Here Is A Very Simple Comparison, Please Read Both

Measure P, The Marymount Plan touts that it would provide so much for the campus located on Palos Verdes Drive East.

Advertisements created in support of attracting Yes votes on Measure P state a number of things that have already been approved, yet not mentioning that they have been approved.

So, here are two lists. The first list is what has been approved for construction using The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, which received approval with new municipal codes effective June 1, 2010, two months after the original City Council meeting that approved "The Project" very early on the morning of April 1, 2010:

Entitlements for construction using The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project.

A. All land uses within The Project area, shown in The Project Land
Use Table, that existed as of the date this ordinance becomes effective;

B. Academic instructional and classroom facilities (including laboratories, fine
arts studios, research facilities, etc.);

C. Administrative offices (including faculty offices);

D. Athletic facilities and intercollegiate and other athletic activities,
competitions, games, and events;

E. Auditorium;

F. Chapel and worship facilities;

G. Dining facilities;

H. Fine arts facilities;

I. Library;

J. Preschool;

K. Educational programs;

L. Day care and day camp;

M. Ancillary educational facilities (i.e., computer labs, maintenance areas,
student health center, bookstore, and retail ancillary to educational use);

N. Temporary special uses and developments as approved by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council; and

O. Redevelopment of the on-campus parking facilities as also included in The Marymount Plan.

Below, please find a very small portion of the actual language in Measure P, The Marymount Plan which details the construction entitlements Marymount College supporters are trying to gain with the passage of Measure P:

Marymount College construction entitlements using The Marymount Plan and Measure P.

A. All land uses within the Specific Plan area, shown in the Specific Plan Land
Use Table, that existed as of the date this ordinance becomes effective;

B. Academic instructional and classroom facilities (including laboratories, fine
arts studios, research facilities, etc.);

C. Administrative offices (including faculty offices);

D. Athletic facilities and intercollegiate and other athletic activities,
competitions, games, and events;

E. Auditorium;

F. Chapel and worship facilities;

G. Dining facilities;

H. Fine arts facilities;

I. Library;

J. Preschool;

K. Educational programs;

L. Residence halls;

M. Day care and day camp;

N. Ancillary educational facilities (i.e., computer labs, maintenance areas,
student health center, bookstore, and retail ancillary to educational use); and

O. Temporary special uses and developments.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Did you happen to see the differences?

If you did not find the differences, go back and read both sets again or just look at item "L" on the lower part versus item "L" on the upper part.

"L", the lonely difference. "L", on the bottom, the lousy difference. "L", towards the bottom, the losing element for residents of Rancho Palos Verdes.

I hope you noticed what is similar on both sets of lettered elements. Can you say, "everything"?

I knew that you could.

It was, is, and always will be about "Residence halls" and if you can't believe that, then you haven't been reading or learning enough about something Marymount officials believe you are qualified to vote on.

I know that naturally, most of my regular readers understand that quite well, even those who support Measure P and are affiliated with Marymount College.

It's just that they won't admit that in public.

They also won't admit that approval of Measure P could not only find private business interests coming into R.P.V. to build, manage, and profit by having dorms on campus, it could also mean that if a future City Council rejects an increase in the student enrollment cap at Marymount, College officials, in the future, might very well go before the voters again to gain an increase in the number of students and then that would mean even more residence halls being sought, perhaps, at Marymount College.

What they certainly won't admit is that should Measure P pass, other business entities and/or wealthy people will attempt to use the ballot box along with misstatements, false and misleading language to gain rights to bring more construction or other events and things into the boundaries of our, mostly residential municipality.

If folks choose to believe an entity that has already been found by a judge to be using false and misleading arguments and then having people read them after the ruling was made, then I guess P.T. Barnum was correct.

If you weigh everything written, advertised, opined, judged, manufactured, discussed, debated, or mentioned about The Marymount Plan and The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, the sure weight of the truth by the opposition of Measure P and The Marymount Plan tipped the balance so far towards rejecting the Measure and The Marymount Plan and supporting The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project.

