or oppose.
---------------------------------------------------------------
I wonder how many folks named in the ad today are truly residents of Rancho Palos Verdes?
What might it say when a business has to spend money providing today, a two page advertisement for a measure that will only benefit that business?
What impact might opposition to Measure P have when the Yes on P campaign has to spend so much money attempting to attract more support?
--------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't see the names of the two former Mayors of Rancho Palos Verdes that support Measure P on the full page ad ("partial listing") of supporters.
I doubt two prominent members of the community would be left off the list unless they no longer lived in Rancho Palos Verdes or they have future aspirations for elected office in Rancho Palos Verdes.
I was also wondering if the list contains most of the names of residents or non residents who have no plans on running for elective office in Rancho Palos Verdes.
*Note* I have already stated in at least one previous post that I do not consider myself qualified for any elected office in Rancho Palos Verdes.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Also in today's paper were more than one 'real' letters to the editor from opponents of Measure P, The Marymount Plan.
There was another letter from a person that seem pleased about an upcoming vote but I could not tell if that person was pleased about the residents' vote on Measure P or the vote for the City becoming a Charter City, next year.
I think the person might have written about the November 2 Special Election, but he didn't cite any particular measure or proposition.
-------------------------------------------------------------
It seems that both the Measure P folks and the opposition folks listed folks on lists that really did not like having their names on lists they didn't want to be on.
Both sides claimed these were innocent errors. I hope both sides begin using a followup call to every person they want on their respective lists before they add them.
If a name of an opponent appears on Page 9 of today's paper, do you think the Measure P campaign would spend money on a retraction ad? I highly doubt it.
I hope both sides ask for and receive approval for names to be posted in advertisements.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Just one more fact before the end of this posting:
Bob Bisno is NOT going to save San Pedro!
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Mr. Burt Martin Arnold
Mr. Burt M. Arnold is the Chair of the Marymount College Board of Trustees.
Mr. Arnold is the President of Burt M Arnold Securities, Inc. located in Rolling Hills Estates, California.
If you wish to read Mr. Arnold's biography as it is written on a Marymount College site, please feel free and welcome to do so.
Here is information from the National Futures Association related to Burt Martin Arnold Securities, Inc.:
Narrative for 0404300 - BURT MARTIN ARNOLD SECURITIES INC
Notice of Intent to Deny Registration:
http://www.nfa.futures.org/basicnet/CaseDocument.aspx?seqnum=1986
On July 20, 2009, NFA's President issued a Notice of Intent to Deny Registration to Burt Martin Arnold Securities, Inc. The Notice of Intent alleges that BMAS is disqualified from registration under Section 8a(3)(N) of the Commodity Exchange Act. To view the Notice of Intent, go to Case Documents. To obtain a copy, contact NFA's Information Center.
Response to Notice of Intent:
http://www.nfa.futures.org/basicnet/CaseDocument.aspx?seqnum=2047
On August 10, 2009, BMAS filed its Response to the Notice of Intent in which the firm denies that it is disqualified from registration. To view the Response, go to Case Documents. To obtain a copy, contact NFA's Information Center.
Final Order Conditioning Registration:
http://www.nfa.futures.org/basicnet/CaseDocument.aspx?seqnum=2223
On December 21, 2009, a Subcommittee of NFA's Membership Committee issued a Final Order Conditioning Registration to BMAS after a hearing was held. The Final Order becomes effective on January 20, 2010. To view the Final Order, go to Case Documents. To obtain a copy, contact NFA's Information Center.
On June 25, 2010, a lawsuit was filed in West Texas District Court (Federal Court) and Burt Martin Arnold Securities, Inc. was named as one of the Defendants in the case of: Bramante v. McClain
The cause in the court case was listed as: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txwdce/5:2010cv00534/434876/
NOTE TO READERS
I originally published this post prior to looking at my incoming mail.
Today I received an unsolicited mailer from Marymount basically coutaining a letter from Burt Arnold, Chairman of the Board of Trustees, Marymount College.
I am going to now address some of the points brought up in Mr. Arnold's mailer which seems to appear that we are viewing a copy of a letter to the editor.
I fully expect to see this letter in tomorrow's Palos Verdes Peninsula News and South Bay Daily Breeze. I am quite sure if the letter appears tomorrow, the following Thursday's Palos Verdes Peninsula News will contain letters from opponents of The Marymount Plan.
As I have done in the past, I will use quotes on writing from Mr. Arnold's letter followed by my comments in another font color.
Some of what Mr. Arnold wrote, I do not dispute. But as usual, there are factual errors and statements that can be read as being misleading and I will do my very best to offer the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
"An element of this plan, dormitories, was approved by the City in the late 1970's. In fact, a current opponent of The Marymount Plan (Measure P) was formerly a City Councilmember and Mayor When the city approved the dormitories at that time!"
In fact, Councilmember and then Mayor Dyda had absolutely nothing to do with approving dormitories in the 1970's as it fell on the Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission at that time, to approve or oppose dormitories.
In fact, the dormitories approved by the Planning Commission allowed for up to 200 students during a time that the College had far fewer students attending it than it does now.
In fact, it appears as if Mr. Arnold is suggesting that Mayor Ken Dyda was involved in the approval process for dormitories which is a factual error and is possibly an attempt to mislead voters in a deceptive manner.
In fact and as the Chairman of the Marymount College Board of Trustees, it is the responsibility of Mr. Arnold, I strongly believe, to hold to the highest standards of honesty, forthrightness, and truthfulness.
