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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Mark,
ReplyDeleteWelcome back to blogging. Below is a letter I submitted today to a local paper to respond to the argument that March is "too soon" to vote on the charter city issue. In the below letter, I argue that March is not soon enough.
=======
I am tired of reading false arguments by the opponents of Measure C
that the RPV city council is "rushing" Measure C and is operating in
“stealth.” This can hardly be described as a rushed and stealthy
ballot measure.
Here are the facts:
The concept of a charter city was first formally raised by the City
Council over a year ago at its January 2010 workshop. The City
Council adopted as a tactical goal the issue of examining the charter
city issue and the benefits to RPV. On July 6, 2010, the City Council
formally voted to move forward with the Charter City issue and place
the issue in the voter’s hands. On October 12, 2010, the City provided
the public with formal notice of the charter city election to be held
in March 2011. Supporters of Measure C filed a ballot argument.
Opponents of Measure C could not be bothered to file original or
responsive ballot arguments.
The Daily Breeze wrote about the July 6, 2010 City Council vote before and afterwards in articles dated June 28, 2010 and July 7, 2010. Letters to the editor concerning Measure C have appeared in the July 29, 2010, November 28, 2010, December 27, 2010, December 28, 2010 and January 4, 2011 editions of the Daily Breeze.
The local political action committee, PVP Watch, distributed its e-mail newsletters on August 6, 2010, September 11, 2010, October 2, 2010 email newsletter informing residents of the Charter City issue. Thus, this has hardly been a "rushed" or "stealthy" effort.
The City of Oceanside saved one million dollars in the first three
months of being a charter city. In the next five years, RPV estimates
it will spend $6.6 million in labor costs for capital improvements.
If our charter is adopted, of that $6.6 million, we could save
taxpayers $1.3 to $2.6 million just on capital improvements.
Instead of asking "why the rush," RPV voters should ask, "why delay?"
Thank you, Mr. Lewis.
ReplyDeleteThere are many of us who talked about the issues surrounding R.P.V. becoming a charter city, many months ago.
I do agree that I don't see a rush, but I still feel the educational processes on all sides of the issue have not come up to speed as I feel they should have.
We are now less than two months away for the election and I haven't seen enough, in my opinion, open and honest discussions between those who support and those who oppose Measure C.
I think our residents need a fair shake to determine how they decide to vote and since the City Council called for the measure unanymously, we all know that all the members of the C.C. support Measure C.
We also know the members of the Planning Commission also support passage of Measure C.
It may very well be the best thing for our city. I am still concerned about learning that only about 31% of the existing charter cities have elected to not provide full exemptions from the prevailing wage laws.
I think we all need to take a better look at cities other than Oceanside, Redondo Beach, and some other cities and look more closely at cities that have chosen to keep prevailing wage laws intact.
To answer your question Jeff, the following are just a couple of the reasons why we should delay:
ReplyDelete(1) There is a case currently pending before the California Supreme Court (involving the City of Vernon's charter) that will address whether charter cities can truly exempt themselves from CA's prevailing wage statute. If Vernon loses this case then the financial benefit you are touting will evaporate. In such case, the typical costs of administrating, amending, and defending our own unique charter (vs piggy-backing off of the state rules, as most cities do) most surely would become a financial drain on the city. Although Vernon received a favorable ruling from the appeals court, it did so only by a split vote. The strongly worded dissent was very compelling (it's worth a read, if you haven't seen it). So I think it is far from certain that the appellate decision will be affirmed and that the claimed financial benefits for a charter form of city governent will be realizable.
(2) The fact that the city council and a few citizens have sporadically addressed this issue over the last year is irrelevant. What matters is the effort the city has put into studying this change and informing the electorate about the true impact of this charter. This is perhaps he most important measure in the history of our city. Adopting the charter will have the effect of repealing hundreds of well-developed and time-tested statutory provisions that currently govern us. For the sake of expediency and to reduce costs the city council has drafted a charter that replaces all these laws with a bare bones outline. (This approach is particularly striking when you compare the far more robust charters that have been effectively used by Redondo Beach and Torrance.) With a few very limited exceptions, we have no idea what the city council members(or their potential successors) intend to do to replace all of these existing laws. We are expected to just trust them to do the right thing. But it is difficult to trust them when it was the council itself that drafted this charter instead of a broadbased community panel. Fundamental reform of this magnitude should not be based on the comments of a couple of people at a few meetings. The council should have affirmatively engaged residents to take an active rule in studying whether and to what extent our city government should be reformed.
Having the city council grant themselves carte blanche to proceed as they see fit is a poor process for reforming our city government, and so I agree with Mark that this process was definitely too rushed and should not have been placed on the March ballot.