What a piece of work Dr. Brophy apparently fancies himself, with the article that was published in Sunday's Daily Breeze.
Really? Dr. Brophy wants to get the fundraising ball rolling to begin building, in 2012, a building that is already obsolete.
Reality? I think after reading the article you might get the impression that Measure P was not voted on by more than 51 percent of registered voters who then voted, with just over 55% of the more than 51%, "NO" on The Marymount Plan.
Since The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, the building project Dr. Brophy and others representing Marymount College agreed to utilize has specific time limits to begin construction, I wonder if Dr. Brophy will head off to a City Council meeting and demand an extension to the dates specified in the Project he and others accepted?
I will have more information about this and other things on my next "Bits and Pieces" that I will try and post by Monday evening.
I've got a show opening on December 3 that needs some more design and carpentry work. I'll have information about that show, in a future posts.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Bits and Pieces 23
Mayor Pro Tem Tom Long was among the minority when a vote was held early
Wednesday morning on a motion concerning The Annenberg Project.
I am sad that his vote and the vote by Councilman Stern was not accompanied by another "Yes" vote from another member of the Council.
I am in almost total agreement with Mayor Pro Tem Long's views on The Annenberg Project and I have included his Listserver Email about the subject, below:
Subject: Annenberg Project What Happened and Why?
Message:
Dear RPV Residents,
The way in which the city has likely lost the proposed Annenberg Project bears some additional discussion because of the consequences it may bring. I have had additional time to garner some facts about what happened and they present a picture that should be made public. The decision was singularly the worst I have seen in my seven years on council because of the substance but even more importantly the process behind the decision. The city’s decision was the product of a 3-2 vote on November 16th that can be reconsidered if one of those in the majority (Wolowicz, Misetich, or Campbell) chooses to support reconsideration. I urge you to write to the council at cc@rpv.com asking them to do so and to do it at our next meeting on November 30th.
In 2008 the city council voted 4-1 (Clark, Gardiner, Long and Stern in favor and Wolowicz dissenting) to proceed with the planning application for the Annenberg Project. At the time the council determined that the project would not require a general plan amendment. The project continued to move forward to the point that a Draft EIR was prepared and an initial hearing was held before the planning commission a few months ago.
Residents within the community opposed to the project, most notably Eva Ciccoria, contacted David Siegenthaler of the National Park Service (NPS) to lobby against the project. Ms. Ciccoria, the wife of Palos Verdes Land Conservancy (PVPLC) President Ken Swenson, is also actively lobbying the State of California to block grant applications for other park improvements in the city. Siegenthaler was told that the Annenberg Project was a “dog pound” and relayed that misrepresentation of the project to his superiors in Washington D.C. Without contacting either the Annenberg Foundation or other supporters of the project or any elected officials, Siegenthaler attended planning commission meetings where he spoke mostly to opponents of the project and some, but not all, members of the planning commission. He wrote letters suggesting that the project violated deed and program of utilization (POU) restrictions but also admitting that he really did not have complete information about the project. His letters also failed to explain the process for getting an official determination from the NPS or for seeking amendments to restrictions if needed. Siegenthaler’s letters were a premature judgment on the project based on misrepresentations. Siegenthaler now essentially admits this.
I made a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the NPS to obtain Siegenthaler’s files to try to learn more. Interestingly Ms. Ciccoria learned of my FOIA request before I got a letter from the NPS acknowledging receipt of the request. Ciccoria contacted me to complain about the request and to demand that I withdraw it. She cannot articulate any good reason, however, for her desire to conceal the NPS files from the public. I have received only a limited partial response to my request. If and when I get a complete response I will post the results on my webpage.
In the meantime, the Annenberg Foundation continued to work to bring its proposed project through the planning process. Over the two years since the council’s 2008 vote to permit the application to proceed, the project was further modified to address concerns. Over the course of the past few months Annenberg’s representatives met with each councilmember and was assured of support by each. Most significantly Mayor Wolowicz assured the foundation that he was “100% in support” of allowing the application to proceed.
In advance of planning commission and council hearings, project opponents continued to misrepresent the project describing it as a “huge development,” a “dog pound” and an “animal hospital.” The former commercial farm and untended fields where the project would be located were falsely described by opponents as “pristine open space.” The proposed building footprint on 3% of the land was described as “dense development” and all of the non-building features of the project and many of its other aspects were simply ignored. Opponents of the project mischaracterized Mr. Siegenthaler’s letters as well as the deed restrictions and the POU. The deed was misrepresented as requiring “open space passive recreation” when it does not even contain the phrase “open space” or the word “passive” anywhere.
The planning commission hearing on the project was disrupted by Mr. Siegenthaler’s letters. Understandably the planning commission felt that it needed guidance from the city council as to how to proceed in light of the letters. At the council hearing on November 16th Ciccoria and others falsely characterized the letters as a final decision of the NPS that demonstrated that the actions of the council allowing the project to proceed were “illegal.” Ciccoria was again resorting to misrepresentation. Mr. Siegenthaler explained that his letters were preliminary and did not represent a final NPS decision. He clearly indicated that such decisions cannot be made until the city applies for a determination. Siegenthaler also indicated his preference to have the determination based on a project that had gone through the entire planning process. The process also includes the ability to seek amendments to the restrictions if necessary.
Given our knowledge of many of the facts above on November 16th, it should have been easy for the council to send the project back to the planning commission with instructions to continue the process. Siegenthaler had clearly indicated that NPS was willing to work with Annenberg and with the staff. Nothing about the project had changed to justify reconsidering the council’s 2008 determination that the project was worth considering in the planning process. And no council member identified any new information that justified reversing his earlier declaration of support of the project.
Amazingly, and with almost no explanation, three councilmembers voted to abort the planning process. One of the three, Councilman Campbell, continued to say he supported the project. Councilman Misetich and Mayor Wolowicz left their votes largely unexplained. After 4 years of work and after clear earlier indications that it felt the project should get a full hearing in the planning process, the council abruptly ended the process without a coherent explanation. In light of this, a number of people understandably have expressed the view to me that the trustworthiness of RPV’s council is questionable.
Regardless of what one thinks of the merits of the Annenberg Project, all of the residents of RPV should be appalled by the process used to kill the project. Much of the process was hidden from public view and left totally unexplained. Much of it was based on misinformation that the Annenberg Foundation was not given an opportunity to fully answer through public exposure of that misinformation and through the public hearings of the planning process.
We should understand that the way the Annenberg project was handled, even more than just the rejection of the project, will have serious ramifications for RPV. Major private donors were in the audience on November 16th watching how our city council handles donors. One was heard to remark “I don’t need to go through something like this.” Another donor has withdrawn some funds that were on deposit with the city for possible civic center improvements—interestingly redirecting them to PVPLC. Of course PVPLC has taken no official position on the Annenberg Project or any other land use matter in RPV. But its President previously joined his wife Ms. Ciccoria in personally lobbying against the city’s application for a grant to provide park improvements at Abalone Cove. That lobbying too was characterized by misrepresentations.
Now that 1400 acres (15% of the city’s land area) is in the city’s Palos Verdes Nature Preserve, eliminating sources of funding for improvements on public park land may be seen by some as a way to further expand “open space preservation.” Of course what the city really needs is help protecting and maintaining the open space it has, not converting its parks into yet more open space. RPV has had to turn to others, notably the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, to provide apark ranger program, because of the inability of the PVPLC to provide RPV with all of the help the city needs. Hopefully the energies of those now attacking the city’s parks can be redirected to constructively helping PVPLC fulfill its original mission. PVPLC clearly needs that help.
Whatever hopes we had for public private partnerships between RPV and charitable foundations and other agencies, those hopes are now likely dashed for decades to come. While open space preservation has been successful and likely will be for some time to come, efforts to improve the city’s parks, educational opportunities and its civic life in general are sure to suffer.
Tom Long
Mayor Pro Tem, Rancho Palos Verdes
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I do believe there has been misrepresentation by some opposed the The Project and I hope and urge residents to write to the Council with their opinions on The Project.
It may be unavailable, but I would like to see the K-9 Assistant training and education facility on the upper section of the Point Vicente Reservation of Fort MacArthur.
It also might be impractical to have visitor moving vehicles between the upper and lower levels of the Reservation, but there could be a nature walk/bridge over Palos Verdes Drive West access between the two areas and it would also be wonderful, in my opinion, if the facility mentioned shared space with a museum dealing with our city and the rest of the peninsula, along with some money offered to rebuild the City Hall facility.
