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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You are doing an excellent job of writing about this issue. I am NOT a PV resident, but I AM a very good friend of some good folks who live in the area affected by this issue and so I am highly interested in what is happening. I CAN say this. I am a former employee at Marymount PV College, so I DO have some first-hand experience with said school, and also I was in the fundraising department, so got to see a lot of the behind-the-scenes things going on at the school. I also used to work for the Peninsula News many years ago in Golden Cove. So I do know a little about the area and have always been interested in what happens there.
ReplyDeleteThe second thing is that I think any intelligent voter should get to know WHO and WHAT is behind any measure being voted on. It isn't as though in this day and age no one has any secret agendas.
Thinking of a hypothetical situation, someone with deep pockets could be taking advantage of this specific time in our economy to get something passed that would allow them to develop to their heart's content at a later time any sort of facility they were interested in developing. Marymount might relocate once again to another site, and the land where Marymount now sits or owns would then be open to develop in any way someone would see fit. Would you like to have a resort or some other similar facility in your area? Again, keep in mind the word I used to begin with - hypothetical. I am not saying this will happen, but it COULD happen with the organization being able to skirt the means for allowing people a choice in the matter.
Wouldn't it be a good way to obtain rights to develop in any way they saw fit without anyone being able to contest it? Are the people backing this Measure developers? Are they even from the United States? Exactly who are they and what IS their agenda? Why is it so important to them to get this issue passed now?
Marymount has always had a goodly population of students from other parts of the world. Marymount is basically a remedial college. Coming here to Marymount, students who might not be able to get into colleges in their own countries, are able to get degrees, return to their own countries, and to have professional jobs. And even for students here in the U.S., it gives students here who cannot get into other colleges because of their grades an opportunity to get a degree. It is better for many, I am sure, to say they have a degree than nothing. Now there is nothing wrong with this in a sense; certainly everyone has a right to an education, and Marymount does have a long-standing history in the community. What better way for students to get grades that will allow them to pursue a higher education and/or get more professional jobs.
Every measure, every proposition that is put out for the public is a public document, and as such, the public should be able to find out who the backers are. That could make a huge difference in how someone votes. I am a senior, and I have seen many of these Measures put out for the voters that have hidden agendas embedded in them. Just remember, when you vote, you need to know who, what, why, where and when at the very least. And you need to be able to think critically about what you are voting for. Yes, of course few people would have a problem with a private school getting a new library, a new parking lot, etc., but it is the idea that there is this aspect of wanting to be free from any constraints in the future for whatever is decided that is VERY questionable. This, to my way of thinking, is a very dangerous thing, no matter WHAT we are voting on.
Again, thank you for doing a really excellent job of covering this. I appreciate such thorough writing and attempts to cover the issue from all aspects.