"A key element of this plan-- the dormitories--was voted down by a straw poll vote by the City's Planning Commission following intense pressure by a small group of local activists. What survived of the plan was further dramatically changed by the City Council when the Planning Commission's approval was appealed by a strident opponent."
Mr. Arnold, now really! It should have been your responsibility to inform everyone, as Chairman, that the straw poll was requested by Dr. Michael Brophy, President of Marymount College and if you and your Board are as engaged as you may claim, Dr. Brophy may have requested the vote on a recommendation from you and the other members of the Board.
Also as you should know, dormitories were pulled from consideration at the Planning Commission level voluntarily by Marymount College, something you may have had some responsibility for.
With at least one letter to the members of the Planning Commission, Marymount's Attorney notified the members that dormitories were no longer being considered before the Planning Commission and that Marymount officials took the dormitories away and did not bring them back up before the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council when Marymount HAD EVERY RIGHT TO DO SO!
Your contention that the changes made between what the Planning Commission sent to the City Council and what was eventually approved as The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project was "dramatic" is OUTRAGEOUS!
Sir, how is moving the athletic field 60 feet to the west and lowering the overall height of the gymnasium roof by ten feet, "dramatic"?
Mr. Arnold, you know and you haven't revealed that every single other element of The Marymount Plan that was approved under The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, other than the two items I mentioned and the addition of a center median barrier on Palos Verdes Drive East, are EXACTLY THE SAME!.
Why Mr. Arnold, have you allowed in your capacity as Chairman of the Board of Trustees, to have mention of elements of the already approved Project as part of The Marymount Plan without revealing that they have already been approved?
Many individuals have called upon you to notify potential voters that almost every element of The Marymount Plan can be enacted without approval of Measure P.
"Our Board of Trustees has brought our facilities plan to the voters for approval because of the changes made by the Planning Commission and the City Council and because of the ten years of "process" we have endured."
Mr. Burt M. Arnold, that last statement is misleading and you know it. Your Board is going to voters because Marymount officials voluntarily removed dormitories from consideration by the Planning Commission and there are two elements of The Marymount Plan and Measure P that are different from The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project and I will assert to you and everyone else that those two reasons are the only reasons you are spending the money taking The Marymount Plan to voters.
On-campus student housing is the only element listed in advertisements not already approved for construction.
Since this is a documented fact in advertisements paid for by Marymount, and when you claim that the Planning Commission made the changes, you are misrepresenting the true facts.
No matter what you or your attorney claim, dormitories were removed from consideration by representatives of Marymount College and NOT by members of The Planning Commission, prior to more discussions or a vote on that element.
The Campus Specific Plan is the instrument sought to have the dorms constructed and as a judge has recently found, would supersede municipal code.
To more learned opponents of Measure P than I am, the Campus Specific Plan is a land use issue and they argue strongly that should Measure P pass, the representatives of the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes, the City Council, would have little if any authority or jurisdiction in land use matters at Marymount and a high density housing project would be built in a low density neighborhood.
It is the Campus Specific Plan, which is never mentioned in any ads by Marymount that is the instrument that could allow private entities building the dormitories at no cost to Marymount, maintain and operate them and also provide income to Marymount College.
In addition, the Campus Specific Plan could allow for that private entity to be responsible for the conduct students and staffing of managers of the dormitories and that could make moot the Marymount Code of Conduct.
Furthermore Mr. Arnold, as you are aware language contained in the Campus Specific Plan may allow Marymount College to rent out or otherwise offer elements of its campus to third party entities which could organize and offer all means of entertainment, sporting activities, residential summer programs, and a wide variety of non-academic events that would also bring added income to Marymount College.
Since the Campus Specific Plan has very specific language mitigating what city authorities could and could not do respective of events and elements on the Marymount campus, what many opponents believe is that Marymount College, is a private business seeks to circumvent established codes and guidelines other businesses are required to follow and all residents must adhere to.
No Mr. Arnold, the real reasons Measure P is on the ballot is because of the Campus Specific Plan and an opportunity to construct dorms, something Marymount voluntarily pulled from consideration even after almost 10 years of trying.
"The City Council reviewed this plan and after 4,000 Rancho Palos Verdes residents brought it to them for a decision: approve this plan or place it on the ballot."
The statement above contains a factual error. The City Council never debated or discussed any on-campus student housing being built at Marymount because Marymount representatives did bring to the City Council any request to have dormitories considered. I was there, you weren't, Mr. Arnold.
The City Council was never asked to review, discuss, or debate The Marymount Plan because they were never presented it. They never voted up or down on the Campus Specific Plan or dormitories, both elements of The Marymount Plan.
When Mr. Arnold stated that "The City Council reviewed this plan..." they did not. What they did was get presented with The Marymount Plan and they were only legally allowed to either accept it as brought to them without further review, or call for a vote of the people.
"The College even volunteered to reimburse the City for the cost of the election and we are now being smeared for this act of generosity with the claim that we are somehow unduly trying to influence the electoral process."
Taxpayer funds are normally used for elections. Almost every ad for The Marymount Plan touts that is would be done "at no taxpayer expense".
Had I not brought that to the attention of Dr. Brophy personally, while he was standing next to Attorney, Mr. Don Davis, I am pretty sure that taxpayers would be footing the entire bill for the election, something The Marymount Plan, by its own election, would cost taxpayers.
But why stop with that fact, Mr Arnold. Are you going to claim that should Meaure P pass and The Marymount Plan begins that Marymount will pay the entire costs of the four traffic mitigation elements? Are you going to state that those mitigation elements would be stricken from The Marymount Plan, once approved?
Dr. Brophy and the Chairman of the Board of Trustees have known that Marymount College will be charged "their fair share" for traffic mitigation in the three initial mitigation elements plus they have volunteered to help pay for a fourth mitigation, the center median barrier.