I usually refrain from bring up the fact that Marymount College is a Catholic College. I usually attempt to continue to use 'private College', 'private business', 'private' entity' or some form not associating it with a religious organization unless it is just so obvious that I cannot omit Marymount's affiliations.

But after Judge Yaffe's rulings, the mailer, the full page ads, the refraining by Dr. Brophy in answering reporters' questions or opponents charges and questions, it remains for very hypocritical, in my opinion, for Marymount's representatives to be doing what they have done, are doing, or what I expect they will do. this to me is so very sad.

If I am better than that, why can't Marymount's representatives be better than me in terms of admitting their weaknesses and offering the truth instead of continuing probable deceptions and (now judged) misleading statements?

If I have been wrong in the past, I have corrected mistakes brought to my attention.

Since Dr. Brophy nor any other representative of Marymount College has challenged what I have written by offering any proof that what I have written has any errors of fact, they all remain silent, not denying anything I say at Council meetings or write in newspapers or on blogs.

As far as everything I have written, all my opinions, all the real truth I have on file and have published, all my assertions, and all my complaints about what I feel are deceptive, false, and misleading things coming from Marymount's representatives, nothing goes challenged, denied, or debated.

So, once again, but surely not for the last time, here is my basic assertions about The Marymount Plan, Measure P, and other things related to Marymount College:

I support The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project even though I believe that should Measure P not pass, 'The College' will not begin any construction approved by The Project' unless and until they receive some kind of approval to build on-campus student housing for up to 250 students and up to 5 faculty advisers.

I think Marymount representatives are 'telegraphing' that truth in ads, comments, and by other means when they include elements contained in both The Project and The Plan, but without revealing that those elements are contained in both.

Should Meausre P pass, I believe the first new construction that could begin is the redevelopment of the parking lot followed by the construction of the two residence halls and the dining facilities.

It remains doubtful that any other new construction would go forward vigorously but the new athletic facilities would probably find completion before any other academic construction begins.

The ultimate goal Marymount's representatives are looking for is the attraction of students of wealthy non-local residents, probably mostly from out of California with a good percentage of new students coming from Korea, China, and Japan.

Should Measure P not pass and Marymount is unable to secure rights to build on-campus residence halls within two years, I predict that it will fail as a College due to lack of new students being attracted to Marymount from out of the local area.

I can now assert that should Measure P pass, Marymount officials will more than likely, abandon plans to build a brick and mortar "state-of-the-art library" in favor of developing a "state-of-the-art virtual library like so many other colleges and universities are doing lately.

NOTE: I actually favor a virtual library, especially at Marymount College where the courses and degrees are probably better suited to that type of library and I support a virtual library being included in The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project for the same reasons.

I believe more now than before that should Measure P pass, Marymount College will sign a contract with a company that will build the residence halls, dining facilities, student store, and student recreational facilities (other than the athletic elements) at no cost to the College.

I also believe that the company will maintain and operate what they furnish at a profit for the company and the company or companies would provide a regular revenue stream to Marymount College for whatever Marymount's representatives decide to use the new income for.

I also feel that language contained within Measure P allows Marymount the ability to rent out, lease out, or offer for fees, on-campus facilities for the benefit and profit of third-party entities that will use parts of the campus for entertainment events, movie and television production, sporting events, summer residential camps, and other things that would not be able to be regulated by representatives of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes and that Marymount officials would have authorities over and above those of our residents' elected officials, municipal codes, and guidelines that are required to be followed by every other business in the city along with every resident of Rancho Palos Verdes.

It also appears that should local residents attempt to thwart anything Marymount does, those residents would be precluded from finding settlement within city government and would also probably not prevail in court due to adoption of new municipal codes enacted expressly for the benefit of Marymount College.

I oppose the construction of on-campus student residential facilities only because of safety reasons. I have not found nor can I find any reasonable mitigation that could be accomplished to relieve what I contend are safety concerns that overwhelm any reasonable, realistic, and responsible attempts to find that dorms provide greater safety than they would provide potential harm to individuals, students or non-students.