Argument, Rebuttal, My Comments

Ms. Sharon Yarber wrote what could have been the Argument Against Measure C, the Rancho Palos Verdes Charter City Measure up for a vote by the electorate on March 8, 2011.

For reasons I do not know, that argument against the measure was not published in the official voter election guide and the sample ballot.

Mayor Tom Long placed Ms. Yarber's argument on his site and I talked with him about publishing it on this blog.

I think it is fair to publish what would have been the 'official' argument against Measure C so that folks can learn that opponents of Measure C have opinions that should be read.

After Ms. Yarber's comments, I have posted Tom Long's 'Rebuttal Argument of the Argument Against Measure C' as I feel it should actually be termed.

I have not used Mr. Long's response as coming from an 'official' representative of the Yes on C Campaign and as our city's current Mayor.

I doubt Mr. Long's response would be any different had it been approved by other members of the Yes on C group, but as it is not endorsed by them, I don't think it is fair to consider Mr. Long's response as more than coming from one of the architect's of Measure C and one of the author's of the Charter now under consideration.

ARGUMENT AGAINST RPV MEASURE C

(by Sharon Yarber)

The “Argument FOR” states that voters are being asked to choose to become a charter city. That is misleading and WRONG. Actually, voters are being asked to adopt THE proposed charter, a constitution if you will, put together by City Hall with virtually no resident input. The proposed charter transfers power from RESIDENTS to the COUNCIL and creates tremendous opportunity for abuse.

A city’s constitution should not be on a March ballot with historically low voter turn out. A major change in the way we are governed deserves adequate time for community input and debate.

If passed, just THREE Council members could enact ordinances that:

• abolish citywide elections and create voting districts subject to gerrymandering,
• make it more difficult to vote on initiatives, recalls and referendums,
• effectively control future elections by changing candidate qualifications (e.g.requiring minimum prior service on City Commissions or Committees. Who selects Commissioners and Committee members? The Council), and
• impose a real property transfer tax (subject to voter approval).

The proposed charter could trample on YOUR VOTING RIGHTS! And it would permit adoption of ordinances, including election ordinances, with just one public reading, instead of two, further reducing resident awareness and input.

Charter cities have broader powers over public PARKLAND.

THIS CHARTER IS A TROJAN HORSE. It is NOT about saving money by eliminating prevailing wages. That’s the hook! Measure C is about grabbing control of the City and changing our election laws! Every identified “benefit” and cost savings can be achieved with a GOOD charter.

There are many risks to adopting this bad charter. There is NO risk to voting NO, then working together to create and vote on a good charter!

MARCH 8TH VOTE NO ON MEASURE C

Now, here is Mr. Long's response:

RESPONSE TO ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE C

by Mayor Tom Long

No RPV councilmembers have ever supported election by districts. Nor would a charter allow the council to make significant changes in the way initiatives are handled. Nor could the city give away city land as falsely implied above. The opposition to Measure C cannot point to a single charter city where the voters have been disenfranchised or the parklands have been given away in the manner described by opponents of Measure C. As a charter city, ordinances would continue to be adopted only after full public hearings with redundant second readings on consent calendars eliminated only if the council chooses to do so.

Any city charter must transfer powers from Sacramento to the city council in order to achieve the purpose of advancing local control. The opposition’s quest for a charter that protects the city from Sacramento but places no trust in the city’s councilmembers is a quest to find a myth.

A Yes vote would:

• Give the city its own constitution that cannot be re-written at the whim of Sacramento legislators

• Save RPV millions of dollars by allowing design-build contracting and allowing the city to set its own wage requirements for public works projects rather than accepting Sacramento’s so-called “prevailing wage” requirements.

• Protect city assets by forbidding gifts of public assets and continuing restrictions that exist now on councilmember salaries.

• Continue protecting city lands because deed restrictions and easements that dictate the use of Lower Point Vicente and other city parklands will be unaffected by a change to a charter city.

• Publish city employee compensation, helping to avoid abuses that have occurred elsewhere in both general law and charter cities.

• Insure that city land use is consistent with the general plan.

• Provide additional protection for local revenues such as the tax on Terranea hotel rooms that is now 10% of the city’s budget. (One state legislator promised us that Sacramento is looking to take from cities “anything that is not nailed down.”)

A No vote would:

• Delay or permanently prevent the adoption of a charter, costing the city millions of dollars by denying it more flexibility in contracting. (The City of Oceanside saved one million dollars in its first three months of being a charter city).

• Encourage special interest groups to demand their own pet provisions in any future charter that may be proposed making the passage of a charter that is in the best interests of the city as a whole difficult or impossible.

• Leave the city exposed to the whims of legislators in Sacramento who do not have the time or inclination to understand local issues.

VOTE YES ON “C” MARCH 8th

Both sides do have points I have found important and worthy of more discussion.

There are some things I really do not like about Measure C, but I did learn that both supporters and most opponents of Measure C feel that Rancho Palos Verdes moving from a General Law city to a charter city is not necessarily a bad idea.

Organized opponents want you to know that there is great opposition to the charter written for this vote with Measure C.

You also need to know that should the voters decide to have our city become a charter city, one of the first things the City Council will probably do with the new authority provided to charter cities is have full exemption of prevailing wage guidelines put into place.

It is a big deal for many supporters, but if you look at the facts and figures, it really is not a big deal to the majority of current charter cities and there is a lawsuit under review with the California State Supreme Court that could moot partial and full exemptions to prevailing wage guidelines.