But even after Marymount's "fair share" or contributions, the remaining costs of the four traffic mitigation elements still require funding.
How else would funding be provided if it didn't come from taxpayer funds? The answer is that taxpayer funds must be used for both The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project and The Marymount Plan (Measure P).
How do I know this is true? Not a single representative of Marymount College has informed me that this is not true. I have never how the four elements could be completed without taxpayer funds. Marymount has been silent in this regard and Mr. Arnold as Chairman of the Board of Trustees knows this yet still refuses to address this issue.
Taxpayer funds will more than likely be required with The Marymount Plan as they are required with The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project.
There is little generosity, in my opinion, to being caught with your pants down and finding a way to pull them back up. The generosity is from me in notifying Dr. Brophy and sir, you are welcome.
"The College has not and will not make personal attacks on community members and elected officials and we ask those individuals that are attacking the College and its Christian mission to stop.
"So it seems that our five City Council members and Ms. Morreale and Mr. Logan should not take it personally when they are sued by Dr. Brophy, President of Marymount College.
When misinformation, deceptive writings, false and misleading language is used, how can many not take it personally that it seems they are considered to have less intelligence than those producing the false and misleading misinformation.
The type of ads and the campaigning being done under Mr. Arnold's authority as Chairman of the Board of Trustees is a type that does not want voters to know the truth, the WHOLE truth and nothing but the truth.
When advertisements state elements needing approval by voters so they can be built when they have already been approved for construction, what does that really say about how Marymount is treating our city's voters?
When an add seems to suggest that Councilman Misetich supports something he clearly does not AND Marymount representatives fail to acknowledge that and correct their deliberate errors, that says quite a bit about an entity Mr. Arnold is deeply involved with, doesn't it?
HOW DARE YOU place into your letter any reference to any religious mission when a judge has called upon Marymount to stop what it has been doing, yet it still continues to do it. There is absolutely nothing religious about placing dorms on campus or having the Campus Specific Plan voted on.
I have no need or wish to attack a religion I am not a member of and there is no defense for using any religion as a means to attract more voters to your cause.
Mr. Arnold, I oppose on-campus student housing because of safety reasons. I have written quite a bit about my issues and I have called on anyone, anywhere, at any time to debate me on the safety issues that I can not find mitigation for.
Had Dr. Brophy held to the 'high road' as he promised the City Council members and the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes he would do, then I am sure I would not be writing as much or with as much information as I am doing now.
As Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Marymount College I call upon you to either remove Dr. Brophy from his position or change the direction of the campaign and offer only the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
I also call upon all members of the Board of Trustees to follow a higher path to enlighten voters about the two real reasons Measure P is on the ballot.
Everyone can read my assertions and the facts and comment on them at will.
As for attacking me, please read the post in my blog where I lay out my life and reveal just about everything there is to know about me, good and bad. I have already done all the attacking of me.
Mr. Arnold, I do not personally know you and so personally attacking you is not something I could or would do.
I will continue to comment, inform, and attack if necessary, your position as Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Marymount College, because of the entirety of the campaign since mid-2009 and the many problems I see with misinformation, false and misleading statements and deceptive practicies I believe any securities dealer would run away from in a heartbeat.
Mr. Arnold is the President of Burt M Arnold Securities, Inc. located in Rolling Hills Estates, California.
If you wish to read Mr. Arnold's biography as it is written on a Marymount College site, please feel free and welcome to do so.
Here is information from the National Futures Association related to Burt Martin Arnold Securities, Inc.:
Narrative for 0404300 - BURT MARTIN ARNOLD SECURITIES INC
Notice of Intent to Deny Registration:
http://www.nfa.futures.org/basicnet/CaseDocument.aspx?seqnum=1986
On July 20, 2009, NFA's President issued a Notice of Intent to Deny Registration to Burt Martin Arnold Securities, Inc. The Notice of Intent alleges that BMAS is disqualified from registration under Section 8a(3)(N) of the Commodity Exchange Act. To view the Notice of Intent, go to Case Documents. To obtain a copy, contact NFA's Information Center.
Response to Notice of Intent:
http://www.nfa.futures.org/basicnet/CaseDocument.aspx?seqnum=2047
On August 10, 2009, BMAS filed its Response to the Notice of Intent in which the firm denies that it is disqualified from registration. To view the Response, go to Case Documents. To obtain a copy, contact NFA's Information Center.
Final Order Conditioning Registration:
http://www.nfa.futures.org/basicnet/CaseDocument.aspx?seqnum=2223
On December 21, 2009, a Subcommittee of NFA's Membership Committee issued a Final Order Conditioning Registration to BMAS after a hearing was held. The Final Order becomes effective on January 20, 2010. To view the Final Order, go to Case Documents. To obtain a copy, contact NFA's Information Center.
On June 25, 2010, a lawsuit was filed in West Texas District Court (Federal Court) and Burt Martin Arnold Securities, Inc. was named as one of the Defendants in the case of: Bramante v. McClain
The cause in the court case was listed as: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txwdce/5:2010cv00534/434876/
NOTE TO READERS
I originally published this post prior to looking at my incoming mail.
Today I received an unsolicited mailer from Marymount basically coutaining a letter from Burt Arnold, Chairman of the Board of Trustees, Marymount College.
I am going to now address some of the points brought up in Mr. Arnold's mailer which seems to appear that we are viewing a copy of a letter to the editor.