There should not be any competition between open space supporters over where the open spaces and other park spaces should be, I feel.
____________________________________________________
I found the letter to the editor of The Palos Verdes Peninsula News by Ms. Sharon Yarber, about the Charter City proposal to be very educational.
It seems to be so true that if voters really want to learn about Rancho Palos Verdes becoming a Charter City, they will have to educate themselves or rely on more objective resources than elected leaders of Rancho Palos Verdes appear to be.
Whether we learn from opponents or supporters, the real and whole truth is somewhere between the two groups and it doesn't look likely that either group will be as objective and I and other residents need to learn from.
___________________________________________________
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Bits and Pieces 22
The Tuesday November 16, 2010 City Council meeting has on its agenda more discussion and review of the Federal restrictions placed on Lower Pointe Vicente Reservation of Fort MacArthur with regards to the Annenberg Project.
Interested residents and others might find this meeting important in finding out more information about what can and cannot be placed in the area.
________________________________________________________
Is he still here? If so, why?
Where is the check that fulfills your promise to pay all the coats of the recent Special Election?
_______________________________________________________
A Listserver Email from Mayor Pro Tem Tom Long recently also had the suggestion that perhaps the Marymount College Board of Trustees might wish to create and support a slate of candidates in the next City Council Election that, if successful, would place three new Council members who could pass the municipal ordinances requested by Marymount College to build dorms and also provide the language contained in The Marymount Plan's Measure P.
This could make moot the will of the majority of voters in Rancho Palos Verdes who voted to oppose passage of Measure P.
I still have my list of names of some of the supporters of Measure P and I will not lose it between now and the November, 2011 election.
______________________________________________________
I am still lukewarm about Rancho Palos Verdes becoming a Charter City with a March, 2011 vote.
I need much more information and I still hold that supporters of having our city becoming a Charter City should pay the election costs just like Dr. Brophy promised his College would, for Measure P.
Maybe it's the best thing since soup, but I feel our voters, who came out to vote days ago, need the same level of education to make a determination to either vote to support of oppose Charter City status.
_____________________________________________________
It has been two weeks since I set foot in Amalfitano Bakery. It is extremely difficult remaining away from such a great bakery. I hope many others fill the tiny void I have created not being able to enjoy the treats.
_____________________________________________________
Interested residents and others might find this meeting important in finding out more information about what can and cannot be placed in the area.
________________________________________________________
Is he still here? If so, why?
Where is the check that fulfills your promise to pay all the coats of the recent Special Election?
_______________________________________________________
A Listserver Email from Mayor Pro Tem Tom Long recently also had the suggestion that perhaps the Marymount College Board of Trustees might wish to create and support a slate of candidates in the next City Council Election that, if successful, would place three new Council members who could pass the municipal ordinances requested by Marymount College to build dorms and also provide the language contained in The Marymount Plan's Measure P.
This could make moot the will of the majority of voters in Rancho Palos Verdes who voted to oppose passage of Measure P.
I still have my list of names of some of the supporters of Measure P and I will not lose it between now and the November, 2011 election.
______________________________________________________
I am still lukewarm about Rancho Palos Verdes becoming a Charter City with a March, 2011 vote.
I need much more information and I still hold that supporters of having our city becoming a Charter City should pay the election costs just like Dr. Brophy promised his College would, for Measure P.
Maybe it's the best thing since soup, but I feel our voters, who came out to vote days ago, need the same level of education to make a determination to either vote to support of oppose Charter City status.
_____________________________________________________
It has been two weeks since I set foot in Amalfitano Bakery. It is extremely difficult remaining away from such a great bakery. I hope many others fill the tiny void I have created not being able to enjoy the treats.
_____________________________________________________
Monday, November 8, 2010
Bits and Pieces 21
The Scoping Meeting for the new Notice of Preparation and Initial Study for Ponte Vista at San Pedro is this Wednesday November 10, 2010 at the Peck Park Community Center Auditorium. I believe it begins at 7:00 P.M.
My initial review of the numbers of the elements in each of the seven types of housing proposed for Ponte Vista's 61.53 acres can be found on my other big blog:
www.pontevista.blogspot.com, where I post much more information about matters revolving around the northwest San Pedro property.
______________________________________________
Many of the residents of R.P.V. living here on the east side of The Hill may have a new view in July, 2011 of the U.S.S. Iowa that may become an attraction at or near berth 87 in the main channel.
While bringing a big Naval vessel to San Pedro as an attraction is a very good idea, in my opinion, I am among a very few folks who thinks another options of bringing to the harbor a different type of vessel as an attraction might offer so much more in the way of displays and opportunities by veterans of all branches of our military to be represented in a new historical attraction and education center.
Right now, the Amphibious Assault Ship, a small carrier, the U.S.S. Tarrawa, is awaiting final disposition, anchored in Pearl Harbor.
A ship or the Tarrawa class is actually a few feet shorter and just a foot or two narrower than the U.S.S. Iowa, but it and its sister ships have all kinds of room to offer displays and history from all the different branches of the service, not just the Navy and the Marines.
The ships making up the Tarrawa class will all be decommissioned in the near future because they are being replaced by the U.S.S. Iwo Jima class of ship.
A Tarrawa Class ship has a flight deck where aircraft from all branches of the military could become static displays.
If there is not enough room for all the aircraft on the flight deck, a ship of the class has a hangar deck to offer space for more aircraft or displays of land vehicles use by our military.
Further down towards the keel of the ship and at the stern is an amphibious dock that could display those types of craft.
All through the remainder of the ship there could be displays representing every branch of the military and other programs.
With the U.S.S. Iowa, the majority of the interest would be directed towards the U.S. Navy. That is fine, but having a Tarrawa class ship would direct interest towards all branches and veterans from all branches might be more interested in joining efforts to offer history and volunteer their time and efforts showing the greatness of the branch they served in.
I could find great enjoyment getting back to restoring and demonstrating some of the radios and other things I worked on while I was in the Air Force.
The offensive fire power of the U.S.S. Iowa was never more than a partial amount of offensive fire power a fully operational Amphibious Assault Carrier could put out.
Harrier jump jets had cruise missiles, but the Iowa didn't have aircraft other than a few helicopters towards its fantail, after the stern guns were removed.
While East Side residents may get a good view of the U.S.S. Iowa, which I would not mind coming here, I think San Pedro and all of us could get a bigger bang for our bucks and volunteer hours having a ship that could offer representation of all branched of our military.
I think there is still a healthy number of veterans from all the branches of service living on the East Side and all over the rest of R.P.V.
_______________________________________________________
I am still flabbergasted with admissions from some at Marymount who claimed I lied and other opponents of Measure P lied,deceived, or made misstatements.
I do have to applaud everyone who hated the robocalls and I hated that our side stooped to needing to use them.
Had we been on a more fair playing field, those robocalls would probably not have occurred.
I don't know why were weren't singled out to receive robocalls from both sides, but that is no reason to be happy that other opponents had to endure robocalls from either side.
______________________________________________________
My new favorite question is; "Is he gone yet?". This is reference to when the time occurs when Dr. Michael Brophy is no longer Marymount's President.
Since he did a pretty smarmy attack job on myself, members of CCC/ME, the City Council, former Mayors, and other opponents of Measure P, his words and deeds reflect upon Marymount's Board of Trustees, and not in a good way.
I will be waiting almost impatiently to say the words of a convicted felon, when on the day of Dr. Brophy's leaving Marymount I will be able to say, "That is a good thing."
_____________________________________________________
My initial review of the numbers of the elements in each of the seven types of housing proposed for Ponte Vista's 61.53 acres can be found on my other big blog:
www.pontevista.blogspot.com, where I post much more information about matters revolving around the northwest San Pedro property.
______________________________________________
Many of the residents of R.P.V. living here on the east side of The Hill may have a new view in July, 2011 of the U.S.S. Iowa that may become an attraction at or near berth 87 in the main channel.
While bringing a big Naval vessel to San Pedro as an attraction is a very good idea, in my opinion, I am among a very few folks who thinks another options of bringing to the harbor a different type of vessel as an attraction might offer so much more in the way of displays and opportunities by veterans of all branches of our military to be represented in a new historical attraction and education center.
Right now, the Amphibious Assault Ship, a small carrier, the U.S.S. Tarrawa, is awaiting final disposition, anchored in Pearl Harbor.
A ship or the Tarrawa class is actually a few feet shorter and just a foot or two narrower than the U.S.S. Iowa, but it and its sister ships have all kinds of room to offer displays and history from all the different branches of the service, not just the Navy and the Marines.