California has 120 of its 481 incorporated cities being charter cities.

Of those 120 charter cities, 58% of them have no exemption from prevailing wage guidelines/

37 of the charter cities in California, have full exemptions with 13 more having only partial exemptions.

In Los Angeles County, there are 88 incorporated cities.

Of those 88, only 19 are charter cities.

Of the 19 charter cities, one has a partial exemption while just three more have full exemptions.

Supporters seem to still use exemptions to prevailing wage guidelines as a very important way to save money.

They will also tell you that two or our neighbors, Torrance and Redondo Beach are charter cities.

What I feel you need to know is that both of those cities have had their leaders choose to keep prevailing wage guidelines as they were and are.

Since the city of Vista still has a lawsuit regarding its having prevailing wage guidelines exemptions still under consideration, should the State Supreme Court rule against Vista's interests, it appears that all of the cities with partial or full exemptions from prevailing wage guidelines would have to return to having no exemptions from the guidelines.

Since I feel that higher local wages provide opportunities for workers to spend more money locally, I continue to support having prevailing wage guidelines remain in place. It seems the majority of the leaders in charter cities agree with me.

There are at least two areas where I strongly support what a charter city has the opportunity to do that general law cities can't necessarily do.

"Design and build" is a term used when one firm is contracted to both design a project and then follow through with the project's constructions.

There are firms that can do both large parts of a project, yet they may not be allowed to bid and get approval to do both elements of a project.

Supporters believe as I do that should we as a charter city seek bids for projects where bidding firms have both design and build capabilities AND it makes plain and clear proposals that allow money savings because one firm does both pieces, that is a good thing for a city and its taxpayers.

What a charter city is allowed to do is seek bids for projects but NOT NECESSARILY be required to use the lowest bid.

A charter city could find that a more costly firm that provides better quality and service, would be allowed the projects even though that firm's bid is not the lowest.

There COULD be problems with this if transparency is not practiced to the fullest, but with this current City Council makeup, I have no problems in this regard.

The current City Council, along with our city's attorney believe that using monies for municipal affairs protects the money from being taken back from the city, better than what is happening now.

A charter city has the rights and opportunity to move certain monies into accounts for municipal affairs and that standing would provide more leverage if and when the State of Federal Government want to take monies from the city.

The best cases revolve around protecting the Transitory Occupancy Tax (TOT) and Redevelopment Agency funds.

Earlier court decisions have determined that TOT funds can be used in municipal affairs funding.

What is so important about this? We have two businesses in Rancho Palos Verdes that I know of that collect TOT revenue that is provided to our city.

One is the Value Inn along Western Avenue. The TOT is a 10% tax on the price of a room there.

I heard recently that a room rate at the Value Inn has shrunk to $45.00 per night. The TOT for that would be $4.50 that the city would get.

Not much! That is true. But then again, please consider room rates and number of rooms at the other business where TOT applies.

Terranea.

Terranea provides $2 Million Dollars in TOT revenue to our city and protecting that from being taken away from our city is a strong reason for supporting Measure C.

Los Angeles is a charter city. Recently to protect their "CRA"- Community Redevelopment Agency money, they moved the funds to a more protected set of accounts.

In Rancho Palos Verdes we have the "RDA" or Redevelopment Agency which has some similarities to Los Angeles' CRA. Protecting our RDA is also important, I feel.

Now about any association with Marymount College.

Marymount's President, Dr. Michael Brophy wrote an Email to supporters of Measure C, including our city's leaders and staff.

His Email stated that Marymount College does not support or oppose passage of Measure C and the College takes no position on the ballot measure.

Dr. Brophy is being truthful about this point. Marymount College neither endorses or opposes Measure C.

Dr. Brophy is a resident of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes. Dr. Susan Soldoff, another member of the Board of Trustees of Marymount College is also a resident of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes.

Both of them, along with other Marymount Trustees who are and are not residents of Rancho Palos Verdes must have their rights to fund any election they see fit as individual residents of R.P.V., just like the rest of us.

Might there be a hidden agenda for why any number of Marymount Trustees are also opponents of Measure C? I feel there is, but that should not mean they should not be allowed, as residents, contributing to a measure according to their own beliefs.

Some supporters are wondering or have their own answers as to why Marymount Trustees/R.P.V. residents are spending money and opposing Measure C.

I don't have any answer other than my own for this and I am not willing to reveal that right now.

I was very intrigued to hear Mr. Paul Tretault state at tonight's Charter City Committee meeting that the campaign has, so far, been reasonable, proper, and have so few foul issues flying around.

Either Paul is blind and deaf, or he is just playing nice, I feel.

For some supporters and opponents there really some shame that should be applied, I strongly feel. They know who they are and I not going to 'rat' them out right now.

Unfortunately there are parts of this campaign that bring back some really foul memories regarding a ballot measure that was decided last November.

On the surface and to most folks who really wish to learn the truths about Measure C, the vast majority of those 'in the know' have played nice. It is under the surface that, thankfully, few of our residents know about, that some fairly bad things are happening.

I did write a private Email to one supporter and one opponent, both very prominent on their respective sides, to play nice.

Everyone played nice at the meeting on Monday evening and I challenge everyone on all sides to play nice.

Measure C Stuff

This coming Monday there are two events dealing with Measure C.