I fully expect to see this letter in tomorrow's Palos Verdes Peninsula News and South Bay Daily Breeze. I am quite sure if the letter appears tomorrow, the following Thursday's Palos Verdes Peninsula News will contain letters from opponents of The Marymount Plan.
As I have done in the past, I will use quotes on writing from Mr. Arnold's letter followed by my comments in another font color.
Some of what Mr. Arnold wrote, I do not dispute. But as usual, there are factual errors and statements that can be read as being misleading and I will do my very best to offer the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
"An element of this plan, dormitories, was approved by the City in the late 1970's. In fact, a current opponent of The Marymount Plan (Measure P) was formerly a City Councilmember and Mayor When the city approved the dormitories at that time!"
In fact, Councilmember and then Mayor Dyda had absolutely nothing to do with approving dormitories in the 1970's as it fell on the Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission at that time, to approve or oppose dormitories.
In fact, the dormitories approved by the Planning Commission allowed for up to 200 students during a time that the College had far fewer students attending it than it does now.
In fact, it appears as if Mr. Arnold is suggesting that Mayor Ken Dyda was involved in the approval process for dormitories which is a factual error and is possibly an attempt to mislead voters in a deceptive manner.
In fact and as the Chairman of the Marymount College Board of Trustees, it is the responsibility of Mr. Arnold, I strongly believe, to hold to the highest standards of honesty, forthrightness, and truthfulness.
"A key element of this plan-- the dormitories--was voted down by a straw poll vote by the City's Planning Commission following intense pressure by a small group of local activists. What survived of the plan was further dramatically changed by the City Council when the Planning Commission's approval was appealed by a strident opponent."
Mr. Arnold, now really! It should have been your responsibility to inform everyone, as Chairman, that the straw poll was requested by Dr. Michael Brophy, President of Marymount College and if you and your Board are as engaged as you may claim, Dr. Brophy may have requested the vote on a recommendation from you and the other members of the Board.
Also as you should know, dormitories were pulled from consideration at the Planning Commission level voluntarily by Marymount College, something you may have had some responsibility for.
With at least one letter to the members of the Planning Commission, Marymount's Attorney notified the members that dormitories were no longer being considered before the Planning Commission and that Marymount officials took the dormitories away and did not bring them back up before the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council when Marymount HAD EVERY RIGHT TO DO SO!
Your contention that the changes made between what the Planning Commission sent to the City Council and what was eventually approved as The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project was "dramatic" is OUTRAGEOUS!
Sir, how is moving the athletic field 60 feet to the west and lowering the overall height of the gymnasium roof by ten feet, "dramatic"?
Mr. Arnold, you know and you haven't revealed that every single other element of The Marymount Plan that was approved under The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, other than the two items I mentioned and the addition of a center median barrier on Palos Verdes Drive East, are EXACTLY THE SAME!.
Why Mr. Arnold, have you allowed in your capacity as Chairman of the Board of Trustees, to have mention of elements of the already approved Project as part of The Marymount Plan without revealing that they have already been approved?
Many individuals have called upon you to notify potential voters that almost every element of The Marymount Plan can be enacted without approval of Measure P.
"Our Board of Trustees has brought our facilities plan to the voters for approval because of the changes made by the Planning Commission and the City Council and because of the ten years of "process" we have endured."
Mr. Burt M. Arnold, that last statement is misleading and you know it. Your Board is going to voters because Marymount officials voluntarily removed dormitories from consideration by the Planning Commission and there are two elements of The Marymount Plan and Measure P that are different from The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project and I will assert to you and everyone else that those two reasons are the only reasons you are spending the money taking The Marymount Plan to voters.
On-campus student housing is the only element listed in advertisements not already approved for construction.
Since this is a documented fact in advertisements paid for by Marymount, and when you claim that the Planning Commission made the changes, you are misrepresenting the true facts.
No matter what you or your attorney claim, dormitories were removed from consideration by representatives of Marymount College and NOT by members of The Planning Commission, prior to more discussions or a vote on that element.
The Campus Specific Plan is the instrument sought to have the dorms constructed and as a judge has recently found, would supersede municipal code.
To more learned opponents of Measure P than I am, the Campus Specific Plan is a land use issue and they argue strongly that should Measure P pass, the representatives of the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes, the City Council, would have little if any authority or jurisdiction in land use matters at Marymount and a high density housing project would be built in a low density neighborhood.
It is the Campus Specific Plan, which is never mentioned in any ads by Marymount that is the instrument that could allow private entities building the dormitories at no cost to Marymount, maintain and operate them and also provide income to Marymount College.
In addition, the Campus Specific Plan could allow for that private entity to be responsible for the conduct students and staffing of managers of the dormitories and that could make moot the Marymount Code of Conduct.
Furthermore Mr. Arnold, as you are aware language contained in the Campus Specific Plan may allow Marymount College to rent out or otherwise offer elements of its campus to third party entities which could organize and offer all means of entertainment, sporting activities, residential summer programs, and a wide variety of non-academic events that would also bring added income to Marymount College.
Since the Campus Specific Plan has very specific language mitigating what city authorities could and could not do respective of events and elements on the Marymount campus, what many opponents believe is that Marymount College, is a private business seeks to circumvent established codes and guidelines other businesses are required to follow and all residents must adhere to.
No Mr. Arnold, the real reasons Measure P is on the ballot is because of the Campus Specific Plan and an opportunity to construct dorms, something Marymount voluntarily pulled from consideration even after almost 10 years of trying.
"The City Council reviewed this plan and after 4,000 Rancho Palos Verdes residents brought it to them for a decision: approve this plan or place it on the ballot."
