Spending For How Much Revenue?

Here is an article from the October 7, 2010 South Bay Daily Breeze:

Marymount College has spent more than $1 million on ballot measure
By Melissa Pamer Staff Writer
Posted: 10/06/2010 07:36:48 PM PDTUpdated: 10/06/2010 07:37:11 PM PDT

Marymount College has spent more than $1 million - more than 60 times its opponents - in its campaign to gain Rancho Palos Verdes voter approval of a ballot measure that would allow campus dormitories and other major improvements.

According to campaign finance filings that were due to city officials by Tuesday evening, the small Catholic college spent $1.023 million from July 1 through Sept. 30.

The money has paid for mailers and television ads, artwork, polling, consultants and lawyers, according to the filings.

Opponents of Measure P - known as Save Our City III - had raised about about $23,000, almost all of it from Rancho Palos Verdes residents. Through Sept. 30, the SOC III campaign had spent about $17,000.

Measure P would give the college authority to build dorms for 250 students and construct other improvements, most of which were approved by the City Council earlier this year. The initiative would also exempt the college from some city oversight measures that were put in place by the council.

It goes before voters Nov. 2.

- Melissa Pamer
------------------------------------------------------------
Here is a paragraph from an article Ms. Pamer wrote that was published in the August 5, 2010 edition of the same newspaper:

"The Rancho Palos Verdes college paid political consultants, lawyers, production companies and mail houses nearly $543,000 in its bid to gather signatures for a controversial initiative."

So, not counting anything during the last 10 years Marymount has gone through the processes that ended with a unanimous approval by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council of EVERYTHING they asked for from the City Council, Marymount has spent One Million Five Hundred Sixty Six Thousand Dollars, $1,566,000 attempting to gain approval of Measure P, The Marymount Plan.

The Fiscal Year Budget for 2009-2010 shows a residential population of 43,525 residents.

So, just on getting the ballot measure on the ballot and the spending on the ads and everything else to this point as reported by law, Marymount has spent $39.98resident, but NOT per voter.

An article in The Palos Verdes Peninsula News suggested that the number of registered voters in Rancho Palos Verdes is about 27,000.

Marymount has seemingly spent about $58.00 per registered voter trying to get Measure P approved.

The number goes way up when you figure the number of folks who are on record as opposing Measure P, The Marymount Plan.

But all of this is trivial compared to the real questions of why and how Marymount is spending so much money attempting to get Measure P, The Marymount Plan approved by what seems to be a very uneducated population would might vote for it.

It's down to at least $1,566,000.00 for a new municipal code that would allow dorms in an unsafe situation high along Palos Verdes Drive East.

If you don't believe me, debate me. I've got the proof and enough facts all around me.

Since SOC III didn't spend a dime during the time the petition signatures were being gathered, the number of times the amount Marymount has spend compared to what Save Our City III and Save RPV has spent is really 68 to 1.

For every one dollar the opposition spends against Measure P, Marymount spends $68.00.

Terri just read what I am writing and she just said, "It's amazing!".

What amount of revenue is Marymount not telling anyone they are going for when they are spending 68 times the amount of money opponents of Measure P, The Marymount Plan are gathering.

And so lets compare spending to gathering.

To date, Marymount has spent $1,566,000 compared to the opposition's expenditures listed at "$17,000" in Ms. Pamer's article.

The expenditure difference is now NINETY TWO times the difference between What Marymount has spent compared to what Save Our City III has spent.

How many of you know what the revenue Marymount is seeking could be should Measure P pass?

How many of you know the costs to the city of Rancho Palos Verdes and its residents could be should Measure P pass?

I don't know the answer to either of those questions but it seems to me that before we vote on Measure P, all of the voters need to know why Marymount is spending what it is spending and what its potential revenue increase would probably be.

Is controlling the city worth 92 times what the opposition has spent?

I guess it must be by the required reports filed by Marymount and SOC III.

I don't know how to make a point clearer than asking all voters to learn the facts and the whole truth about Measure P, The Marymount Plan.

If voters still cannot see that Measure P is a control issue AND a revenue generation scheme that allows Marymount College the power to supersede municipal codes possibly sell off rights to third parties to use facilities at Marymount for their own gain, what else can anyone do to make 'the blind see'?

92 times for something that has not been debated concerning my claims that it is unsafe to house college students on the Marymount Campus.

I guess Marymount has placed a price on safety of everyone, everywhere, and during every hour.

I may remind folks with fairly short memories about James, Kamil, and the very sad story of an innocent great Marymount Professor who died as the result of being the victim of a drunk non-Marymount teenager.

Please vote "No" on Measure P, The Marymount Plan.

Safety. Everyone. Everywhere. Every hour.