At 10:30 in the morning a Seniors group will have representatives of both sides of the upcoming vote at Fred Hesse Park.

At 7:00 PM, probably in the same meeting room, the Committee established by the City Council will hold its meeting.

There will also be two events scheduled for the same time on February 9.

If I have my dates correct, the League of Women Voters is sponsoring a debate on the measure and the Rolling Hills Riviera HOA is having representatives speak on both sides of the discussions.

It is beginning to look like some Trustees of Marymount College and other supporters of the failed Measure P are now a group opposed to the passage of Measure C.

It is realistic to believe this might be the case because it looks as if passage of Measure C and the creation of Rancho Palos Verdes as a charter city could find that the way Marymount supporters got their "Marymount Plan" onto the ballot and the subsequent election would probably not be allowed via a new ordinance established under our city being a charter city.

Some opponents probably believe they have a better chance of seeing "The Marymount Plan" approved by keeping Rancho Palos Verdes a General Law city.

*Big hint folks* This is one of the few reasons I support passage of Measure C.

It is time for all the supporters of Measure C, the ballot measure to approve our city becoming a charter city, to either eliminate their current stance regarding prevailing wage guidelines as a major reason for supporting Measure C or, put up or shut up.

I have done a good deal of research on the number of charter cities in the State and also in Los Angeles County.

There are some rude awakening statistics I will probably publish that clearly illustrate that the number of charter cities in the State and even within L.A. county that have no exemptions from established and existing prevailing wage guidelines and laws.

While many may consider partial or full exemptions from prevailing wage guidelines is what our city must have, the majority of charter cities, including Torrance and Redondo Beach have no exemptions from prevailing wage guidelines.

So far, I have found two very, very good reasons to support Measure C and have Rancho Palos Verdes becoming a charter city.

I feel strongly that if we can protect tax revenues coming into our city from being taken back by Sacrament and even the Federal Government, that is something I strongly support.

I don't know if protecting our funds would mean Sacramento and Washington would provide less funds.

The second reason I support Measure C is that none of us in our city should EVER have to to through what we all had to suffer with during the processes and voting concerning Measure P, The Marymount Plan.

I have found and kept confidence with our Planning Commission and our City Council over the past several years. Those bodies did remarkable work with Terranea, Marymount College, and they continue to represent our residents well.

But AND however! While I support Measure C, I cannot endorse its passage by calling on every resident to vote for the measure.

There are still some real questions that have gone unanswered by both supporters and opponents.

I am very cautious as to what the next membership of our City Council might look like.

With all this effort by Marymount supporters to oppose Measure C, I do not want to have to deal with supporters of The Marymount Plan coming onto the City Council and basically rubber-stamping approval of the Plan, as they would be able to do.

I continue to feel there really are some things not being said by supporters of the measure. When just about every talking point is repeated by supporters without more open, honest, and forthright opinions, it makes both sides look bad and right now for me, the supporters are challenging my thinking about the measure.

Measure C and having Rancho Palos Verdes becoming a charter MAY be the best thing, but not enough open and honest discussion has happened yet.

I hope the upcoming meetings will be well attended.

Anyone, and I mean anyone who states that there is not enough information about Measure C 'out there' or for them to consider needs to shut up and learn.

I can find volumes of information about Measure C, charter cities in California, legal and social issues, and just about anything I want dealing with aspects of Rancho Palos Verdes becoming a charter city or remaining a General Law city.

The city's Web site has plenty of information albeit just about everything slanted towards a 'yes' vote on the measure.

One thing I did say early on is that those supportive of Measure C and R.P.V. becoming a charter city, should have paid the costs of the portion of the election, the measure is related to.

There has been taxpayer funds spent supportive of passage of Measure C, with staff time dealing with the measure and I feel that unless equal amounts of taxpayer money going for opposition to the measure, supporters should pay.

I fully understand that the city is legally allowed to do what has been done, it just looks bad for the city (City Council) and city staff, time, and facilities being used by a committee established specifically for the passage of Measure C and R.P.V. becoming a charter city.

I may have a much different set of considerations to ponder over by Monday night.

I see as well as I can the benefits and problems of having R.P.V. becoming a charter city.

Nobody should tell anyone else that having R.P.V. being a charter city is too good to be true.

I think supporters, because they are backed by our city's government and staff have an obligation to FULLY inform voters rather then opponents having to fight such an entrenched machine supporters have created.

This is another reason I support but can not endorse having others voting for Measure C.

Naming A Campus WE Pay For, But Most of Our Kids Won't Attend

South Region High School #15 is the 810-seat campus being built about 1.8 miles from the main San Pedro High School campus and its original use will be as an annex to the main school.

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=GlJMAI7O%2fPJ%2fJcTaUUI%2fsg%3d%3d is the URL regarding the naming of the new campus, slated to open in 2013.

Residents of the Eastview portion of Rancho Palos Verdes continue to have their property tax portions for education going to the Los Angeles Unified School District and the Los Angeles Junior College District.

Since almost the first day Eastview residents' school children have been allowed to attend LAUSD or Palos Verdes Unified School District schools, 80% of the students attend PVPUSD schools rather than Crestwood, Dodson, then San Pedro High School.

Since we are still paying into LAUSD, we should take the opportunity to help provide the name of the new campus that sits on the Upper Reservation of Fort MacArthur.

Some years ago, a Notice of Preparation and Initial Study was begun on a campus for an LAUSD high school along Western Avenue and within the boundaries of the Ponte Vista at San Pedro project development site.