The statement above contains a factual error. The City Council never debated or discussed any on-campus student housing being built at Marymount because Marymount representatives did bring to the City Council any request to have dormitories considered. I was there, you weren't, Mr. Arnold.
The City Council was never asked to review, discuss, or debate The Marymount Plan because they were never presented it. They never voted up or down on the Campus Specific Plan or dormitories, both elements of The Marymount Plan.
When Mr. Arnold stated that "The City Council reviewed this plan..." they did not. What they did was get presented with The Marymount Plan and they were only legally allowed to either accept it as brought to them without further review, or call for a vote of the people.
"The College even volunteered to reimburse the City for the cost of the election and we are now being smeared for this act of generosity with the claim that we are somehow unduly trying to influence the electoral process."
Taxpayer funds are normally used for elections. Almost every ad for The Marymount Plan touts that is would be done "at no taxpayer expense".
Had I not brought that to the attention of Dr. Brophy personally, while he was standing next to Attorney, Mr. Don Davis, I am pretty sure that taxpayers would be footing the entire bill for the election, something The Marymount Plan, by its own election, would cost taxpayers.
But why stop with that fact, Mr Arnold. Are you going to claim that should Meaure P pass and The Marymount Plan begins that Marymount will pay the entire costs of the four traffic mitigation elements? Are you going to state that those mitigation elements would be stricken from The Marymount Plan, once approved?
Dr. Brophy and the Chairman of the Board of Trustees have known that Marymount College will be charged "their fair share" for traffic mitigation in the three initial mitigation elements plus they have volunteered to help pay for a fourth mitigation, the center median barrier.
But even after Marymount's "fair share" or contributions, the remaining costs of the four traffic mitigation elements still require funding.
How else would funding be provided if it didn't come from taxpayer funds? The answer is that taxpayer funds must be used for both The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project and The Marymount Plan (Measure P).
How do I know this is true? Not a single representative of Marymount College has informed me that this is not true. I have never how the four elements could be completed without taxpayer funds. Marymount has been silent in this regard and Mr. Arnold as Chairman of the Board of Trustees knows this yet still refuses to address this issue.
Taxpayer funds will more than likely be required with The Marymount Plan as they are required with The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project.
There is little generosity, in my opinion, to being caught with your pants down and finding a way to pull them back up. The generosity is from me in notifying Dr. Brophy and sir, you are welcome.
"The College has not and will not make personal attacks on community members and elected officials and we ask those individuals that are attacking the College and its Christian mission to stop.
"So it seems that our five City Council members and Ms. Morreale and Mr. Logan should not take it personally when they are sued by Dr. Brophy, President of Marymount College.
When misinformation, deceptive writings, false and misleading language is used, how can many not take it personally that it seems they are considered to have less intelligence than those producing the false and misleading misinformation.
The type of ads and the campaigning being done under Mr. Arnold's authority as Chairman of the Board of Trustees is a type that does not want voters to know the truth, the WHOLE truth and nothing but the truth.
When advertisements state elements needing approval by voters so they can be built when they have already been approved for construction, what does that really say about how Marymount is treating our city's voters?
When an add seems to suggest that Councilman Misetich supports something he clearly does not AND Marymount representatives fail to acknowledge that and correct their deliberate errors, that says quite a bit about an entity Mr. Arnold is deeply involved with, doesn't it?
HOW DARE YOU place into your letter any reference to any religious mission when a judge has called upon Marymount to stop what it has been doing, yet it still continues to do it. There is absolutely nothing religious about placing dorms on campus or having the Campus Specific Plan voted on.
I have no need or wish to attack a religion I am not a member of and there is no defense for using any religion as a means to attract more voters to your cause.
Mr. Arnold, I oppose on-campus student housing because of safety reasons. I have written quite a bit about my issues and I have called on anyone, anywhere, at any time to debate me on the safety issues that I can not find mitigation for.
Had Dr. Brophy held to the 'high road' as he promised the City Council members and the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes he would do, then I am sure I would not be writing as much or with as much information as I am doing now.
As Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Marymount College I call upon you to either remove Dr. Brophy from his position or change the direction of the campaign and offer only the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
I also call upon all members of the Board of Trustees to follow a higher path to enlighten voters about the two real reasons Measure P is on the ballot.
Everyone can read my assertions and the facts and comment on them at will.
As for attacking me, please read the post in my blog where I lay out my life and reveal just about everything there is to know about me, good and bad. I have already done all the attacking of me.
Mr. Arnold, I do not personally know you and so personally attacking you is not something I could or would do.
I will continue to comment, inform, and attack if necessary, your position as Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Marymount College, because of the entirety of the campaign since mid-2009 and the many problems I see with misinformation, false and misleading statements and deceptive practicies I believe any securities dealer would run away from in a heartbeat.
A Post From A Contributor
From time to time, individuals offer a post for me to use on this blog.
Mr. Jim Gordon has offered a copy of a letter he wrote to Councilman Misetich after the Councilman made remarks regarding Marymount College's practices.
Mr. Gordon is a leader of Concerned Citizens' Coalition/Marymount Expansion (CCC/ME) where he has worked for at least 10 years dealing with all aspects of Marymount's wish to expand.
Mr. Gordon's collection and knowledge of true facts, references with documentation is unparralleled among those of us who oppose passage of Measure P, The Marymount Plan.
I have communicated back and forth with Mr. Gordon on many occasions and he represents a virtual library of information that is objective in fact and documentation, while there is acknowledgement that he and members of his group have been outspoken critics of The Marymount Plan, as it was previously considered The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, now approved by the City Council.
Here is Mr. Gordon's contribution:
"Anthony
Thank you for your outstanding remarks last night concerning misrepresentations by Marymount about your support for Proposition P.
