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.