The ships making up the Tarrawa class will all be decommissioned in the near future because they are being replaced by the U.S.S. Iwo Jima class of ship.
A Tarrawa Class ship has a flight deck where aircraft from all branches of the military could become static displays.
If there is not enough room for all the aircraft on the flight deck, a ship of the class has a hangar deck to offer space for more aircraft or displays of land vehicles use by our military.
Further down towards the keel of the ship and at the stern is an amphibious dock that could display those types of craft.
All through the remainder of the ship there could be displays representing every branch of the military and other programs.
With the U.S.S. Iowa, the majority of the interest would be directed towards the U.S. Navy. That is fine, but having a Tarrawa class ship would direct interest towards all branches and veterans from all branches might be more interested in joining efforts to offer history and volunteer their time and efforts showing the greatness of the branch they served in.
I could find great enjoyment getting back to restoring and demonstrating some of the radios and other things I worked on while I was in the Air Force.
The offensive fire power of the U.S.S. Iowa was never more than a partial amount of offensive fire power a fully operational Amphibious Assault Carrier could put out.
Harrier jump jets had cruise missiles, but the Iowa didn't have aircraft other than a few helicopters towards its fantail, after the stern guns were removed.
While East Side residents may get a good view of the U.S.S. Iowa, which I would not mind coming here, I think San Pedro and all of us could get a bigger bang for our bucks and volunteer hours having a ship that could offer representation of all branched of our military.
I think there is still a healthy number of veterans from all the branches of service living on the East Side and all over the rest of R.P.V.
_______________________________________________________
I am still flabbergasted with admissions from some at Marymount who claimed I lied and other opponents of Measure P lied,deceived, or made misstatements.
I do have to applaud everyone who hated the robocalls and I hated that our side stooped to needing to use them.
Had we been on a more fair playing field, those robocalls would probably not have occurred.
I don't know why were weren't singled out to receive robocalls from both sides, but that is no reason to be happy that other opponents had to endure robocalls from either side.
______________________________________________________
My new favorite question is; "Is he gone yet?". This is reference to when the time occurs when Dr. Michael Brophy is no longer Marymount's President.
Since he did a pretty smarmy attack job on myself, members of CCC/ME, the City Council, former Mayors, and other opponents of Measure P, his words and deeds reflect upon Marymount's Board of Trustees, and not in a good way.
I will be waiting almost impatiently to say the words of a convicted felon, when on the day of Dr. Brophy's leaving Marymount I will be able to say, "That is a good thing."
_____________________________________________________
Friday, November 5, 2010
Life With and Besides Marymount
Click on image to enlarge.My life never revolved around Measure P, The Marymount Plan, but it took up far too much valuable time for me and lots and lots of other people.
"Seven Brides for Seven Brothers" can be enjoyed by the entire family and I hope to see all of you at a performance at the historic Warner Grand Theatre, in San Pedro.
"Millie "Pontipee" is played fabulously by Ms. Kristin Towers-Rowles, the granddaughter of the late musical theater and movie star, Ms. Kathryn Grayson.
After "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers" Kristin will reprise the role made famous by her grandmother with "Kiss Me Kate" in late February, 2011.
On Thursday November 11, at Noon, we will perform a free show for those 55-year's of age or better.
__________________________________________
So, here is the potential deal:
Marymount's Board looks for and considers supporting a slate of three candidates favorable to The Marymount Plan to run for the three seats to be vacated due to term limits in the November, 2011 R.P.V. City Council election.
Since the current Council could have legally approved every element of The Marymount Plan, including the Campus Specific Zone District and the new municiple code that was crafted for Measure P, it is now thought that a new 'packed' City Council could approve all the provisions of The Marymount Plan without having the measure go before voters, once again.
This is one reason I am holding onto the large list of the names of supporters for Measure P.
If a slate of candidates most favorable to Marymount run for the three seats and they are all elected, it is more than quite possible in my opinion, that the three new members would vote to approve all the elements and provisions denied by voters last Tuesday and that this would be yet another way Marymount gets around obsticles that keep if from having dorms approved.
____________________________________________
If you are still holding your breath to see if Marymount would provide the funds it said it would provide to cover the costs of the Special Election, please breath again.
____________________________________________
If you are still holding your breath to see if Marymount would provide the funds it said it would provide to cover the costs of the Special Election, please breath again.
I have already heard rumblings that since R.P.V. apparently did not formally 'accept' Marymount's offer, Marymount may be off the hook for the costs and fees and Taxpayers ould have to pick up the entire tab.
____________________________________________
It is not only my position but also the thoughts of a growing group of residents who believe the reputation of the members of the Marymount College Board of Trustees could be at least somewhat restored after Dr. Brophy leaves.
____________________________________________
It is not only my position but also the thoughts of a growing group of residents who believe the reputation of the members of the Marymount College Board of Trustees could be at least somewhat restored after Dr. Brophy leaves.
*NOTE: I stopped drafting this post Friday night and when I came back to finish it, I was informed that Dr. Brophy did not attend Thursday's City Council meeting because he was "out of town" and when a friend of mine was walking past Dr. Brophy's house they saw no cars parked in the driveway.
Now it is quite understandable that after having his 'part of a lower extremity' handed to him, Dr. Brophy may just be on a holiday or trying to refuel after making so many false claims that folks like me lied about Measure P (even though not even Marymount's President could find anything I wrote to be less than factual) and that those in opposition to the passage of Measure P are dishonest and deceptive.
Could it be that Dr. Brophy is attending interviews for other employment opportunities?
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Disgusting. Pathetic. Sore Losers From A Supposed Institution of Higher Learning?
Well, I should have expected this, but so soon after the Special Election?
I think if you go back and read my postings over the last 24 hours or so, you should be able to determine that I didn't gloat about the outcome of Marymount's Special Election.
I truly believe I was more moderate in my writings about how our community needs to get back together because there are so many important issues that need our attention, intellect, care and concern, and our opinions going to our governors so that they can make the informed decisisons we elected them to do as they represent all of us.
So it is with much disgust and dismay that I must once again add comments to information provided, using a different color font.
I had hoped I would not feel the need to do this, but thie article below is wo amazing that I simply must not go without commenting on what has been published.
Bitter feelings linger over Measure P defeat in Rancho Palos Verdes
By Melissa Pamer Staff Writer, South Bay Daily Breeze.
Posted: 11/03/2010 07:38:32 PM PDT
Updated: 11/03/2010 07:51:25 PM PDT
In the aftermath of electoral defeat that followed an initiative effort funded by more than $1.3 million, Marymount College representatives attributed their loss to negative campaigning from their opponents.
The small Catholic college's Measure P, an initiative seeking approval of an expansion plan that included dormitories for 250 students, was rejected by 56.1 percent of voters.
Well actually and according to the Registrar Recorder's Web site, 55.09% of the slightly over 51% of registered voters voted "No" on Measure P.
"It is unfortunate for Marymount College and for the community of Rancho Palos Verdes that a campaign to obscure truth and hide the facts was successful," Brophy said.
This is so unbelievable yet so believable coming from Dr. Michael Brophy.
"Myopic" came out of the mouth of my wonderful wife the instant she read the statement.
I am not psychiatrist but I have to wonder about the stability of Dr. Brophy after reading the statement.
I guess asking Dr. Brophy about his promise to have Marymount pay for the Special Election that he made last May will not get a positive response from Marymount's President.
It looks like Dr. Brophy and his group promised to pay for a Special Election they lost by over 10 points.
Please don't bet that this promise will be fulfilled.
"We continue to believe that the Marymount Plan is the right choice for Rancho Palos Verdes. Moving forward, we will do what we do every day, put our best foot forward to serve our students and this community."
I think we now have been provide multiple exposures to what he means by "this community" and that it is all about Marymount's community and not the Rancho Palos Verdes community in general or even particular.
Most of the $50 million project can still go ahead because a similar plan - without dorms - was approved by the City Council earlier this year.
Also, I wouldn't bet on this happening, either. Since Marymount lost the ability to contract with a company to provide on-campus housing and provide revenue to Marymount
The approved buildings include a new library, athletic center, pool and other improvements on the college's 25-acre Palos Verdes Drive East campus, which is surrounded by single-family homes.
But it's not clear what the college's plans are now.
It is growing more clearer what Marymount will probably do in the near future and further out into the future.