That proposed school was to be built for up to 2,025 students to relieve over crowding at both Narbonne High School and San Pedro High School.

In May, 2008 the Board of LAUSD broke apart that proposed campus, then known as SRHS 14 and created a new campus/annex for San Pedro High School.

I mention this because all the way back to the time the original 2,025-seat campus was proposed, a small but growing group of community members stated that, SRHS 14 must carry the Olguin name.

SRHS 14, after being downsized to 1,215 students to relieve Narbonne H. S. was canceled.

Calls for naming any new campus of any new school after John M. and Muriel Olguin began in 2004 and into 2005.

There has never been any real question whether any new campus should have the Olguin name incorporated. The vast majority of community members who cared enough to be interested have stated for years that there is no question about part of the name of any new school or campus.

Please vote for your choice among those listed, for what you feel the name of the new campus should be.

There are those within our community that believe that the new campus may only be an annex for a short period of time. With more parents of students demanding local control and local attendance at schools, the new campus may become a separate LAUSD or charter high school within a couple of years of its opening.

I chose "John M. and Muriel Olguin Campus of San Pedro High School. I do know that John didn't necessarily want his name used at the begining of the campus identification, but I also know he would not like to have the site named after him, but not Muriel.

John M. Olguin graduated from SPHS in 1941. He copied what he found at Washington High School, with that school's "Knight" program, and brought it to the SPHS campus while he was still a student.

Muriel graduated from Banning High School and she is a proud Pilot.

John earned his P.H.D. (Pedro High Diploma) and he remained a proud Pirate.

We are so fortunate to have had John in our community and we still receive great fortune celebrating the life of Muriel.

Bits and Pieces 26

At this point I continue to support but not endorse passage of Measure C- the Charter City vote, coming March 8, in Rancho Palos Verdes.

For those concerned about the measure, there is plenty of information available online supportive and in opposition to the passage of the measure.

There will be even more information available from all sides, the closer we get to the election.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

For about five years, Ms. Elise Swanson held the position of Vice President and in charge of the Ponte Vista at San Pedro site along Western Avenue, just across the street from R.P.V. homes.

The period of time brought great divisiveness in the San Pedro, eastern Rancho Palos Verdes, and other communities.

Ms. Swanson held a key position in attempting to influence Councilwoman Janice Hahn of Los Angeles, towards supporting changes to the existing zoning on the 61.53 acre site.

On January 1 or there abouts. Ms. Swanson began her appointment as Deputy Chief of Staff of Councilwoman Janice Hahn.

Some respondents to an Email I sent out stated they considered the appointment a 'conflict of interest'. Those words were used in the majority of replies I have received, so far.

At this time I don't feel there is a real conflict of interest.

What I have seen lately are discussions related to new members of the House of Representatives hiring former paid lobbyists to key positions on their staff.

With Ms. Hahn's appointment of Ms. Swanson to a key position on her staff, she hired a former paid 'lobbyist' and leader of a project, within the Councilwoman's District and the Councilwoman has yet to vote on entitlements sought for that project.

I might consider a conflict of interest term going into effect should Ms. Hahn begin formal debate, discussions, votes, or directions concerning Ponte Vista at San Pedro.

I can also consider that there exists a perception of a conflict of interest that doesn't serve the best interests of the Councilwoman, I feel.
___________________________________________________________________________________
I feel I am continued being stonewalled by some of our representatives relating to the POSSIBLE vote to raise sewer fees in our city.

I have asked for more information and I have gone online seeking more information about whether the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts is seeking an increase in sewer fees paid by our residents. I haven't found any new information yet.

What must be important in any discussion regarding any vote or any increase in sewer fees by residents of the eastern portion of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes, surrounds the aspect of the Clearwater Program of the Sanitation Districts.

There are two existing Outfall Systems running basically underneath Western Avenue that take treated sewage from the plant in Carson and deposits the outfall into the Pacific Ocean, off of Royal Palms and the foot of Western Avenue.

The Clearwater Program deals with a third and new Joint Outfall System that would take over the flow from the two existing and aging outfall systems and put the product into a larger pipe, if you will.

The Clearwater Program seems to be stuck in a dormant state for the last several years, but there were original discussions and meeting about the program and there is documentation 'out there'.

The most important element of the Clearwater Program is the location of the access point for the tunnel that must be created between Carson and the Pacific Ocean.

There were 16 sites pre-selected for preliminary study in the Notice of Preparation.

Several of the sites are along or very near Western Avenue. Here are some of the sites pre-selected for further study that should be most important to those of us who live on the east side of The Hill:

Defense Fuel Supply Point (Near the intersection of Western Avenue and Palos Verdes Drive North.

Eastview Park (The Sanitation Districts own the site near the corner of Western Avenue and Westmont Drive and it is currently used by the city of Rancho Palos Verdes as one of its parks.

Peck Park

Averill Park

Royal Palms Beach

White Point Reservation of Fort MacArthur (Currently there is a pumping station for the existing systems at the point where Western Avenue curves and the roadway become Paseo Del Mar

Now why should we be concerned about the access point for a tunnel?

The access point is currently being considered to be a hole in the ground, 200 feet in diameter and up to 500 feet deep!

Once the tunneling machine is lowered into place, dump trucks would be needed to move the products of the tunneling procedures. This would take place FOR YEARS.

