Something from Mr. Craig A. Huey and My Response

There is a marketer offering a letter to RPV voters and he is in a group called
“Citizens Committee for a Better Peninsula.
The gentleman’s name is Mr. Craig A Huey and here is a portion of his bio from his company’s Web site:

Craig A. Huey is publisher of the industry newsletter Direct Response and president of Creative Direct Marketing Group (CDMG), a full-service direct response advertising agency. He is also president of InfoMat, a leading email and postal mailing list brokerage and management company. He is recognized as one of the top direct response marketing experts in the nation.

Mr. Huey is also part of a group called “2010 California Election Forum and here is a portion of Mr. Huey’s bio from that group’s Web site:

Craig Huey is the coordinator and speaker for the Election Forum. Mr. Huey is an public author, speaker, entrepreneur and owner of two successful businesses.

He has led Bible studies at Calvary Chapel and Rolling Hills Covenant Church.

Mr. Huey has spoken to more than 20 churches and groups each election year and has
given his election recommendations on KKLA's Frank Pastore show, KWVE's Brian Perez show and KBRT's Paul McGuire show.

Mr. Huey has utilized his First Amendment rights to produce the following information supposedly for RPV voters and I am going to use my First Amendment rights to respond to Mr. Huey’s points in a different colored font.

“Dear RPV Voter

As a concerned citizen, I am alarmed by the policies impacting the entire Peninsula . Measure P is an important vote; and I want to get it right. So please read carefully about this vital issue.

It has been an unbelievably emotional, explosive and nasty campaign on
both sides.

In my research, I found 6 Critical Reasons I’m recommending to members of the Citizens Committee for A Better Peninsula—and all of Rancho Palos Verdes (RPV)—
a “YES” vote on Measure P.

Reason #1—the out-of-control City bureaucracy
For the past dozen years or so, the RPV Council has upheld their special-interest support groups while neglecting the best interests of the entire taxpayer base. It is past time to stop the capricious, arbitrary decisions made against those seeking approval of a project…through the Planning Commission and City Council.”

Mr. Huey’s opinion does not fit with the facts, some I know firsthand. I completely disagree with Mr. Huey’s observation about “the past dozen years or so…” because I have been active in community groups including The Rancho Palos Verdes Traffic Safety Commission which I was not reappointed to when the City Council cut the number of members of that group and all other Committees and Commissions except the Planning Commission which approved The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project before it was sent to the City Council for its ultimate approval.

“The RPV City Hall bureaucracy has forgotten whom they serve. They’re no longer willing to act as public servants because they are on a power trip with the belief they know what is best for the “public good.””

The Rancho Palos Verdes city government is certainly one that has forgotten whom they serve as evidenced by the years of painstaking work done on a number of different projects throughout the city but perhaps Mr. Huey does not know or appreciate what has gone on during the past year and the previous six or seven years.

The main problems the City Council faced occurred with a very frivolous lawsuit supported by those Mr. Huey probably supported and resulted in the tax expenditures that cost the city hundreds of thousands of dollars and staff work hours for a plaintiff that didn’t even bother to pick up the information the city provided.

“Marymount College is a great example. For more than 10 years, ongoing opposition to the project has included unnecessary and arbitrary changes as well as ridiculous and expensive delays.”

Mr. Huey is clearly ignorant of the facts about the delays during the last ten years or is willing to ignore the published timelines that indicate well over 90% of the delays during the last ten years were caused DIRECTLY by actions and inactions attributed to Marymount College’s representatives.

“Marymount College has been badly treated.

During that time, Marymount has needlessly spent $5 million—that’s right $5 million—attempting to pacify the RPV City Hall process. Based on this treatment, you could expect Marymount to spend 3 to 4 times that amount for another 10 years—and still be waiting. Enough is enough.

That’s why Marymount had no choice but to appeal to the voters. The last-minute “approval” of some of the projects was too little; too late—with no assurance that delay after delay won’t continue. They are making a civic plea for a decision about the public good and because of the future of the Planning Commission and City Council.”