Englander said the "no" campaign, which he accused of law-breaking and lying, was more "despicable" than any he had seen in 15 years.
I guess he doesn't like looking in mirrors.
"I think that the `no' campaign was willing to stoop to a depth that an organization like Marymount College would never do," Englander said.
Asked if he perhaps misjudged Rancho Palos Verdes voters, Englander responded: "I did misjudge them in their capacity of being sold a bill of goods."
Actually a 1.5 Million Dollar 'bill of goods' is quite a bit larger than $40,000 or maybe Harvey has trouble counting other people's money.
Opponents of Measure P countered that the college's historic spending - which at the most recent reporting in campaign finance records amounted to nearly $46 per registered voter - had led to the initiative's defeat.
"I think the `no' side only told the truth. I personally think what killed them is the spending of so much money," said Lois Karp, head of Concerned Citizens Coalition/Marymount Expansion, a neighborhood group that has organized to oppose dormitories for more than a decade.
"Once it got over $1 million ... people began to think: Something else is going on here. I honestly think that was their downfall and I thank them for it," Karp said.
Councilman Doug Stern, who co-wrote a ballot argument against Measure P, called the outcome a "train wreck" for Marymount.
He said voters had adhered to the founding goals of a city incorporated in 1973 to limit dense coastal development.
"I'm very, very pleased with the outcome. I think it reaffirms that which the voters did 37 years ago. They want land-use decisions to be made by their elected officials ... who study the issues carefully and ... reflect the values of our community."
The college's initiative came after an arduous planning process that began in 2000 and was stopped repeatedly when Marymount changed its plans and the city responded with requests for more environmental studies.
The No on P side spent about $40,000, according to campaign records, a figure that Englander contended was far understated.
Opponents, including a unanimous City Council, cautioned that the election was just one episode in an ongoing Marymount saga.
Stern noted that the college pursued Measure P because it wanted more than what was granted by the council, which never considered dormitories. Student housing had been withdrawn from the college's application last year in the face of opposition on the Planning Commission.
Under city planning code, the college may again apply to construct dormitories.
It's unclear if or when that would happen. While waiting to find out, Mayor Steve Wolowicz and others said that they're hoping that election-induced rifts will soon be healed.
"I'm sorry we had to go through this exercise," Wolowicz said, "but I think the mayor and the council has to focus not on the victory but continued management of pressing issues in front of us ... and to work toward reconciliation, because this did put strain upon us.
"I hope, quite frankly, that there are no more surprises."
melissa.pamer@dailybreeze.com
I think if you go back and read my postings over the last 24 hours or so, you should be able to determine that I didn't gloat about the outcome of Marymount's Special Election.
I truly believe I was more moderate in my writings about how our community needs to get back together because there are so many important issues that need our attention, intellect, care and concern, and our opinions going to our governors so that they can make the informed decisisons we elected them to do as they represent all of us.
So it is with much disgust and dismay that I must once again add comments to information provided, using a different color font.
I had hoped I would not feel the need to do this, but thie article below is wo amazing that I simply must not go without commenting on what has been published.
Bitter feelings linger over Measure P defeat in Rancho Palos Verdes
By Melissa Pamer Staff Writer, South Bay Daily Breeze.
Posted: 11/03/2010 07:38:32 PM PDT
Updated: 11/03/2010 07:51:25 PM PDT
In the aftermath of electoral defeat that followed an initiative effort funded by more than $1.3 million, Marymount College representatives attributed their loss to negative campaigning from their opponents.
The small Catholic college's Measure P, an initiative seeking approval of an expansion plan that included dormitories for 250 students, was rejected by 56.1 percent of voters.
Well actually and according to the Registrar Recorder's Web site, 55.09% of the slightly over 51% of registered voters voted "No" on Measure P.
"It is unfortunate for Marymount College and for the community of Rancho Palos Verdes that a campaign to obscure truth and hide the facts was successful," Brophy said.
This is so unbelievable yet so believable coming from Dr. Michael Brophy.
"Myopic" came out of the mouth of my wonderful wife the instant she read the statement.
I am not psychiatrist but I have to wonder about the stability of Dr. Brophy after reading the statement.
I guess asking Dr. Brophy about his promise to have Marymount pay for the Special Election that he made last May will not get a positive response from Marymount's President.
It looks like Dr. Brophy and his group promised to pay for a Special Election they lost by over 10 points.
Please don't bet that this promise will be fulfilled.
"We continue to believe that the Marymount Plan is the right choice for Rancho Palos Verdes. Moving forward, we will do what we do every day, put our best foot forward to serve our students and this community."
I think we now have been provide multiple exposures to what he means by "this community" and that it is all about Marymount's community and not the Rancho Palos Verdes community in general or even particular.
Most of the $50 million project can still go ahead because a similar plan - without dorms - was approved by the City Council earlier this year.
Also, I wouldn't bet on this happening, either. Since Marymount lost the ability to contract with a company to provide on-campus housing and provide revenue to Marymount
The approved buildings include a new library, athletic center, pool and other improvements on the college's 25-acre Palos Verdes Drive East campus, which is surrounded by single-family homes.
But it's not clear what the college's plans are now.
It is growing more clearer what Marymount will probably do in the near future and further out into the future.
First, I think Dr. Brophy will either resign on his own or be asked to resign by the members of the Board of Trustees who would just as soon throw Dr. Brophy under one of the shuttle buses in order to protect their reputations and work to restore some kind of good relationship with the residents of R.P.V.
Marymount can work towards packing the Cit Council with supportive members when in December, 2011, the majority of the members of the Coucil will be newly elected.
Although the clock has started on The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project which I support, I can imagine that Marymount officials would seek to stop the clock in attempts of prolonging the issues until it can find more favorable conditions for building on-campus housing for students.
It doesn't appear from reading this article that Marymount truly seeks to win friends and influence residents of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Brophy directed calls for comment to Marymount's veteran Los Angeles-based campaign consultant, Harvey Englander.
Marymount should seek at least partial repayment they provided to Englander and Associates for their apparent consideration that R.P.V. voters were just like voters in many other parts of the L.A. Basin....BIG MISTAKE, really huge blunder, in my view.
Englander said the "no" campaign, which he accused of law-breaking and lying, was more "despicable" than any he had seen in 15 years.
I guess he doesn't like looking in mirrors.
"I think that the `no' campaign was willing to stoop to a depth that an organization like Marymount College would never do," Englander said.
Asked if he perhaps misjudged Rancho Palos Verdes voters, Englander responded: "I did misjudge them in their capacity of being sold a bill of goods."
Actually a 1.5 Million Dollar 'bill of goods' is quite a bit larger than $40,000 or maybe Harvey has trouble counting other people's money.
Opponents of Measure P countered that the college's historic spending - which at the most recent reporting in campaign finance records amounted to nearly $46 per registered voter - had led to the initiative's defeat.
"I think the `no' side only told the truth. I personally think what killed them is the spending of so much money," said Lois Karp, head of Concerned Citizens Coalition/Marymount Expansion, a neighborhood group that has organized to oppose dormitories for more than a decade.
"Once it got over $1 million ... people began to think: Something else is going on here. I honestly think that was their downfall and I thank them for it," Karp said.
Councilman Doug Stern, who co-wrote a ballot argument against Measure P, called the outcome a "train wreck" for Marymount.
He said voters had adhered to the founding goals of a city incorporated in 1973 to limit dense coastal development.
"I'm very, very pleased with the outcome. I think it reaffirms that which the voters did 37 years ago. They want land-use decisions to be made by their elected officials ... who study the issues carefully and ... reflect the values of our community."
The college's initiative came after an arduous planning process that began in 2000 and was stopped repeatedly when Marymount changed its plans and the city responded with requests for more environmental studies.
See Michael, we did tell the truth, didn't we?
In March, just before the City Council was set to vote on the plans, Marymount announced that it wanted voters to weigh the issue.
Council members said the measure was an assault on the city's "self-rule."
The No on P side spent about $40,000, according to campaign records, a figure that Englander contended was far understated.
Opponents, including a unanimous City Council, cautioned that the election was just one episode in an ongoing Marymount saga.
Stern noted that the college pursued Measure P because it wanted more than what was granted by the council, which never considered dormitories. Student housing had been withdrawn from the college's application last year in the face of opposition on the Planning Commission.
Under city planning code, the college may again apply to construct dormitories.
It's unclear if or when that would happen. While waiting to find out, Mayor Steve Wolowicz and others said that they're hoping that election-induced rifts will soon be healed.
