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.