The end of the beginning of both The Marymount Plan and The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project will probably arrive by just about 11:59 PM on Tuesday November 2, 2010.
I am hoping that the vote tally will be in and able to inform everyone how voters voted.
I have heard possible results from a very large "No" vote all the way to a very large "Yes" vote and I am not really willing to guess how the vote will end up, except for one thing.
If the vote is very, very close either way, that itself may be the beginning of the middle for both The Plan and The Project. I hope there doesn't need to be a recount or lawsuits filed because of the vote when so many of us know that Wednesday November 3, 2010 will probably be the beginning of many items, issues, and problems nobody wants.
I don't know if there is anything more I could add about my safety concerns with having up to 250 Marymount Students living in on-campus housing.
Probably the last thing is to consider that there is nothing in Measure P, The Marymount Plan's language that specifies who as students, could live in the dorms.
There is no wording included that states that on-campus housing would be exclusively for freshman students and there is no number that states how many seniors would be allowed.
What is stated is the maximum number of vehicles (125) allowed for students to park on campus while residing in dorms.
What is not stated is whether all five "advisers" would each be allowed at least one vehicle left on campus.
It seems that the up to 125 students that would not be able to bring their vehicles on-campus while they are residing at Marymount just might have a long walk to and from their vehicles that would be parked (probably only temporarily until they are mandated to park on campus) in residential areas where parking permits don't exist.
I am still dumbstruck by Dr. Brophy's recent admissions about the gym, playing fields, and other things he didn't like from the City Council's approval of every single building Dr. Brophy asked for.
Not only has it been confirmed that when the lowering of the roofline of the gym, by just 10 feet, Dr. Brophy and Marymount's Land Use Attorney that they has no objections at that time to the lowering of the roofline.
Also, when Dr. Brophy complained about the field being moved 60 feet, he failed to mention that soccer players, playing on a field constructed according to The Marymount Plan will have the problem of not running out of bounds into a chain-link fence, but in at least two portions of the field, they could run into a brick or concrete wall.
It has been my personal experience that it is more desirable to run into a chain-link fence than into a brick or concrete wall.
If The Marymount Plan was actually and factually so good for Marymount AND the community, there clearly would not have been the need for mailers being sent out by Marymount at least several times per week.
Dr. Brophy has not mentioned any negatives that could come from adoption and completion of The Marymount Plan but opponents like me have acknowledged some truthful items in The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Plan that are probably not so positive for our community and those items are also INCLUDED in The Marymount Plan.
The facts in print, on videotape, and on official records of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes indicate that every single building element brought to the City Council for discussion, debate, and approval by Dr. Michael Brophy and Marymount College was approved and the approval was by unanimous vote.
Yes, there were some changes, but the fact that the field, gym, library, and all the other elements that was contained in Marymount's own documents, were approved for construction.
What is also noteworthy and disenginous is Dr. Brophy on one hand, chastising and criticizing the Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission and then more recently praising them in his remarks of contempt toward the City Council members.
The only consistency in the entire process since 2006, has been the inconsistency of Dr. Brophy and many of his claims and remarks.
I don't know why Dr. Brophy felt he had to resort to using his wife in a 'personal' letter and it once again demonstrates to me what steps he will go to and what people he will use to try and get Measure P passed.
If the mission of Marymount College is to provide education so that graduates can go out into the world and help people so those people can live, how about starting right here in Rancho Palos Verdes?
The vast majority of the good and wonderful service Marymount students perform does not take place within the community they claim to be so supportive of.
What we have seen over the years, is basically the exact opposite.
When representatives of Marymount College do the things they have done, attempting to get dorms approved, it really flies against the purpose and the mission of Marymount College it imparts on students.
And about Dr. Brophy and others' recent claims about dorms from 1978 and dorms now, they continue to attempt to equate a small box of apples to a shipping container filled with oranges.
The dorms approved in 1978 needed approval from ONLY the Planning Commission and the City Council did not even need to take up that matter.
The on-campus housing was approved for 200 students at a time when the entire enrollment at Marymount was about 250 students.
This clearly indicates that Marymount was seeking housing for 4/5 of its student body and that also means Marymount College is really administered by individuals who seek out of L.A., out of California, and out of U.S. students at their campus.
When what Congressman Kuykendall claimed that currently "15-25% of the students currently enrolled at Marymount grew up locally and are classified as 'local students' it means that 75-85% of those currently attending Marymount come from other areas on the planet.
The facts as stated by Dr. McFadden, Marymount's immediate former President, Congressman Steve Kuykendall and many others is that Marymount IS NOT and WILL NOT provide any education to a majority of students who live in the local area and that Marymount is actually using the World Community as its base and NOT the Rancho Palos Verdes Community, it claims it represents.
If you haven't already, please vote "No" on Measure P, The Marymount Plan.
Safety. Everyone. Everywhere. Every hour.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Measure P removes the city's the city's ability to police Marymount's actions. Marymount's answer is to trust them. I trust people that have shown a pattern of trustworthy behavior. What have we seen from Marymount?
ReplyDelete- claims that the city won't let them modernize their campus (a lie)
- claims that measure P is needed to build a gym and library for the residents to "enjoy" (a lie)
- no mention of dorms in marketing the measure (a lie of omission)
- using the term "residence hall" when forced to discuss the dorms (obfuscation)
- statements that the facility will be built at "no taxpayer expense" (a strawman)
- twisting Councilman Misetich’s words to imply the exact opposite of his intent (a lie)
- a judge’s ruling that Marymount’s ballot statement was false (a lie)
- a lawsuit against the Council for factual statements in the ballot statement (lawfare to stifle critics)
- unauthorized removal and destruction of “No on P” signs in the middle of the night (theft, vandalism)
- a blizzard of new “Yes on P” campaign signs in the exact same color scheme as the “No on P” lawn signs in an attempt to confuse voters regarding the amount of the opposition (obfuscation)
Does this sound like an organization that deserves our trust? This measure boils down to one thing; high dollar ocean-view dorms marketed to wealthy parents of out-of-state and foreign students. Refinery-view dorms just don’t seem to do the trick in convincing parents to part with $30K/year. Perhaps if Marymount spent their money wisely they could lower tuition costs and attract more students. Instead, we have $1.2M (and counting) on Measure P, that’s $1600 for every Marymount student.
Who supports the measure? Those making a buck off Marymount and failed city politicians that lost election (or re-election) bids. The latter clearly have a chip on their shoulder; their motivation appears that the Council suffers an embarrassing loss rather than any actual support for Marymount. It is shameful.
Dr. Brophy has been a disaster for Marymount. Instead of listening to his neighbors and the Council, he decided to listen to paid campaign consultants and failed politicians who convinced him the residents would swallow the lies. What an incredibly foolish move. Even if measure P squeaks by, Marymount will be a pariah in the city. Is that what he wants? Does he care? Is that representative of the Christian values Marymount claims to uphold?
This isn't the City of Bell. The residents are engaged, can spot propaganda, and know the truth. The campaign consultants will still get paid when Measure P loses. Unfortunately for Marymount's leadership, "squandered $1.2M in failed initiative" won't look so good when updating their resumes for the inevitable new job search.