"I'm sorry we had to go through this exercise," Wolowicz said, "but I think the mayor and the council has to focus not on the victory but continued management of pressing issues in front of us ... and to work toward reconciliation, because this did put strain upon us.
"I hope, quite frankly, that there are no more surprises."
melissa.pamer@dailybreeze.com
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Recomendations To Future Candidates and Campaigns
Never underestimate the intelligence of the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes.
I can't thank the majority of those who voted enough for using their own interest in educating themselves with the whole truth and factual information over allowing a slick set of campaign tactics that are used in many other communities to decide to be swayed one way or another.
"Just the facts, ma'am" and just the facts, sir is what voters wanted to learn concerning Measure P and the Marymount Plan.
Our residents have proven that an intelligent electorate can use education to create a better community.
I think there are now some important lessons future candidates and campaigners for propositions and measures that were learned and should be learned if they wish to gain enough support to get elected or have their proposition or measure affirmed.
What was so irritating about Marymount's campaign is that it was a typical type of campaign that was not willing to offer the whole truth and all the facts.
That surely must be an important reason educated voters voted in large numbers against Measure P.
Don't talk down to our electorate and remember that we are at least as smart as you are.
Don't try to fool us with half-truths and misinformation because we can spot that stuff a mile away and we have the resources to call you out and learn the truth and spread it around.
Never take voters in Rancho Palos Verdes for granted because you will certainly get burned if you do.
Be open, honest, forthright, and when voters learn the truth, if you are worthy of their vote, you will get it.
Learn the lessons that Marymount's campaign staff and leaders failed to learn and do not even think to treat any of us with disrespect because we will hand you back a basketful of it.
Understand that even though you think we don't care about the truth or can't find it out on our own or with other residents' help, we do care and we have more than enough resources to find out the whole truth.
Are we alone on The Hill with our intelligence and thirst for education? NO! If you can't learn even that, please stay away from campaigning.
Are we a community that can come together when it is absolutely necessary to protect the equality of everyone and the continuation of the rules we all must follow? As a former Governor might say, "you betcha!"
It looks like a public relations firm thought it could create a campaign similar to ones it creates for many other communities. They thought wrong.
It looks like spreading deception and misinformation around always with happy talk and smiles won't get you very far in our city. That is something Marymount's P.R. firm, Englander and Associates didn't seem to get.
Also, when you come up against a brick wall of truth and facts when you are trying to get around it with misstatements and falsehoods, realize that it won't happen your way so you might as well get a ladder with rungs of whole truth and rails of complete facts and become with the brick wall as you honestly attempt to climb over it.
The magnifying glass was out during the Measure P campaign and it will remain out for quite a long time.
I a campaign you are interested in can't deal with being looked at through a magnifying glass, then you should probably avoid such a campaign.
We hold our elected officials and others to the same high standards we have recently demonstrated we place on ourselves.
Those who refuse to understand the distance with which our electorate will travel to understand the facts and condemn the B.S. should just consider that whatever they try to put forth in the future, won't get approval and could potentially injure their current status.
The goodness of our residents and the greatness of our ability to deal with important issues was tested and we passed with flying colors.
Now, let's help Marymount begin its Facilities Expansion Project and think about the many other important issues in our city.
Dear Marymount
Dear Marymount,
Please take what little money is left over and first keep the promise made by Dr. Michael Brophy and quickly pay the entire cost of the Special Election and other costs sent to you by the city of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Then please begin to go forward with The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project that so many of us support and that your representative accepted, now all that long ago.
It is hoped that you can find the funds to demonstrate a good faith effort in beginning The Project so that IF three new members of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council take their seats in December, 2011 and the College comes back with new plans for on-campus housing WITHOUT a new City Ordinance and FOLLOWING the guidelines of Conditional Use Permits, I might become a member of a minority group still opposed to dorms at Marymount because of safety reasons.
Over 51% of the registered voters cast votes in the Special Election. This should clearly demonstrate to everyone associated with Marymount College and supportive of the already approved Project that it is important to go forward, it you can.
So darn much money was spent on what ultimately turned out to be a very slanted vote against The Marymount Plan.
I think if you return any grants Marymount has for a brick and mortar library and instead offer a virtual library and added study space in a new Student Union, your students might eventually be able to comfortably use their iPads, Kindle's P.C.'s Macs, and other devices to access a truly state-of-the-art virtual library that so many colleges and universities are turning to as a way to provide an institution clearly in the 21st Century.
I think you need to take a good look at your Administration as one way of demonstrating that your human learned something from the vote reported very early this morning.
Clearly honesty, the whole truth, valid information, and competent education are ways of changing the minds of voters as demonstrated by we opponents of Measure P and its Marymount Plan.
Our voting residents are an intelligent and caring group of citizens who know what is best for their city and they demonstrated that, yesterday.
Please consider their intelligence and caring should you try again for on-campus housing that will still for me, be a major safety concern.
I want The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project to move forward.
I want are now very divided voter base to come back together quickly because there are so many very important issues that still need our residents' consideration, opinions, and actions.
I know some very rough times are ahead for you and your students but I hope there are some key learning we all now posses that will help all of us move forward and not look too far back.
Please make the changes necessary to help grow the school and what now looks to be a tattered reputation.
I feel that if Marymount quickly confirms that it will begin physical work associated with The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, it will go quite a long way to providing all sorts of opportunities and pluses for our entire community and it will show everyone that Marymount College's administration and supporters can regain the trust that was somewhat lost over the last year, plus.
Please take what little money is left over and first keep the promise made by Dr. Michael Brophy and quickly pay the entire cost of the Special Election and other costs sent to you by the city of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Then please begin to go forward with The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project that so many of us support and that your representative accepted, now all that long ago.
It is hoped that you can find the funds to demonstrate a good faith effort in beginning The Project so that IF three new members of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council take their seats in December, 2011 and the College comes back with new plans for on-campus housing WITHOUT a new City Ordinance and FOLLOWING the guidelines of Conditional Use Permits, I might become a member of a minority group still opposed to dorms at Marymount because of safety reasons.
Over 51% of the registered voters cast votes in the Special Election. This should clearly demonstrate to everyone associated with Marymount College and supportive of the already approved Project that it is important to go forward, it you can.
So darn much money was spent on what ultimately turned out to be a very slanted vote against The Marymount Plan.
I think if you return any grants Marymount has for a brick and mortar library and instead offer a virtual library and added study space in a new Student Union, your students might eventually be able to comfortably use their iPads, Kindle's P.C.'s Macs, and other devices to access a truly state-of-the-art virtual library that so many colleges and universities are turning to as a way to provide an institution clearly in the 21st Century.
I think you need to take a good look at your Administration as one way of demonstrating that your human learned something from the vote reported very early this morning.
Clearly honesty, the whole truth, valid information, and competent education are ways of changing the minds of voters as demonstrated by we opponents of Measure P and its Marymount Plan.
Our voting residents are an intelligent and caring group of citizens who know what is best for their city and they demonstrated that, yesterday.
Please consider their intelligence and caring should you try again for on-campus housing that will still for me, be a major safety concern.
I want The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project to move forward.
I want are now very divided voter base to come back together quickly because there are so many very important issues that still need our residents' consideration, opinions, and actions.
I know some very rough times are ahead for you and your students but I hope there are some key learning we all now posses that will help all of us move forward and not look too far back.
Please make the changes necessary to help grow the school and what now looks to be a tattered reputation.
I feel that if Marymount quickly confirms that it will begin physical work associated with The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, it will go quite a long way to providing all sorts of opportunities and pluses for our entire community and it will show everyone that Marymount College's administration and supporters can regain the trust that was somewhat lost over the last year, plus.
Thank You All So Very, Very Much!
51.21% of the registered voters in the city of Rancho Palos Verdes voted on Measure P, The Marymount Plan.
At 2:00 AM this morning, the tabulation of votes showed that 14,127 of 27,584 registered voters in the city or Rancho Palos Verdes cast ballots on Measure P and the results posted with 100% of the precincts reporting, stated that 6,345 votes of "YES" were cast for Measure P and 7,782 votes of "NO" were cast against Measure P.
Measure P was voted down by a 55.09% to 44.91% margin.
It is simply remarkable that in a mid-term election when most of the registered voters in R.P.V. are Republicans but came out anyway to voice their choices for candidates, propositions, and measures that are so important so our city, our State, and our Country.
We Democrats and voters representing other parties knew from the onset that Congressman Dana Rohrabacher would get re-elected and he will have his office until his District changes or he chooses to not stand for re-election.
