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?
___________________________________________