I am afraid Mr. Huey has again misstated the facts, but it is his rights to misrepresent the truth, even as a marketer, I guess.

Marymount was required under the California Environmental Quality Act to produce an Environmental Impact Report and it elected to pay for the Special Election when it was brought forth to Marymount’s President that among other things, a Special Election is normally funded by taxpayer dollars and that had Marymount not elected to pay for the election, taxpayers would have been partially responsible for picking up the tab for a portion of The Marymount Plan and it is still a great probability that should Measure P pass, taxpayers would have to pay for some mitigation as proven by Marymount in their Measure P.

“Reason #2—it’s the people, not the politicians, who must bypass the politicians’ stalling tactics

I find it incredible and frankly shameful that Marymount is attacked for giving up on an impossible City Council hurdle by going directly to the voters.

The fear of the RPV politicians and bureaucrats is that other homeowners or property owners being mistreated might do the same thing—oh my! The city establishment and their friends lose control.

When we in the community take action by using the ballot without fear against the politicians and the bureaucrats, we take away from them their unfair power over us. That’s a good thing, not a bad thing.

Is that not what democracy is all about?”

I believe democracy is allowing voters’ representatives representing them rather than taking that representation away from those the people chose in the first place.

If we allow people going to the polls for everything they might disagree with, it may be a right, but it is a great wrong to our representative democracy established by the United States Constitution, a document I hope Mr. Huey and all good citizens of the United States of America strongly support.

Why must one business entity seek control over elected representatives’ jobs and why should we allow one business more rights than any other business or any resident, Mr. Huey.

The Salvation Army’s Officers’ College is a wonderful example of a College within Rancho Palos Verdes that is not seeking rights and controls Marymount is demanding, so why should Marymount receive more than equal treatment than the Salvation Army’s Officers’ College?

“Reason #3—the City failed to have a vision for the community good

The community benefits of this modest expansion are impressive. It includes a pool, recreation facilities, playing fields, athletic equipment—all without taxpayers paying one dime.

The City Council should be trying to assist Marymount not stifle such plans for their friends.
The community needs these and other benefits without tax money.”

Mr. Huey seems to believe that Measure P and its Marymount Plan can be completed safely, timely, and wonderfully without any taxpayer funds being used.

Well, it can’t. Since is appears in writing within Measure P that some of the safety mitigation with regards to traffic may very well be eliminated rather than completed using The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project’s guidelines, Marymount will either use some taxpayer funds or increase the hazards, deliberately to avoid the appearance of using taxpayer funds, it looks like.

“Reason #4—lots of community good, not community harm

I’ve talked to those close to the Marymount measure, both for and against.

I was concerned with the lights and noise. All the plans resolve these problems. I was especially concerned with views. No interference.

Selfishly, I was concerned with increased traffic on PV Drive East (I live off it) from the project. Based on the studies, this isn’t going to be a problem.

And with the larger parking lot, there’s no more kid and visitor parking in the neighborhood. That’s another great advantage.”

Mr. Huey, you never talked to me and those I know who are opposed to Measure P and I know lots of folks VERY close to the issues regarding Marymount’s Expansion.

I hope Mr. Huey remains concerned about the lights and noise because provisions within the 51-page document of Measure P state that lighting and noise restrictions within the guidelines of The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project are done away with in The Marymount Plan and Measure P’s new municipal code would restrict and supersede current municipal codes as decided by a Superior Court Judge and that limits on lighting and amplified noise will be at the discretion of Marymount College officials or those who sub-lease facilities at the campus and that the city would be restricted from doing much about any problems and local residents would only be able to seek out an advisory group that would meet only twice a year with the city, which then would be powerless to demand any mitigation.

“Reason #5—the project has community and city oversight

Oversight? Probably too much. They must follow all the barriers the bureaucracy has established for approvals. But they will not be violating current city codes. So let the project proceed.”

Mr. Huey and others, Measure P creates a new municipal code which contains specific language benefitting only Marymount College that would restrict and eliminate much of the oversight by the city and its residents.