There is one site pre-selected that has over 99% support for placement. That site in on Terminal Island where the old coke transport access was located. This site is bridge, freeway, and rail accessible and would not pose greater traffic along Western Avenue.

It is my feeling that unless and until our residents learn Western Avenue would not be impacted by the Joint Outfall System construction, no consideration or vote to raise sewer fees can take place.
___________________________________________________________________________________________

A Brilliant Question. Two Fine Answers. And Then There is Tom

During the public comments on non-agenda items, a resident of R.P.V. made comments about Measure C, the charter city ballot measure and then asked a simple question to the three 'veteran' City Council members.

She was trying to find some measure of whether having R.P.V. becoming a Charter City or not would be a good thing or a not-so-good thing. I felt her question was brilliant, but I will comment about the results after I post her question to Councilmen Wolowicz, Stern, and Mayor Long. (Mayor Long was communicating during the meeting via telephone because he is in New York.)

Her question was basically, what if any, impediments did you find during your terms because R.P.V. is not a Charter City?

First, I feel that her question should not have been answered by anyone during that portion of the meeting. The comments on non-agenda items strictly should be that, comments.

I have seen many people stand up and ask questions during that portion of the meeting that answers were not allowed to be uttered by Council members because the portion was not designed to be a question and answer period.

However, since no objection was raised, I believe Councilman Stern provided her the first, and to the question, answer.

He mentioned how he was impeded because he could not deal with cost issues revolving around city projects without the constraints of prevailing wage laws. He and Councilman Wolowicz both were very impassioned, I feel, about their not being able to lower the taxpayers' costs for contracts.

I think Councilman Stern answered her question well even though I believe Mayor Pro Tem Misetich should have stopped any answering because that is not technically part of the public comment period.

I found Councilman Wolowicz, taking two periods to respond to the question, also did a fine job at dealing with the question asked and not varying off too far from the question.

Between Councilman Wolowicz' comments we heard from Councilman Campbell.

Councilman Campbell probably should have stayed silent because he was not one of the Council members who the question was posed to, because the woman was asking only the more veteran members of the Council.

Mayor Pro Tem did what I feel was correct for him by not providing any comments or answers to the question.

Then there comes onto the speakers the voice of Mayor Long.

He spent almost the entire time of his overly long lobbying, campaigning for Yes votes on Measure C and did not offer any real answer to the woman's question about his past impediments to not governing in a charter city.

I think what Tom Long did during the time of the public City Council meeting was completely campaigning, lobbying, and supporting Measure C during a meeting in which that type of stuff should not be allowed and should have been stopped.

Mayor Long represents ALL the residents of R.P.V. even those who oppose Measure C, during the scheduled meetings of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council.

It sounded far too much like he was campaigning on behalf of the city and the City Council and while he is perfectly within his rights to speak about such matters as a resident of the city, while he is attending City Council meetings he should not lobby as he did to the public who were present at the meeting and those listening to him via the television or Internet.

What makes this problem worse is that now opponents of Measure C can (rightfully) claim that Tom was using City Council time and the costs to the city for those representing the city at the meeting to call for support of Measure C with overt campaigning language and what can only been thought of as a lobbying effort by an official on City business, for a measure.

By the way, at the meeting I heard from Council members and former Mayor Ken Dyda that now make me even more supportive of Measure C, no thanks to Tom.

Attending the meeting and listening to Tom's words was one of the most outspoken opponent of Measure C. This person, I feel, now has more talking points against Tom and against passage of Measure C, if the person plays their cards right.

I don't like it when 'our' side basically hands the other side reasons to oppose what 'we' support.

I think Long should do his business in New York, come home, and support passage of Measure C as a resident and not as Mayor of R.P.V.

I feel Tom did a disservice during the meeting, to all those who support Measure C and gave opponents something to use.

That's just my opinion.

Perhaps a Good Test Regarding Measure C

An article appearing now online at www.dailybreeze.com and probably set for publishing in tomorrow's paper states that the cost of repairing San Ramon Canyon and all that goes with supporting the switchbacks along Palos Verdes Drive East and other items could cost as much as 23.2 Million Dollars.

It appears that many folks supporting Measure C do so because of the many claims I have heard about the elimination of prevailing wage guidelines within the city, is one of the most important reasons to support Measure C.

I am an opponent of eliminating prevailing wage guidelines and 58% of the 120 charter cities in California have concluded that they will stick with the State prevailing wage guidelines, as of today.

So since we have some time before the election, how about taking the report that will be discussed during the upcoming City Council meeting and crunching the numbers using several scenarios so that voters can view what costs could be under three different scenarios.

Before I continue, the article mentioned that most of the project would be within the limits of Rancho Palos Verdes, unless the option to connect to the existing outfall piping is used.

So to crunch the numbers, I suggest that someone who knows how to crunch the numbers take a look and tell all the voters what would be the least costly to the city and still get the job done as soon as possible.

First, since the majority of charter cities still use prevailing wage guidelines, established for most cities, what might be the costs and timing to finish all the repairs should the city to continue to use what continues to exist in our city.

Second, since there are some cities that have partially exempted prevailing wage guidelines, the number crunchers would first have to decide which set of exemptions would be best, then let us know the costs and timeline for the complete repair.

Lastly, since so many of the proponents of Measure C seem to favor the elimination of our existing prevailing wage guidelines, I think it would be very important to all voters to know the possible overall costs and timeline without the city continuing to use prevailing wage guidelines.