This kind of public misrepresentation is not new to Dr. Brophy. On pages 10 & 12 of the Minutes of the May 26, 2009 Planning Commission Hearing, is just such an example. At some time prior to this meeting, Dr. Brophy had submitted to the City a list of Marymount supporters that included Commissioner Tomblin.
On page 10 of those minutes, "(Planning) Commissioner Tomblin read into the record a written response to a letter sent by CCC/ME requesting that he recuse himself from participating on this hearing item (Marymount Expansion) due to his name appearing, without his knowledge or consent, as a supporter of Marymount College. In the letter he states that he does not feel recusal is necessary, as he does not recall expressing support for the college or its projects in writing or otherwise. As he understands the situation, his name appears on a list of project supporters provided to the City by the College at the March 31, 2009 meeting. He does not recall ever agreeing to having his name included on a list of college supporters. Further, he has requested a copy of any documents the college has that they believed justified the inclusion of his name on their list of supporters, and the college has been unable to provide any records or documents explaining why his name appeared on this list. The only explanation he has received from the college is that they included his name because he was on another list compiled in 2001. The college has not supplied any details of the nature of that list. To the extent that he has indicated any support for Marymount College in 2001, such support would likely have been only general in nature. (etc.)
On page 12 of those Minutes (May 26, 2009 Planning Commission Hearing) "Dr. Michael Brophy (Marymount College) offered his apology to Commissioner Tomblin for mistakenly submitting his name as a supporter of the project."
In last Wednesday's CHOA meeting at which Councilman Stern spoke, along with Ken Dyda, Dr. Brophy was a last-minute and reluctant speaker who offered a short "rebuttal" to Councilman Sterns remarks about Proposition P. He (Brophy) was urged by supporters at that Meeting, to offer a contrary rationale as to why the College felt compelled to introduce Proposition P and why now it was still important for the College.
Sadly, Dr. Brophy's rationale was fatally flawed. First, he contradicted Doug's statement that the College had already achieved ALL of its Project components (submitted to the PC and CC). Dr. Brophy falsely claimed that the functionality of the Athletic Facility was "destroyed" by the PC and CC's approved plans. In that respect he simply repeated his erroneous remarks made May 26, 2009 to the PC (Minutes - page 14) stating that 10' was to be lopped off the building thereby eliminating 2,600 sq. ft. of weight room and other program spaces in the activity room. It was not. Instead, the approved plan calls for retention of the structure as proposed by the college with the ENTIRE footprint shifted 1' back (to the North) off away from the edge of steep topography.
The second and most egregious lie was Dr. Brophy's rationale claiming that the College never got a complete hearing from the PC on ALL of its proposed components, including the Residence Halls. That was the core rationale he claimed was the basis that the College now needed Proposition P. That is COMPLETELY false and disproven by the record of events from April 14, 2009 to May 26, 2009. In fact, it was the College that quietly, out of the public eye, that voluntarily withdrew Residence Halls from consideration BEFORE the PC could make a final review and decision on May 26th.
At the August 14, 2009 PC Hearing, there was a tie vote - 2-2 that meant the Findings to allow a grading permit for the Residence Halls on extreme slopes could not be made. Along with other PC decisions, this result was remanded to Staff to prepare appropriate Resolutions for the May 26, 2009 PC Hearing. (Minutes page 22, 23 & 24)
At that time and as incorporated in the Minutes (page 24) of that hearing, Assistant City Attorney David Snow specifically stated that such Resolutions for May 26, were NOT final decisions of the Planning Commission.
As an interesting note here, the College, in an April 14, 2009 letter to PC Chair Lewis, had specifically asked that the Residence Halls - as proposed by the College - be approved, and so "dorms" were still alive and well at that date, at least from Marymount's side.
Following these decisions, on April 24, 2009, the College's attorney Donald Davis wrote the Planning Staff to withdraw Residence Halls from any further consideration by the PC. This was followed by subsequent new plans and documentation of a redesigned "Revised" Project as well described in the Minutes of the May 26, 2009 PC Hearing - especially on pages 1, 2 & 3 of that Staff Report.
Thus, Dr. Brophy lied to the CHOA membership in attendance last Wednesday evening about ALL the reasons that the College has for Proposition P. I presume he has continued to spew these same falsehoods elsewhere to his supporters since. This is a desperate individual who otherwise has no leg to stand on and the truth of the matter does not support his statements to this community. It is a sad state of affairs when a College President is forced to rely on falsehoods and misrepresentations to make his point. Just as he has falsely accused drafters of the Rebuttal arguments to Proposition P, so has the College (supporters) been adjudicated as promoting false and misleading information in their ballot argument. This is a demonstration of a Pattern and Practice by the College and its supporters. Why?
Thank you for your outstanding presentation of the facts in your case.
Jim Gordon "
Mr. Jim Gordon has offered a copy of a letter he wrote to Councilman Misetich after the Councilman made remarks regarding Marymount College's practices.
Mr. Gordon is a leader of Concerned Citizens' Coalition/Marymount Expansion (CCC/ME) where he has worked for at least 10 years dealing with all aspects of Marymount's wish to expand.
Mr. Gordon's collection and knowledge of true facts, references with documentation is unparralleled among those of us who oppose passage of Measure P, The Marymount Plan.
I have communicated back and forth with Mr. Gordon on many occasions and he represents a virtual library of information that is objective in fact and documentation, while there is acknowledgement that he and members of his group have been outspoken critics of The Marymount Plan, as it was previously considered The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, now approved by the City Council.