The new code would supersede “current city codes” and I am of the opinion that the codes which all other businesses and residents must follow should be good enough for Marymount College and I wish you felt that way and not singling out Marymount College for special treatment over and above current laws and guidelines.

“Reason #6—The anti-religious prejudice has blinded too many to the benefits of the Catholic college

The discriminating nature in which this religious institution is being treated infringes on their First Amendment rights to expand and grow their religious-based mission.

If the officials In Washington saw how badly the city has treated Marymount these 10 tortuous years, I believe they would say it violates the RLUIPA law signed by President Clinton. The RLUIPA law provides stronger protection for religious freedom and prohibits that land use ordinances cannot cause a burden on religious properties.”

Mr. Huey, your reason is EXACTLY why there is so much contention because the vast majority of opposition to Measure P, The Marymount Plan is NOT based on any religion or religious beliefs.

Mr. Huey, the great majority of residents who oppose Measure P, The Marymount Plan are strong supporters, as I am, of The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project for the same College.

It is a sad and recent trend when those claiming to be very religious turn around and claim some kind of attack based on religion which is simply not there, never was, and never will be.
To use any religious reason for supporting or opposing Measure P, The Marymount Plan is horrible because it is not necessary and clouds the issues in an indefensible way.

Oh by the way, Mr. Huey. I am an Ordained Minister that has legally and successfully performed at least one marriage in the State of California and I am duly and legally authorized to perform religious ceremonies, rights, and observances in this State and probably the entire country, if I choose to.

Please don’t use the religious connection as a way to support Measure P because it is a bad thing to do in my opinion and certainly not any reason to support or oppose Measure P, The Marymount Plan.

Let’s keep it to the real reasons and not try to inject something that clearly doesn’t belong.

“The bottom line? The city failed to do its duty. The city is now in panic mode because it’s frightened that it is losing control. And now, RPV citizens are empowered to take action.”

Sir, the bottom line is that Marymount has failed so many times in doing the right thing that is forced itself into the position it is now in.

Had Marymount simply asked for dorms and provided the real truth about the reasons they need the out of state and foreign students attending what is trying to become a boutique College specializing in offering average students of wealthy parents a College in California, then resident could have the whole truth and make up their own mind.

Also, Mr. Huey, if you or any of your organizations participated in the mailers, commercials, DVD or any other marketing for Measure P, The Marymount Plan, I feel you should have at least contacted me some time ago since everything produced since Dr. Susan Soldoff started the paperwork has been found to contain misrepresentations of the whole truth and some deceptive practices in how Marymount’s marketers are attempting to keep voters ill-informed by not telling the complete and reasonable facts about Measure P, The Marymount Plan.

I would hope you and others would read the 51-pages of The Marymount Plan completely and also read as many of the Environmental Impact Report and evidence that ultimately led to the approval of The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project before you produce another piece of information to potential voters.

“Marymount did the right thing to take it to the people and avoid millions more dollars in costly delays and years more of red tape—simply to provide a community resource that will benefit all of us.”

Marymount has delayed its own project for the vast majority of the last 120+ months and there are tables and graphs that prove that.

Marymount should have come out recently like former Marymount President McFadden did in 2006 and stated clearly and effectively that Marymount must have dorms to stay competitive with other schools and entice more wealthy parents into sending their kids to the Los Angeles Basin for College.

Marymount actually did the wrong thing in my opinion, by not going to the City Council when it could have, delaying the Project 9 more months during the study and acceptance phase of Marymount becoming a four-year College.

I have faith that facts beat out fiction and the whole truth is something to honor and demonstrate pride by demanding that the best information available is what we all should provide to voters and then believe that they will make their own correct decision on Election Day.

I feel keeping important and necessary educational information about Measure P and its Marymount Plan from potential voters shows a real lack of respect for the voters of Rancho Palos Verdes and that falls squarely onto Marymount College’s lap for their lack of providing the most complete and best information and facts possible.

I also feel reputable business owners would share my opinion on that and that as I consider doing business with any business, I need to consider the character of those who own and manage the business and that I won’t feel cheated in not being provided the best product or information available at the most reasonable price.