But there is a kicker in the article. The article, by Ms. Melissa Pamer states that a temporary solution could be put in place for about 3.7 Million Dollars, if I remember correctly from the article.

I don't like the idea of another temporary fix.

The article also included mention of the sewer system that is and would be affected in the San Ramon Canyon and P.V.D. East areas.

We now know that the L.A. County Sanitation Districts want a ballot measure to raise our sewer fees in the city of Rancho Palos Verdes and they want to do that with a city-wide vote and not county-wide vote.

If the number crunchers are willing to include the added costs to property tax payers should the sewer measure pass, that would be educational, too.

Although I cannot imagine that our city's voters would approve more taxes or fees for sewer services, anything could happen.

I still continue to favor passage of Measure C, but I now would very much like to learn about the costs and timeline for repair of San Ramon Canyon, under the three scenarios, so that I and others can make the best vote possible concerning Measure C.

Some More Information Regarding Measure C

When Mayor Tom Long and Mr. John Stammreich support Measure C, everyone must be assured that this is not a left versus right or Liberal versus Conservative issue.

Both men support Measue C and they have widely differing views about politics and issues within and without Rancho Palos Verdes.

But Measure C is a political measure, one dealing with how much governance we allow our local leaders over how much our city and its residents are governed by the legislature of the State of California.

It should be noted here that our residents voted in elections for our area's Assembly member and State Senator.

Measure C seeks to bring more local control AND power to members of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council.

I feel education concerning what a Charter City is and does must be increased so that our intelligent and savvy electorate have most information available to make and informed decision.

I still remain on the side of the fence supporting the measure, but I have learned some information I did not know and I see more questions arising from my most recent education.

The Web site, RanchoPalosVerdesPatch has an article titled, Charter Initiative Election Could Revamp RPV City Government written by Mr. Bob Pickard.

I gained access to the site through my Facebook page. http://outside.in/rancho-palos-verdes-ca is another way to access the article.


ASSOCIATED BUILDERS AND CONTRACTORS CALIFORNIA COOPERATION COMMITTEE has its:

Are Charter Cities Taking Advantage of Prevailing Wage Exemptions?

2011 1st EDITION

I found one page in the booklet more interesting than I had expected, concerning Charter Cities and prevailing wage laws.

Here is the documentation about how many of the 120 Charter Cities have no, partial, or full restrictions on prevailing wage laws.

Charter Cities with No Exemption

Alameda Albany Alhambra Bakersfield Bell Berkeley Buena Park Burbank Cerritos Chico Compton Culver City Cypress Del Mar Downey Eureka Folsom Grass Valley Glendale Hayward Huntington Beach Inglewood Kingsburg Lancaster Lemoore Loma Linda Long Beach Los Alamitos Los Angeles Marina Monterey Napa Newport Beach Oakland
Petaluma Piedmont Pomona Port Hueneme Redondo Beach Redwood City Richmond Riverside Roseville Salinas Sacramento San Bernardino San Francisco San Jose San Leandro San Luis Obispo San Mateo San Rafael San Ramon Sand City Santa Ana Santa Barbara Santa Clara Santa Cruz Santa Monica Santa Rosa Seal Beach Signal Hill Stockton Torrance Vallejo Ventura Vernon Watsonville Palmdale Woodlake

Total-70


Charter Cities with Partial Exemption

Anaheim El Centro Fortuna City of Industry Fresno Irvine Mountain View Oroville Big Bear Lake San Diego Santee Sunnyvale Truckee

Total-13

Charter Cities with Full Exemption

Adelanto Arcadia Carlsbad Chula Vista Desert Hot Springs Dinuba Exeter Gilroy Indian Wells Irwindale King City La Quinta Lindsay Marysville Merced Modesto Needles Norco Oceanside Pacific Grove Palm Desert Palm Springs Palo Alto Pasadena Placentia Porterville Rancho Mirage San Marcos Santa Maria Shafter Solvang Temple City Tulare City Victorville Visalia Vista Whittier

Total-37

One of the reasons I found this particular information interesting is that many proponents for Measure C state that one very positive reason to support Measure C is to rid the city of the mandate to adhere to prevailing wage guidelines.

My first question I have after reading the numbers is; Why do 70 of the 120 cities have no exemptions regarding prevailing wage guidelines?

58.33% of our State's Charter Cities continue to use prevailing wage guidelines.

13 cities have partial exemptions from prevailing wage guidelines.

Only 37 of the 120 Charter Cities in California, just about 31%, or just less that one third of the listed cities, have full exemptions.

For those who consider supporting Measure C and who have the potential elimination of prevailing wage guidelines as one of several major reasons for their support of Measure C, I think we all need to continue to ask questions about what a partial or full exemption from prevailing wage guidelines truly means. Especially when less than one third of the Charter Cities have full exemptions on their books.

In an earlier post I mentioned several projects that might be allowed to be included as far as prevailing wage guidelines go. They are multi-jurisdictional in nature and they would probably fall under prevailing wage guidelines.

These projects seem to be the most important in our city, right now. From the repair of San Ramon Canyon, the sewer maintenance and replacement issues, and possibly the work on maintaining a safe roadbed in the landslide area of Palos Verdes Drive East, I feel there are important projects and issues in our city that could not fit into new laws regarding prevailing wage guidelines.

