Today's Palos Verdes Peninsula News

Please allow me to begin with Steve Kuykendall's full page ad.

He is a paid consultant for Marymount College who does not live in Rancho Palos Verdes.

Now to the Letters to the Editor:

The first letter concerning Marymount College is from its President, Dr. Michael Brophy.

It is his job and possibly his career as a College President that is on the line on November 2, 2010 so whatever he writes needs to be considered with those facts in mind, don't they?

I am always delighted and educated when I read letters from folks I don't know, especially when they offer new insights into the issues concerning Marymount College and the letter from Ms. Barbara Covey brought me new information about a history of dealing with Marymount College by someone who certainly knows what she is writing about.

I was also equally impressed with the letter from Ms. Doran Dunlavey and I would like to offer one additional piece of information she may not already know or just missed informing everyone about.

With the addition of 250 student beds at Marymount, combined with the existing beds at off-campus housing sites, Marymount would be able to offer over 690 student-housing beds to a student population that right now, cannot have more than 793 students.

What this really means is that we could see Marymount College actually become the type of school it has been seeking to become since 1978; A school dedicated to importing students from other places and not having the capacity to accommodate all the local-resident students who might wish to attend Marymount College.

If the total number of full time students remains at 793 with Marymount-supplied beds for approximately 690 human, that means only approximately 103 students could attend Marymount on a full time basis and NOT live in Marymount-supplied housing.

Do the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes feel they should have to put up with having about 1/8 of the total student enrollment coming from homes on The Hill?

Mayor Ken Dyda, Treasurer of Save RPV and SOCIII offered factual and responsible rebuttal points to a letter in last Thursday's paper from Mr. Nelson.

I take great issue with Mr. Barry Hildebrand's letter and I need to offer a bit of reflection, history and additional information before I go on.

I know Mr. Hildebrand and I do appreciate all his service to the Palos Verdes Unified School District and his years of service to the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes.

Mr. Hildebrand is a very knowledgeable person regarding traffic in our city with his years long service as a Rancho Palos Verdes Traffic Safety Committee member.

Mr. Hildebrand and I have discussed on-campus housing and he told me of his experiences when he lived on campus at the University he attended.

One of the things Mr. Hildebrand told me about his College days was that Freshmen who lived on campus were not allowed to bring cars onto that campus while living in dorms there.

But Mr. Hildebrand and I part ways on just about every other issue and Marymount is no exception.

Mr. Hildebrand is one of the (reportedly) eight members that make up the group, Palos Verdes Peninsula Watch.

I have attributed knowledge that one of the reasons that group was formed was that the members were very displeased with what the name of our city became and currently is.

If you visit the Web site of Palos Verdes Peninsula Watch and read the newsletters you will easily find two well-established facts.

One fact is that the group does deal with the Palos Verdes Peninsula School District quite a bit.

The other fact is that even though the group's names implies they 'watch' things all over the Palos Verdes peninsula, they spend the rest of their time and effort almost exclusively covering, questioning, and confronting issues relating to the city of Rancho Palos Verdes and its City Council.

What one quickly learns is that the group Mr. Hildebrand is a member of is basically a two-mission group and attacking the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council has been an historical fact that makes up a large portion of items within the group's newsletters.

I take issue with Mr. Hildebrand's claim that all the letters from opponents of Measure P, The Marymount Plan all state the same thing,

In actual truth and noted by many mailers and other advertising means, I think all of us know the three items Marymount continues to refer to in their ads while hardly mentioning dorms in any of their earlier ads.

What is lock-step is not what opponents write, Mr. Hildebrand, it is what has been indoctrinated into supporters of Measure P, The Marymount Plan by propagandists sponsored by Marymount College attempting to impart onto residents misleading, incomplete, devisive misstatements of fact and you Mr. Hildebrand have either swallowed their Kool-Aid or you are holding a pitcher.

When Mr. Hildebrand used the name of "Goebbels" in his attack on opponents of Measure P, The Marymount Plan, could it be because of his liking what Goebbels did and his knowledge of Goebbel's actions?