In the closing days of the campaign for Governor, the tide seemed to turn towards Jerry Brown, so that too was pretty much of a walk over, I think.
But Rancho Palos Verdes voters demonstrated democracy in one heck of a major way when they came out in the numbers they came out in to vote either "Yes" on Measure P or "No" on Measure P.
No matter whether you supported Measure P or opposed it, I hope you are as proud of your fellow residents as I am for showing up in the numbers that did to vote.
Terri is very happy with the results of the Special Election but I feel much more tempered than I thought I would feel.
I am remembering the words said by Mayor Pro Tem Long and Councilman Brian Campbell, among many others that said that today, November 3, 2010 would be an important day because we all have to now move forward and get about doing what needs to be done to work to make Rancho Palos Verdes the best place to live, work, and play in all of Southern California and beyond.
I don't know how many other cities and Special Elections generate more than half the registered voters willing to cast ballots when the Presidency of the United States is not being voted on.
Now we are back to being a city where every business and every residents have more equal rights and responsibilities and we all have to live under the same rules and laws that mandate the use of Conditional Use Permits over a Special District that would not have been liable for adhering to C.U.P.s.
Now we are back to seeking what so many of us support with The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project and with some hope that Marymount officials will begin to redevelop their campus with the approvals already granted.
Of course I will have much more information and comments about the vote and what may lie in store for Marymount College and our city, but it is very late in the evening and very early in the morning.
There is some extremely important business and pleasure I must mention before I head to slumberland.
Throughout the many months since I first started dealing with The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project and then added The Marymount Plan into my mix, there have been some residents of our great city that have provided me so much more than I can ever give back to them and our city.
First I would like to thank former Mayor Larry Clark and the Councilmembers during his term as Mayor and before that, too. The gave insight and guidance to me on how the processes should work and eventually did work as far as The Project's approval went.
As you probably know I did not vote for Mr. Anthony Misetich and Mr. Brian Campbell when they stood for election to the Council.
Councilman Misetich has demonstrated teamwork in its best sense, a strong stature as a gentleman even when times and events were causing him grief and frustration.
Councilman Misetich is an example of what is impressive in a new Councilman and if he decides to take the plunge as Mayor before Councilman Campbell, I will support him and Councilman Campbell when it is his turn to handle the gavel.
Former Mayor Ken Dyda was a powerhouse for me in learning more about the ways of city government and why he knew it was so important to all of the residents that Measure P had to be opposed.
His guidance and leadership in Save Our City III and his comments in front of the City Council were extremely important in educating our residents about the facts and the whole truth dealing with land use issues which I had such little knowledge of, before The Marymount Plan and its Measure came to be.
Mr. Jeff Lewis is an honorable man who knows the truth, had all the facts down pat, and provided to me a mentoring skill of his that helped me learn so much about both The Project and The Plan.
Mr. Lewis was the Chairman of the Planning Commission of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes during much of the discussion and debate processes that led to the recommendations his Commission forwarded to our City Council regarding The Project.
His knowledge and advise helped me in too many ways to mention.
I was and still am humbled by the intelligence, strength, and work by Mr. Jim Gordon and Mr. Pat Carroll of Concerned Citizen Coalition/Marymount Expansion.
Jim knew and knows the facts about the physical plant and environment both above ground and with the ground of Marymount's campus.
He and the group he is a member of have been vilified by so many residents and especially non-residents of Rancho Palos Verdes for their competent stand in opposition to Measure P, The Marymount Plan.
If ever you need statistics from an individual of great honor and trust, then there is no one better than Mr. Pat Carroll.
I don't know what I would have done to try and learn more about issues without the incredible sets of numbers and tables of facts generated and stored by Mr. Carroll.
Pat and Jim were my human libraries whenever I needed a fact checks and confirmation of the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth with both The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project and The Marymount Plan.
The words 'brain trust' first come to mind when I think about Jim and Pat and all they have been through over the last 10+ years.
The 'brain' part is the fantastic number of facts and data both gentlemen have at their fingertips.
The 'trust' is that everything they provided to everyone was the truth which was about as trustworthy as humanly possible and their trustworthiness is beyond compare, in my book.
Now we come to Brian Campbell.
I have no other words for Councilman Campbell to express my thanks to him for all he has done for me and the rest of the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Councilman Campbell is a conservative Republican and as everyone should know by now, I am not in any way, shape, or form.
Both he and Councilman Misetich have been tested during their less than first year sitting on our Council and they both are more than great and so very good for all of us.
Without all of us mentioned working together, Measure P would have passed very easily, I believe.
I place quite a bit of credit with Councilman Campbell for holding us all together and demonstrating the strength and honor necessary to get through what he and other never could have considered the 'battles' they would have to go through in his and Councilman Misetich's first year in office.
We will need all the fine citizen/residents of our city today, tomorrow, and well into the future because there so much more than just dealing with Marymount that needs every one's attention.
With the demonstrated strengths of the three Council members who will be termed out next year, along with the two new Council members, we have a leadership team with no rivals, in my opinion.
I am confident in what we have already seen demonstrated so well by our City Council with the projects and problems that were there before The Marymount Plan's vote came up and will still be around for some time.
Yes there will be reflection. Yes, there will be lots of healing required. Yes, the future of Marymount College is more uncertain now.
But yes, we have the city leadership and the strengths of a large number of truly great residents to weather what we have weathered and work towards keeping our city out of the wraths of future storms and bad weather.
So to Brian, Anthony, Ken, Jeff, Jim, Pat, and so many others, thank you so very much and now let's get back to making Rancho Palos Verdes an even better place to live, work, and play in.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Robocall At 11:30 PM!
Today is very busy day for all of us.
I got an unexpected call a little while ago about a 'robocall' that was made at "11:30 PM last night urging voters to vote "No" on Measure P, The Marymount Plan.
After some checking with a group of my associates who are opposed to passage of Measure P, it appears to me that the calls were made by someone who may actually be a supporter of Measure P's passage.
I know of no one who is very close to the opposition 'leaders' of Measure P who would call our residents at 11:30 last night but one source who got a call from a victim of the late night 'robocall mentioned the name of "Steve" but could not confirm any last name.
Our city's Mayor Stephan Wolowicz recorded a call for distribution as a private citizen but when the victim was asked whether the "Wolowicz" was the last name given, that victim said it wasn't.
After working for decades with 'the Phone Company' there is probably not one person living on The Hill that hates 'robocalls' as much as I do and I am not a big fan of opponents' of Measure P utilizing that type of campaigning as one way to deal with the huge sum of money Marymount is spending trying to get "Yes" votes on its Measure.
I assume responsibility for being the opponent of Measure P who has attacked individuals and groups supportive of Measure P, more than anyone else who opposes The Marymount Plan.
I have been attacked in print and verbally as badly as I have given out, so all in all, it is a fair match.
But I surely would never stoop to a type of dirty tricks that would call someone so late in the evening and providing comments that are opposite of my real beliefs.
I can't confirm who made the late evening 'robocalls' but I know who did not have anything to do with them and none of the elected representatives or even former elected or appointed representatives of the city or any of its Commissions or Committees made those calls.
Whoever it was, it was a rotten thing they did and if and when we learn who it was, I will post that information on this blog.
If you haven't voted yet, please vote "No" on Measure P, The Marymount Plan.
Safety. Everyone. Everywhere. Every hour.
I got an unexpected call a little while ago about a 'robocall' that was made at "11:30 PM last night urging voters to vote "No" on Measure P, The Marymount Plan.
After some checking with a group of my associates who are opposed to passage of Measure P, it appears to me that the calls were made by someone who may actually be a supporter of Measure P's passage.
I know of no one who is very close to the opposition 'leaders' of Measure P who would call our residents at 11:30 last night but one source who got a call from a victim of the late night 'robocall mentioned the name of "Steve" but could not confirm any last name.
Our city's Mayor Stephan Wolowicz recorded a call for distribution as a private citizen but when the victim was asked whether the "Wolowicz" was the last name given, that victim said it wasn't.
After working for decades with 'the Phone Company' there is probably not one person living on The Hill that hates 'robocalls' as much as I do and I am not a big fan of opponents' of Measure P utilizing that type of campaigning as one way to deal with the huge sum of money Marymount is spending trying to get "Yes" votes on its Measure.
I assume responsibility for being the opponent of Measure P who has attacked individuals and groups supportive of Measure P, more than anyone else who opposes The Marymount Plan.