Here is Mr. Gordon's contribution:
"Anthony
Thank you for your outstanding remarks last night concerning misrepresentations by Marymount about your support for Proposition P.
This kind of public misrepresentation is not new to Dr. Brophy. On pages 10 & 12 of the Minutes of the May 26, 2009 Planning Commission Hearing, is just such an example. At some time prior to this meeting, Dr. Brophy had submitted to the City a list of Marymount supporters that included Commissioner Tomblin.
On page 10 of those minutes, "(Planning) Commissioner Tomblin read into the record a written response to a letter sent by CCC/ME requesting that he recuse himself from participating on this hearing item (Marymount Expansion) due to his name appearing, without his knowledge or consent, as a supporter of Marymount College. In the letter he states that he does not feel recusal is necessary, as he does not recall expressing support for the college or its projects in writing or otherwise. As he understands the situation, his name appears on a list of project supporters provided to the City by the College at the March 31, 2009 meeting. He does not recall ever agreeing to having his name included on a list of college supporters. Further, he has requested a copy of any documents the college has that they believed justified the inclusion of his name on their list of supporters, and the college has been unable to provide any records or documents explaining why his name appeared on this list. The only explanation he has received from the college is that they included his name because he was on another list compiled in 2001. The college has not supplied any details of the nature of that list. To the extent that he has indicated any support for Marymount College in 2001, such support would likely have been only general in nature. (etc.)
On page 12 of those Minutes (May 26, 2009 Planning Commission Hearing) "Dr. Michael Brophy (Marymount College) offered his apology to Commissioner Tomblin for mistakenly submitting his name as a supporter of the project."
In last Wednesday's CHOA meeting at which Councilman Stern spoke, along with Ken Dyda, Dr. Brophy was a last-minute and reluctant speaker who offered a short "rebuttal" to Councilman Sterns remarks about Proposition P. He (Brophy) was urged by supporters at that Meeting, to offer a contrary rationale as to why the College felt compelled to introduce Proposition P and why now it was still important for the College.
Sadly, Dr. Brophy's rationale was fatally flawed. First, he contradicted Doug's statement that the College had already achieved ALL of its Project components (submitted to the PC and CC). Dr. Brophy falsely claimed that the functionality of the Athletic Facility was "destroyed" by the PC and CC's approved plans. In that respect he simply repeated his erroneous remarks made May 26, 2009 to the PC (Minutes - page 14) stating that 10' was to be lopped off the building thereby eliminating 2,600 sq. ft. of weight room and other program spaces in the activity room. It was not. Instead, the approved plan calls for retention of the structure as proposed by the college with the ENTIRE footprint shifted 1' back (to the North) off away from the edge of steep topography.
The second and most egregious lie was Dr. Brophy's rationale claiming that the College never got a complete hearing from the PC on ALL of its proposed components, including the Residence Halls. That was the core rationale he claimed was the basis that the College now needed Proposition P. That is COMPLETELY false and disproven by the record of events from April 14, 2009 to May 26, 2009. In fact, it was the College that quietly, out of the public eye, that voluntarily withdrew Residence Halls from consideration BEFORE the PC could make a final review and decision on May 26th.
At the August 14, 2009 PC Hearing, there was a tie vote - 2-2 that meant the Findings to allow a grading permit for the Residence Halls on extreme slopes could not be made. Along with other PC decisions, this result was remanded to Staff to prepare appropriate Resolutions for the May 26, 2009 PC Hearing. (Minutes page 22, 23 & 24)
At that time and as incorporated in the Minutes (page 24) of that hearing, Assistant City Attorney David Snow specifically stated that such Resolutions for May 26, were NOT final decisions of the Planning Commission.
As an interesting note here, the College, in an April 14, 2009 letter to PC Chair Lewis, had specifically asked that the Residence Halls - as proposed by the College - be approved, and so "dorms" were still alive and well at that date, at least from Marymount's side.
Following these decisions, on April 24, 2009, the College's attorney Donald Davis wrote the Planning Staff to withdraw Residence Halls from any further consideration by the PC. This was followed by subsequent new plans and documentation of a redesigned "Revised" Project as well described in the Minutes of the May 26, 2009 PC Hearing - especially on pages 1, 2 & 3 of that Staff Report.
Thus, Dr. Brophy lied to the CHOA membership in attendance last Wednesday evening about ALL the reasons that the College has for Proposition P. I presume he has continued to spew these same falsehoods elsewhere to his supporters since. This is a desperate individual who otherwise has no leg to stand on and the truth of the matter does not support his statements to this community. It is a sad state of affairs when a College President is forced to rely on falsehoods and misrepresentations to make his point. Just as he has falsely accused drafters of the Rebuttal arguments to Proposition P, so has the College (supporters) been adjudicated as promoting false and misleading information in their ballot argument. This is a demonstration of a Pattern and Practice by the College and its supporters. Why?
Thank you for your outstanding presentation of the facts in your case.
Jim Gordon "
Freedom of Political Speech
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution allows Marymount representatives to produce what they have produced in the way of advertisements, statements, written and verbal information.
It also allows you and I to do the same thing and also in the manner, form, and content we have seen with much coming from Marymount College.
So, keeping that in mind I now offer that all my comments regarding Measure P, The Marymount Plan, and everything that can be considered political should be taken as protected political speech.
That written, I will continue avoiding practices used by members of the "Marymount Community" and I will offer only the truth, facts, opinionated assertions backed by evidence, and opinions that can be considered protected.
We all have seen televison advertisements, mailers, fliers, and written comments supporting Measure P, The Marymount Plan that have been found by a court of law to be false and misleading.
