Bits and Pieces 13

This post begins with a letter from Mr. Jeffrey Lewis to Mr. Burt Arnold, the Chair of the Marymount College Board of Trustees:

Click on image to enlarge.

The letter above has been edited to remove the letterhead of Mr. Lewis' law firm and also Mr. Lewis' signature has been removed. It has also been compressed from two pages to one page.
____________________________________________
Terri and I have friends who either attended Marymount College or sent their kids to Marymount College.

None of the former students of Marymount who we know, would have lived in on-campus housing if it was there and they did not at either of the two existing off-campus housing sites Marymount operates.

The former students and/or their parents support Measure P but they all acknowledge that safety is an issue and they are not supporting Measure P totally because of the issues of on-campus student housing.

They also do not disagree with my statements and opinions about the Marymount College site which state that safety is a major concern for all of them and they agree with me about safety.

Many current supporters of Measure P have also sided with me about the potential real safety concerns and problems that cannot be mitigated.

I am hopeful that once everyone is educated enough to make a reasonable decision about their vote on Measure P on November 2, they will vote No as I am sure all of you will do.
____________________________________________
I have been talking with a friend who is very well situated about talking about many concerns with our neighbor, the city of Los Angeles.

My friend is one who regularly communicates and works with city administration folks and Los Angeles City staffers dealing with financial issues that city has and what could be in store for Los Angeles, in the not-to-distant future.

With the economics the way they are in L.A. and how they are in our city, we all need to be very aware of our city's financial standing and how strong it is compared to the city of Los Angeles.

We need to keep our eyes focused sharply on the importance of spending our tax funds wisely and maintaining the best fiscal oversight and considerations possible.

We are blessed by having Terranea, Trump, and other businesses helping to support our city and its financial outlook and I am now at a position to consider that Terranea has fulfilled my wishes and if a TOT rebate can be considered, I can now support a reasonable rebate for Terranea AND Value Inn, the only two businesses that have a transitory occupancy tax applied to them.

But we need to keep our eyes focused on the possibility that the city of Los Angeles "could" declare bankruptcy before the end of this current fiscal year, June 30, 2011.

How our city's finances might be do if L.A. declares bankruptcy is hopefully having little if any negative affect to our city and its residences and businesses.

I know there is a vacancy in the Finance Committee and I hope a very qualified resident steps up and volunteers to keep our city's finances good by using their good judgements to assist our City Council in making good decisions for our residents and businesses.

I am a very strong proponent of conservative fiscal approaches on a city level and a very progressive stand on how our Federal Government deals with Federal monies and programs.

All politics are local, as many have said. Not all fiscal policy can be local but I hope our local fiscal policy protects our city first, as much as we can while keeping in mind that the County of Los Angeles, the State of California and our Federal Budget and stability are all out of whack.
____________________________________________
Shop R.P.V.!

We have TWO Trader Joe's. We have some of the best, if not the best restaurants on the peninsula, including San Pedro.

We have a multi-plex that has ticket prices that are better then those found in Rolling Hills Estates and Torrance.

We have a Marshall's, one Smart and Final, one Ralph's Fresh Fare, and other shops and stores available to customers.

We have at least two animal medical facilities, and several pet care businesses.

We have the largest cemetery on The Hill and it is probably larger than any other similar facility in the South Bay.

When you shop R.P.V. you help provide sales tax revenue to our General Fund. Yes, it is very, very small in terms of amounts, but every penny helps, doesn't it.

And we have bills that need or will need to be paid.

We need to spend quite a bit of money stabilizing San Ramon Canyon's drainage issues and help shore up the Tarrapaca landslide portion.

No matter what you read or where you read it, taxpayer funds must be committed to complete either The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project or The Marymount Plan.

Traffic mitigation elements of both The Project and The Plan include partially taxpayer funded costs related to four elements, including redevelopment of the intersection of Palos Verdes Drive East at Palos Verdes Drive South, restriping of Trudie Drive as it intersects Western Avenue, the actual possibility of a signal system at the intersection of Palos Verdes Drive East and Miraleste Drive, and the concrete median barrier on an about 1,000 foot stretch of Palos Verdes Drive East as it curves around a large part of the Marymount College site.

Even though you may read that The Marymount Plan would be completed "at no taxpayer expense" unless Marymount uses approval of Measure P and the adoption of the Campus Specific Plan to change wording and NOT provide the promised traffic mitigation, taxpayer funds must be used. The ONLY other way whatever Marymount claims would have any truth, as far as taxpayer funds go was if, before the November 2 election, provide an escrow account to pay for ALL mitigation that would have, by necessity, required taxpayer funds.

Just watch and see if Marymount does that.
___________________________________________