I have been attacked in print and verbally as badly as I have given out, so all in all, it is a fair match.
But I surely would never stoop to a type of dirty tricks that would call someone so late in the evening and providing comments that are opposite of my real beliefs.
I can't confirm who made the late evening 'robocalls' but I know who did not have anything to do with them and none of the elected representatives or even former elected or appointed representatives of the city or any of its Commissions or Committees made those calls.
Whoever it was, it was a rotten thing they did and if and when we learn who it was, I will post that information on this blog.
If you haven't voted yet, please vote "No" on Measure P, The Marymount Plan.
Safety. Everyone. Everywhere. Every hour.
Good Morning! Please Vote!
Good morning.
My campaign to oppose Measure P, The Marymount Plan is finally over. And not a second too soon for myself and my wife.
The post was written for publishing late last night just after I posted the letter from the city asking Marymount's President to let the city know how he and his college would resolve their promise to the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes.
I have absolutely no idea what the outcome of the Special Election will be except that I don't expect to see Dr. Michael Brophy as Marymount's President on January 1, 2011.
I think he was brought in to get dorms approved and if Measure P fails, he will be sent packing and if Measure P passes, he will head off to another College that wants on campus housing and he would have a victory under his belt to fill his resume.
No matter what happens today, I hope humor can be restored where it has been lacking for far too long.
As this day ends and tomorrow begins, Ponte Vista, The Annenberg Project, San Ramon Canyon, the new grant to extend the Coastal Trail, and a host of other things will still be issues that could benefit or harm our community.
We must not get burned out because of the results of today's Special Election, no matter how it turns out.
It may be hot and windy today so watch out for downed branches and be careful if it gets really windy.
I have been blessed and honored beyond all measure in my work with a number of fantastic Rancho Palos Verdes residents and leaders who truly have our community's residents in their hearts and on their minds during far too many of their waking hours.
I will write specific thank yous later tonight or very early tomorrow morning.
What a city. What a State. What a country.
Please vote "No" on Measure P, the Marymount Plan.
Safety. Everyone. Everywhere. Every hour.
My campaign to oppose Measure P, The Marymount Plan is finally over. And not a second too soon for myself and my wife.
The post was written for publishing late last night just after I posted the letter from the city asking Marymount's President to let the city know how he and his college would resolve their promise to the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes.
I have absolutely no idea what the outcome of the Special Election will be except that I don't expect to see Dr. Michael Brophy as Marymount's President on January 1, 2011.
I think he was brought in to get dorms approved and if Measure P fails, he will be sent packing and if Measure P passes, he will head off to another College that wants on campus housing and he would have a victory under his belt to fill his resume.
No matter what happens today, I hope humor can be restored where it has been lacking for far too long.
As this day ends and tomorrow begins, Ponte Vista, The Annenberg Project, San Ramon Canyon, the new grant to extend the Coastal Trail, and a host of other things will still be issues that could benefit or harm our community.
We must not get burned out because of the results of today's Special Election, no matter how it turns out.
It may be hot and windy today so watch out for downed branches and be careful if it gets really windy.
I have been blessed and honored beyond all measure in my work with a number of fantastic Rancho Palos Verdes residents and leaders who truly have our community's residents in their hearts and on their minds during far too many of their waking hours.
I will write specific thank yous later tonight or very early tomorrow morning.
What a city. What a State. What a country.
Please vote "No" on Measure P, the Marymount Plan.
Safety. Everyone. Everywhere. Every hour.
Monday, November 1, 2010
A Letter From The City and Marymount's Response
Click on image to enlarge.In just about 10 days, the letter above will have been with Dr. Brophy for two months.
Dr. Brophy promised that Marymount would pay all the costs of tomorrow's Special Election for Measure P because for on reason, I pointed out to him that the cost of elections are paid by taxpayers normally.
It seems Dr. Brophy's claim that The Marymount Plan and Measure P would be completed at "no taxpayer expense" is about as honest and forthright as much of the campaign he and his Board of Trustees have been undertaking.
However, in the spirit of openness and honesty, here below, encased in quotation marks is the response to the letter from the City that Marymount has so far, made in the last almost two months:
"
"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
So, Marymount's response to their claims that they would pay for the election tomorrow as been by ignoring even the letter sent months after Dr. Brophy claimed they would pay.
I think I should now have a contest on this blog to see who can come up with the best excuse Dr. Brophy will use to get out of paying for the election he has so far not provided one penny for and what it appears is going to be a big bill Rancho Palos Verdes taxpayers are going to have to foot.
This is one of my "I told you so" type of things that will happen much more frequently should Measure P pass.
I have been thinking about what promises Marymount representatives have made to residents of Rancho Palos Verdes that they have actually kept.
I know there is already a history of Marymount representatives making promises to residents of San Pedro repeatedly, that they have not kept.
Any real promise that Pacific Heights would be closed if Measure P passes is not something worth the paper and ink it is printed on because there is not one single word on any of the 51 pages of Measure P, The Marymount Plan that mention Pacific Heights and whether it would be sold IF and when on-campus housing opens up on Marymount's campus.
I don't know what better way to end the campaign opposing the construction of student housing on Marymount's campus via Measure P than to have a documented illustration of the facts so dramatically opposed to what comes from the mouth of Dr. Brophy and others representing Marymount College.
If Dr. Brophy, the Board of Trustees, and other representatives and supporters of Marymount College can't even be truthful about the financing of Measure P, why and how could our city's residents trust anything they say?
Please vote "No" on Measure P, The Marymount Plan.
Safety. Everyone. Everywhere. Every hour.
Shocking!!! Marymount Changes Things, AGAIN
For over seven of the last ten years, Marymount College officials have stalled their own plans and made it necessary for things to be changed, city resources to be hampered, discussions and debates to be drawn out, and delays continuing to stall progress towards their own redevelopment goals.
Well folks, they have done it again.
If you wish to vote "No" on Measure P, The Marymount Plan, you can do that by Tuesday November 2, 2010 at your polling location.
If you wish to vote "Yes" on Marymount's measure, you are now requested to vote on Wednesday November 3, 2010 at the address of the polling place listed on your Sample Ballot.*
Voting "Yes" on Wednesday insures that you will know how many voted "No" on Measure P and that should let you know how important your "Yes" vote on Wednesday would mean for Marymount.
Remember, vote "Yes" on Measure P, The Marymount Plan on Wednesday November 3, 2010, because you will have much more information about the voting by then.
*O.K., this is a humorous post. We must have some humor at this time.
Well folks, they have done it again.
If you wish to vote "No" on Measure P, The Marymount Plan, you can do that by Tuesday November 2, 2010 at your polling location.
If you wish to vote "Yes" on Marymount's measure, you are now requested to vote on Wednesday November 3, 2010 at the address of the polling place listed on your Sample Ballot.*
Voting "Yes" on Wednesday insures that you will know how many voted "No" on Measure P and that should let you know how important your "Yes" vote on Wednesday would mean for Marymount.
Remember, vote "Yes" on Measure P, The Marymount Plan on Wednesday November 3, 2010, because you will have much more information about the voting by then.
*O.K., this is a humorous post. We must have some humor at this time.
Bits and Pieces 20
There are opponents of Measure P, The Marymount Plan who are now complaining that the "Yes on P" crowd is now distributing yard signs that look quite a bit like the "No on P" yard signs all over Rancho Palos Verdes.
For me, it produced a chuckle and a wonder what took the "Yes on P" mob so darn long.
If some opponents are now stating Marymount's campaign is using 'dirty tricks' just because of the new yard signs, I guess those opponents haven't visited this blog.
I am certainly not going to be hypocritical about Marymount's tactic of changing yard signs when I have taken quite a bit of time and effort 'recreating' many Marymount mailers to offer the truth and the whole truth on my blog instead of what the original mailers contain in the form of fiction, deception, misleading statements, and falsehoods.
Some might call what I do 'dirty tricks' and they have a right to their opinion. I just wish those folks would read the 51-page Marymount Plan/Measure P language and they would be able to read the truth about the Measure and its implications on the community.
____________________________________________
I am facinated by Dr. Brophy's change of language and use of rhetoric when he has been speaking and writing recently.
Once upon a time, Dr. Brophy led a group of Marymount supporters to Planning Commission meetings where he and others were chastising the members of that Commission for countless things related to what was being studied.
Now it seems, Dr. Brophy can't over-praise the same group he 'battled' no all that long ago and for so many years.
Now the City Council are Dr. Brophy's villains when they only had several months to deal with The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project.