All this to me suggests that we need to learn more about prevailing wage guidelines and how, if, or why having R.P.V. as a Charter City would benefit or not benefit with the aspects of more local control of guidelines, such as prevailing wage guidelines.

Sadly, I have also recently learned there are certain individuals in our city who choose not to learn from events and there are still some out there who are uncivil to others, regarding Measure C.

Apparently there are still those who did not learn a thing about the need for greater civility and how to conduct themselves, after the horrific tragedy in Tucson. Shame on 'they know who they are'. There is no place in any discussion or debate regarding Measure C, for the rhetoric and vitriol they are spewing.

There are those on the 'left and the right' who support or oppose Measure C. Since our residents appear to be more intelligent and have more savvy than many residents in other cities, I hope we can have a better discussion period with Measure C than we did with Measure P.

I would like to hope I can find more good feelings about who would be the new members coming onto the Council this coming December. In conversations with others, they tell me I should not worry so much about who might become 'the deciders' if Measure C passes.

Right now if the current Council makeup could remain, I would be much more supportive of Measure C. But term limits sees the makeup of the City Council changing.

Even though I know full well that our residents who seek the three seats up for election are intelligent and would work to benefit the residents of R.P.V., I have not been all that favorable towards past Council members and for that reason, I wish the ballot measure would come up for a vote after we all know who will sit on our Council for at least 2012 and 2013.

Measure C, Rancho Palos Verdes As A Charter City, My Thoughts

Today, the Palos Verdes Peninsula News carried a story about Measure C, the ballot measure that if approved by voters in March would more the city of Rancho Palos Verdes from a 'general law' city to a 'charter city'.

The issues of having R.P.V. becoming a charter city have been discusses in small circles for some time. What got the water boiling to have R.P.V. becoming a charter city was Marymount College's attempt to have a Special Election for its Marymount Plan that would allow for the construction of on-campus housing at Marymount's Palos Verdes Drive East campus.

Had R.P.V. been a charter city, is would have been highly unlikely that Marymount's representatives could have moved forward with a ballot measure.

As a general law city, R.P.V. was and still is faced with the possibility that special interest groups COULD mount efforts to have voters decide issues related to the business and operational interests of businesses and other entities in R.P.V.

As it turned out, the massive number of registered voters who voted in the Special Election demonstrated that any entity in the forseeable future would most likely not attempt to create a measure for its own self interests and attempt to have voters approve those special interests. More than 2/3 of the registered voters of R.P.V. voted in the Special Election where Marymount's Measure P was voted down with about a 54%-46% NO vote.

I have been and remain very concerned that Measure C seems to remain incomplete as far as the total charter city ordinances would be. It is also troubling to me that many feel the vote on the measure is coming too soon and without the educational resources voters should use to make their own decisions.

I strongly feel that having R.P.V. as a charter city COULD VERY WELL BE THE BEST THING, but my concern grows on a number of fronts, with the measure and the possible future.

It is troubling to me that there is no ballot argument opposing the adoption of Measure C. There are now two Web sites created by opponents of R.P.V. becoming a charter city, at this time.

http://www.norpvc.info/Home_Page.html

www.pvpwatch.com

There are sites representing support for Measure C, including pages linked to the city's Web site.

Another site created in support of Measure C is: www.YesOnCRPV.com

There is also a site listing some residents supporting Measure C: http://yesoncrpv.com/supporters.html

I have commented in the past and still contend that not enough education on all aspects of Measure C and how charter city operates has been created and offered to our residents by all sides of the issue.

The five sitting Council persons support the adoption of Measure C and for me, that would be great IF three of them were not going to be replaced in about 10 months.

Since everyone knowledgeable with regards to Measure C agree that ordinances created under charter city status could be approved or rejected by just three members of the City Council, many folks would like to wait to vote on charter city status until after the three new Council members are seated.

It is also troubling to some voters that the charter itself might not be completed prior to the vote on whether to accept it or not and I have not found any indication that it would be a completed document at the time of the swearing in of the three newest members of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council.

While I fully support the current makeup of the Council with regards to their active creation of a charter, I might not have that same feeling with any or all of the three newest members, in December.

The article in today's Palos Verdes Peninsula News also brought a point that is very central to having R.P.V. becoming a charter city. That issue concerns the part in which charter cities are not required to follow prevailing wage guidelines or how individuals are hired regarding the planning and design of developments on city land.

The article suggested that companies may not bid on jobs within a charter city. That suggestions suggests to me that one of the main reasons for a city becoming a charter city might be null and void from the outset.

On the League of California Cities, http://www.cacities.org/index.jsp?zone=locc&previewStory=53 we find that as of October, 2010, 481 incorporated cities, 120 California Cities are charter cities, and 369 are listed as general law cities (I didn't do the math so I don't know why the numbers are as they are stated.

Yes, Bell California is a charter city HOWEVER, I am quite sure that the electorate of Rancho Palos Verdes would not, could not, and will not allow any time if situation remotely similar to anything regarding the problems that Bell faced and faces.

I also read from the following site:
http://publicceo.com/index.php/local-governments/151-local-governments-publicceo-exclusive/1249-charter-cities-charting-their-own-paths-but-not-without-obstacles which illustrated to me that becoming a charter city may create problems that I believe are still unforeseen.

I am heading towards calling for postponement of the March election to determine whether R.P.V. becomes a charter city NOT because I think R.P.V. becoming a charter city is a bad thing.