We have all been offered a glimpse into two lawsuits where a judged ruled on matters related to political speech. In both cases Marymount's positions were ruled against.
In conversations with some other opponents of The Marymount Plan and Measure P, it is acknowledged that Marymount's vast cache of funds for legal issues might mean some of us will be facing lawsuits on or after November 2, 2010 and possibly prior to that as has been proven.
It is protected political speech to mention that when voters go to the polls they have the right to view addresses and if members of the public view registration records stating that people are registered to vote using the physical address of Marymount College, that just might be an offense that could be prosecuted.
Likewise, challenges of voter registrations could come forward should knowledgeable persons view registered voter addresses that show a higher number of voters registered to addresses than the number of actual residents at that address.
One of the trick Marymount might try, because of their continuing political dealings in ads, statements, and actions, is to have Marymount students registering to vote who actually live at the Palos Verdes North and Pacific Heights off-campus housing areas, both in the San Pedro area of the city of Los Angeles.
If is conceivable that some students not factually residing in the city of Rancho Palos Verds may actually register to vote using a known Measure P supporter's address or even possibly and ignorantly, using the physical address of Marymount College.
My beliefs are based on statements made by Marymount officials and the continuing distribution of material that is obviously false and misleading when judged against the whole truth and documented history.
So as Marymount's representative play 'fast and loose' with what they believe is the truth and use the First Amendment as their defense, I shall continue to use the real truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth and I will also reveal more deceptive items as they appear.
My altering of any mailer presented to my mailbox that is unsolicited is a protected right because there is no copyright stamped on the mailer.
Any photos I use on this blog, found on the Internet and when available, credited to a photographer is protected. I will smudge the faces of some people I feel are 'innocent' and I have already smudged the face of young Miss Cappello on a particular photo I have on file.
I have tried to keep comments of a religious nature regarding Marymount College, Measure P, and the Marymount Plan at a minimum even though I am protected by the First Amendment.
I don't think a person not belonging to the religion of a religious institution like Marymount College really should participate in attacking that organization using religious grounds, as much as possible.
When I heard Councilman Campbell's comments about Marymount being a Catholic College, those comments came from a practicing Catholic and I have no problem with that.
For the record, I am an ordained minister and I happen to have a Doctorate of Divinity. I try to keep my religion and faith in that religion out of these issues and that is why I continue to try and avoid negative comments about the religion affiliated with Marymount and most other religions.
It is time to call out and offer information about Mr. Burt M. Arnold and Mr. Alexander Cappello who are the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Marymount College Board of Trustees.
But I will do that on another post.
It also allows you and I to do the same thing and also in the manner, form, and content we have seen with much coming from Marymount College.
So, keeping that in mind I now offer that all my comments regarding Measure P, The Marymount Plan, and everything that can be considered political should be taken as protected political speech.
That written, I will continue avoiding practices used by members of the "Marymount Community" and I will offer only the truth, facts, opinionated assertions backed by evidence, and opinions that can be considered protected.
We all have seen televison advertisements, mailers, fliers, and written comments supporting Measure P, The Marymount Plan that have been found by a court of law to be false and misleading.
We have all been offered a glimpse into two lawsuits where a judged ruled on matters related to political speech. In both cases Marymount's positions were ruled against.
In conversations with some other opponents of The Marymount Plan and Measure P, it is acknowledged that Marymount's vast cache of funds for legal issues might mean some of us will be facing lawsuits on or after November 2, 2010 and possibly prior to that as has been proven.
It is protected political speech to mention that when voters go to the polls they have the right to view addresses and if members of the public view registration records stating that people are registered to vote using the physical address of Marymount College, that just might be an offense that could be prosecuted.
Likewise, challenges of voter registrations could come forward should knowledgeable persons view registered voter addresses that show a higher number of voters registered to addresses than the number of actual residents at that address.
One of the trick Marymount might try, because of their continuing political dealings in ads, statements, and actions, is to have Marymount students registering to vote who actually live at the Palos Verdes North and Pacific Heights off-campus housing areas, both in the San Pedro area of the city of Los Angeles.
If is conceivable that some students not factually residing in the city of Rancho Palos Verds may actually register to vote using a known Measure P supporter's address or even possibly and ignorantly, using the physical address of Marymount College.
My beliefs are based on statements made by Marymount officials and the continuing distribution of material that is obviously false and misleading when judged against the whole truth and documented history.
So as Marymount's representative play 'fast and loose' with what they believe is the truth and use the First Amendment as their defense, I shall continue to use the real truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth and I will also reveal more deceptive items as they appear.
My altering of any mailer presented to my mailbox that is unsolicited is a protected right because there is no copyright stamped on the mailer.
Any photos I use on this blog, found on the Internet and when available, credited to a photographer is protected. I will smudge the faces of some people I feel are 'innocent' and I have already smudged the face of young Miss Cappello on a particular photo I have on file.
I have tried to keep comments of a religious nature regarding Marymount College, Measure P, and the Marymount Plan at a minimum even though I am protected by the First Amendment.
I don't think a person not belonging to the religion of a religious institution like Marymount College really should participate in attacking that organization using religious grounds, as much as possible.
When I heard Councilman Campbell's comments about Marymount being a Catholic College, those comments came from a practicing Catholic and I have no problem with that.
For the record, I am an ordained minister and I happen to have a Doctorate of Divinity. I try to keep my religion and faith in that religion out of these issues and that is why I continue to try and avoid negative comments about the religion affiliated with Marymount and most other religions.
It is time to call out and offer information about Mr. Burt M. Arnold and Mr. Alexander Cappello who are the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Marymount College Board of Trustees.
But I will do that on another post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)