You haven't heard Dr. Brophy provide any reason he did not take the matter of on-campus housing directly to the Council for discussion, something he had every right and chance to do.
What you do now hear from Dr. Brophy is that the Council would not approve The Marymount Plan is its complete entirety, as mandated by State Law to do, but rather do the ONLY OTHER thing they could legally do and call for the Special Election.
Dr. Brophy won't tell you he could have, but chose not to, bring the matter of dorms to the City Council for discussion and debate and a possible vote by them.
What is also facinating is that Dr. Brophy's 'facts' change the closer to the election date it is.
Months ago, Dr. Brophy and Marymount's Land Use Attorney, Mr. Don Davis, stated that they had no objection to the lowering of the roofline of the gym by 10 feet.
Now, according to Dr. Brophy, his non-objection is something he is objecting to and he is claiming that losing 25% of the air in the gym is equal to losing 25% of the usable space inside the building.
When his lobbyist, Steve Kuykendall stated that the City Council's actions of moving the field about 60 feet and lowering the roofline of the gym by 10 feet was done by the Council because they were 'capricious' towards Marymount.
Dr. Brophy must have either known Mr. Kuykendall was going to say that or he did not and has not objected to Mr. Kuykendall's smears against Rancho Palos Verdes Residents' elected representatives.
___________________________________________
Eight days after the Tuesday election, there will be a meeting for the Notice of Preparation and Scoping Study for Ponte Vista at San Pedro.
The meeting on November 10, 2010 will be held inside the auditorium at the Peck Park Community Center in San Pedro.
I have information about that meeting and the comment period on my:
www.pontevista.blogspot.com blog.
___________________________________________
Here's a thought.
Since the new development team at Ponte Vista want to build a 392-unit 'apartment flat' building, why can't Marymount lease out a bunch of units at Ponte Vista?
Those new units would be very close to Marymount's Palos Verdes North facility and it would allow students to really reside in a higher density area than on The Hill.
It would be much less expensive to have other build rooms to live in and perhaps Marymount could cut a deal with the folks at Ponte Vista to have lower rents and lease rates for students.
It would also allow students a chance to live in much closer proximity to social, retail, work, and entertainment venues and it could mean fewer cars going in and out of Ponte Vista is shuttle buses were utilized.
___________________________________________
I haven't been to our Denny's in some time so I don't know how their petition drive to be open 24/7 is going.
I think it is going to be almost too long of a shot by supporters of having Denny's open 24/7 because of other businesses in R.P.V. not able to remain open 24/7 except for probably Jack in the Box's drive through on Western Avenue.
I am quite sure that if Denny's and Coco's seek and are granted approval to remain open all night, the two 7-11s in R.P.V. would have their owners and management heading first to our Planning Commission and then quickly to court to try and remain open 24/7.
__________________________________________
Please continue to support the many fine retail businesses in Rancho Palos Verdes.
a small but very important portion of your sales taxes comes back to our city to provide infrastructor improvements and general funding our city needs.
Should Measure P passes and IF Marymount actually does go ahead with traffic mitigation in the three areas listed in its 51-page set of language, Rancho Palos Verdes tax revenues would have to provide 86.79% of the costs of mitigation, unless and until Marymount actually gets a rebate or refund on the 13.21% of their "share contribution".
A traffic signal system at the intersection of Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East, a mitigation contained in both Measure P, The Marymount Plan AND the already approved Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project would cost AT A VERY MINIMUM of at least $285,000 dollars.
If Marymount provides $37,648.50, taxpayer funds of $247,351.50 would be required, at a minimum.
Gee, I bet you didn't know that The Marymount Plan could cost taxpayers at least $250,000.00 more than it already has, did you?
___________________________________________
For me, it produced a chuckle and a wonder what took the "Yes on P" mob so darn long.
If some opponents are now stating Marymount's campaign is using 'dirty tricks' just because of the new yard signs, I guess those opponents haven't visited this blog.
I am certainly not going to be hypocritical about Marymount's tactic of changing yard signs when I have taken quite a bit of time and effort 'recreating' many Marymount mailers to offer the truth and the whole truth on my blog instead of what the original mailers contain in the form of fiction, deception, misleading statements, and falsehoods.
Some might call what I do 'dirty tricks' and they have a right to their opinion. I just wish those folks would read the 51-page Marymount Plan/Measure P language and they would be able to read the truth about the Measure and its implications on the community.
____________________________________________
I am facinated by Dr. Brophy's change of language and use of rhetoric when he has been speaking and writing recently.
Once upon a time, Dr. Brophy led a group of Marymount supporters to Planning Commission meetings where he and others were chastising the members of that Commission for countless things related to what was being studied.
Now it seems, Dr. Brophy can't over-praise the same group he 'battled' no all that long ago and for so many years.
Now the City Council are Dr. Brophy's villains when they only had several months to deal with The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project.
You haven't heard Dr. Brophy provide any reason he did not take the matter of on-campus housing directly to the Council for discussion, something he had every right and chance to do.
What you do now hear from Dr. Brophy is that the Council would not approve The Marymount Plan is its complete entirety, as mandated by State Law to do, but rather do the ONLY OTHER thing they could legally do and call for the Special Election.
Dr. Brophy won't tell you he could have, but chose not to, bring the matter of dorms to the City Council for discussion and debate and a possible vote by them.
What is also facinating is that Dr. Brophy's 'facts' change the closer to the election date it is.
Months ago, Dr. Brophy and Marymount's Land Use Attorney, Mr. Don Davis, stated that they had no objection to the lowering of the roofline of the gym by 10 feet.
Now, according to Dr. Brophy, his non-objection is something he is objecting to and he is claiming that losing 25% of the air in the gym is equal to losing 25% of the usable space inside the building.
When his lobbyist, Steve Kuykendall stated that the City Council's actions of moving the field about 60 feet and lowering the roofline of the gym by 10 feet was done by the Council because they were 'capricious' towards Marymount.
Dr. Brophy must have either known Mr. Kuykendall was going to say that or he did not and has not objected to Mr. Kuykendall's smears against Rancho Palos Verdes Residents' elected representatives.
___________________________________________
Eight days after the Tuesday election, there will be a meeting for the Notice of Preparation and Scoping Study for Ponte Vista at San Pedro.
The meeting on November 10, 2010 will be held inside the auditorium at the Peck Park Community Center in San Pedro.
I have information about that meeting and the comment period on my:
www.pontevista.blogspot.com blog.
___________________________________________
Here's a thought.
Since the new development team at Ponte Vista want to build a 392-unit 'apartment flat' building, why can't Marymount lease out a bunch of units at Ponte Vista?
Those new units would be very close to Marymount's Palos Verdes North facility and it would allow students to really reside in a higher density area than on The Hill.
It would be much less expensive to have other build rooms to live in and perhaps Marymount could cut a deal with the folks at Ponte Vista to have lower rents and lease rates for students.
It would also allow students a chance to live in much closer proximity to social, retail, work, and entertainment venues and it could mean fewer cars going in and out of Ponte Vista is shuttle buses were utilized.
___________________________________________
I haven't been to our Denny's in some time so I don't know how their petition drive to be open 24/7 is going.
I think it is going to be almost too long of a shot by supporters of having Denny's open 24/7 because of other businesses in R.P.V. not able to remain open 24/7 except for probably Jack in the Box's drive through on Western Avenue.
I am quite sure that if Denny's and Coco's seek and are granted approval to remain open all night, the two 7-11s in R.P.V. would have their owners and management heading first to our Planning Commission and then quickly to court to try and remain open 24/7.
__________________________________________
Please continue to support the many fine retail businesses in Rancho Palos Verdes.
a small but very important portion of your sales taxes comes back to our city to provide infrastructor improvements and general funding our city needs.
Should Measure P passes and IF Marymount actually does go ahead with traffic mitigation in the three areas listed in its 51-page set of language, Rancho Palos Verdes tax revenues would have to provide 86.79% of the costs of mitigation, unless and until Marymount actually gets a rebate or refund on the 13.21% of their "share contribution".
A traffic signal system at the intersection of Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East, a mitigation contained in both Measure P, The Marymount Plan AND the already approved Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project would cost AT A VERY MINIMUM of at least $285,000 dollars.
If Marymount provides $37,648.50, taxpayer funds of $247,351.50 would be required, at a minimum.
Gee, I bet you didn't know that The Marymount Plan could cost taxpayers at least $250,000.00 more than it already has, did you?
___________________________________________
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)