My concerns cover a growing set of reasons including but not limited to;

An incomplete charter coming up for a vote of acceptance or rejection

Too little of a debate and public discussion regarding these matters

A sense that there is now a needless rush towards a vote, after what was found to actually be true of our electorate as demonstrated this past November.

The concept that no resident/voter knows today who might be the members of the City Council during the first term after a March, 2011 election be. We have no indication whether an approved charter city status would serve the majority of residents because we don't yet know three of the five Council members who would have authority to create or change laws.
(It is not enough for me to trust the current makeup of the Council when I don't know who will make up the majority of votes on the Council, beginning in December, 2011.)

I have created some specific question that I have Emailed out seeking answers for in terms of how many cities in California have increasing deficits and which, if any of them are charter cities.

It is also a good question to find the answer to as far as which city elements, buildings, and items would fall under the terms of a charter city and what portions of R.P.V. have multi-jurisdictional structures which could preclude any benefit (if any) to the elimination of prevailing wage guidelines.

It is fully understandable to strongly run away from authorities and limitations imposed by those in Sacramento, with the adoption of charter city status over general law status. What has not yet been presented to our electorate is how charter cities are currently functioning when compared to general law cities. It would be important to see published comparisons regarding the economics of charter cities versus general law cities, in my opinion.

We are now within two months time before the scheduled vote that could become the most important vote in our city. It is only been very recently that more information about those opposed to Measure C has come forward and it is only in today's PVP News that we find an article related to the growing opposition to Measure P.

I have always contended that a full education regarding R.P.V. becoming a charter city has not taken place yet and that does not benefit our voters, I feel.

An analogy. Since R.P.V. becoming a charter city MIGHT VERY WELL BE THE BEST OUTCOME, and it being as good as a bowl of chicken noodle soup, so far we have only been given a can of something and the label is not really understandable for many of us. We might want a bowl of chicken noodle soup, but at this point, we don't know what is really in the can.

A Long Dry Spell Must End For Me

This post is written for several of my blogs because I have taken an extended absence from writing on any of my blogs for quite some time.

So much has happened in our extended communities since I stopped writing on the blogs and I want to get back to pondering, questioning, commenting, arguing, and dealing with many issues common to the communities I live in and events and conditions in and around the communities most of my readers live in.

Nothing is more common in all of the communities we all deal with than John and Muriel Olguin. Right now, nothing is more important for all of us in those communities.

Most of us know that a great gentleman, very long into life and even longer in adventures would pass from us, far too soon.

We all knew the day would come that we would make us sad and drive our memories into overdrive.

We all knew none of us can and could measure up to the personhood we all now honor with the passing of John Olguin.

Muriel was and always will be the 'winner' of my writings about our community members who were closer to being "more like John Olguin" than the rest of us. She is in our hearts as she and the rest of us remember John.

Starting 2011 with the new adventure of working on ways to honor John's memory and try to be more like him in the acts of kindness and teachings he showed us, is a task we need to do. It is the first task of what is going to be one heck of a year for all of us.

As we move forward, please include in your visions and dreams the smiles your remember beaming from John's face as he taught you something you didn't know or how he was so happy when you understood how he regaled in your learning.

Let's work towards a public memorial that includes contributions of whatever you can provide to those in need and a clear demonstration that we all 'got' the fascination, wonder, and joy John offered, all supported by Muriel, a true inspiration, artist, and gift to all of us as she was to John.

One way to honor John and all those who volunteered for us is to volunteer to work on issues and projects that interest you in ways that promote those things that benefit 'community'

Not only are your acts, deeds, thoughts, comments, and wishes important, your means of demonstrating those things are also important on many issues you might want to concern yourself with.

Here is just a partial list of things that I am pondering about and I hope your list is at least as long as mine:

John's public memorial, the U.S.S. Iowa, Charter City status and vote in Rancho Palos Verdes, Ponte Vista, SRHS #15, downtown San Pedro, protecting our environment, Western Avenue, community goals, park lands, politics, arts in communities, good citizenship, the local economy, working for those less fortunate, San Ramon Canyon, Marymount's Expansion Project, educating everyone, recession recovery, working for peace, celebrating, family, neighbors and friends, contentious issues, common goals, fun, faith, play, and experiencing a full and productive life. Grandchildren, perhaps someday.

I hope to get back to writing on a much more regular basis on several of these blogs.

I know Ponte Vista is important and should see posts and comments from others throughout the year.

I live on the eastern side of Rancho Palos Verdes. San Pedro in heart, Rancho Palos Verdes in thought. I feel strongly that residents of Rancho Palos Verdes need to be better informed and more able to deal with and comment on their government and city.

There are "Issues to Ponder" regarding San Pedro. It may have a continuing set of problems in its downtown area but it has a growing vibrant aspect in its arts and entertainment and there will be new things popping up in the future throughout the community.

I know that "R Neighborhoods Are 1" and there is more to be considered in our community, for our community, and with our community.

As I am still a caveman, my 'dairy' needs to be updated with stories and learning this caveman has encountered over the last couple of years.

Whether I can manage to work harder to be more like John is something that I don't yet know, but I really need to try.

I hope readers will learn or argue or agree or disagree or ponder or rant or rave or just read. But with all blogs, it is truly more for the writer to write than the reader to read. If that was not the case, there would be no blogs and just look how many there are now compared to when I first wrote, in September, 2006.

Thank you and please return from time to time.

Mark Wells
aka M Richards
mrichards2@hotmail.com