It is not any stretch for everyone to consider that Mr. Hildebrand is a far-right conservative on political issues and we have seen photographic evidence lately that other far-right conservatives have no problem wearing the Nazi uniform while many other far-right conservatives know better, Which far-right conservative is Mr. Hildebrand?

I very much appreciate the letter from Ms. Nancy Mahr, President of the Palos Verdes Peninsula chapter of the League of Women Voters.

Her letter clarified the League's position and educated me even more about why the League voted to oppose Measure P, The Marymount Plan.

Like the League of Women Voters, I believe we all agree that The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project is the best way for Marymount to expand and attempt to become the institution of higher learning it seeks to become.

Although my opposition to Measure P, The Marymount Plan is different that the League's and many others, I understand where the League is coming from and I support their reasoning in many ways.

It think the letter from Mr. Stephen Perestam restates a strongly and widely held position of many or our city's residents. Mr. Perestam used clear logic and wrote a very good letter, in my opinion.

Ms. Marty Redfield's letter pretty much offered the best facts to know about Steve Kuykendall's current status and residency.

Ms. Redfield's letter did not include the fact that Mr. Kuykendall became a grandfather to a larger number of grandchildren when his son Brent, the fabulous Assistant Principal at Miraleste Intermediate School and Brent's wife, brought home another daughter to add to the family.

Didn't Mr. Edward A Ruttenberg write a wonderful, but far, far, far too easy quiz?

I answered correctly after reading all eight points and I am quite sure every other reader got it correct, too.

I think Mr. Paul Tetreault's letter that included the fact that just about every single person who has lived in dorms knows for a fact that "quiet time" is fictional at best. There seems to be no former dorm resident, even folks like Mr. Hildebrand, who would swear that "quiet time" really happens on the majority of campuses having dorms within the United States.

What Mr. Tetreault's letter also reflects is that yet again, the statements made by Mr. Hildebrand about all opposition letters looking the same, is factually untrue.

Mr. Tetreault is one of a handful of Rancho Palos Verdes residents who has been so deeply involved with all aspects of The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project that he could be easily recognized as an expert in these issues by all sides of those issues and his 'testimony' is irrefutably, honest, accurate, timely, and very very strong.

I saved the letter from Ms. Sharon Nolan so it would be the last and I am going to answer her questions contained in her letter directly.

Yes, Mr. Nolan, you can and could get "free TV coverage. I did it many times and I can be viewed on TV speaking at various meetings, all archived and available, and FREE!

You and Marymount did and do have the exact same opportunity as I took to be on TV and Marymount got plenty of free TV airings to offer its points and those are archived, too. And they are and were FREE.

Ms. Nolan, I think I will have to publish the graph that shows the timeline over the last more-than-ten years to illustrate to you, the less informed and others with your similar educational background about Marymount and its plan that it is MARYMOUNT'S representatives and their actions and inactions that caused over 70% of the delays in seeking the approval they finally received to build EVERYTHING THEY ASKED FOR!

Citizens not only got a fair hearing, but representatives of Marymount and its students who are among the vast majority of folks associated with Marymount College who ARE NOT RESIDENTS OF RPV, got more opportunities and availabilities than just about every other issue in the history of Rancho Palos Verdes.

Ms. Nolan and others, had you actually read the pertinent information about both The Marymount Plan and The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, you would learn the truth rather than using misinformation and propaganda fed to you that you and other ate up and continue to offer.

It is not all that hard to look at the letters in this latest issues and compare them to the previous letters to easily determine who is most knowledgeable and informed about both The Marymount Plan and The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project.

With this latest issue we again clearly see the lack of education and probably innocent ignorance about the real facts and the whole truth while be able to compare letters to letters.

This once again demonstrates to me that the campaign by Marymount College to keep their supporters misinformed, less educated, and ill-advised about Measure P, The Marymount Plan is further proof of what Marymount seeks to do and why it is so important that everyone read the 51-page Measure and as much as one can about The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project.

I continue to strongly feel that once folks honestly learn the objective truth about Measure, The Plan and The Project, they will take down their "Yes on P" signs, put up "No on P" signs and vote "No" on Measure P, The Marymount Plan by November 2, 2010.

Safety. Everyone. Everywhere. Every hour.