http://www.pvnews.com/articles/2011/02/10/opinion/opinion2.txt should get you there, if you are interested.
Whether a letter is from someone supporting Measure C or opposed to its passage, I have found each letter interesting to me and I want to share my thoughts about portions of letters by both supporters and opponents of Measure C.
Mr. David Emenhiser has the first letter published.
Mr. Emenhiser's letter included the following: "Ultimately, the Measure C issue that will be decided on the question of who the voters of RPV trust with their tax dollars — their locally elected officials or the statewide legislators?"
I do believe that trust is a proper word to use. I think the history of our city has reflected that there have been members of the Council who are trustworthy and when some residents don't feel they trust some on the City Council, our residents have been interested enough to engage Council members and issues they are not happy with.
I trust the current City Council makeup to have the best interests of ALL of the residents of R.P.V. being their moral and ethical compass. I also trust that well informed residents can watch the actions of City Councils in the future and provide decent when necessary but always provide added sets of eyes and ears to keep anyone sitting in a City Council seat respecting the concept that our city must remain 'residents first'.
Ms. Marianne Hunter makes a point I totally believe in: "Of course we want to keep what we have, but do we not have a responsibility to help keep the state running? We are citizens of California as much as of Rancho Palos Verdes.
I think most of what Ms. Hunter wrote is what I feel, but it appears she is less informed about some legal requirements that general law cities and charter cities must adhere to. I fully sympathize with her being "torn about this issue".
Yes, Ms. Hunter, a Council of a charte city has the right and opportunity to make changes concerning municipal initiatives and city election requirements.
Mr. Jim Jones was a mentor to me in how a very good Traffic Safety Committee member does their volunteer job with class, and high intelligence.
He offered the following:
"Let’s be clear. Overshadowing the value in any city charter, there is a fatal flaw in this proposed Rancho Palos Verdes city charter: It does not contain checks and balances. The old rule says, “Sooner or later, if they can, they will.”
I agree with that statement for most cities OTHER THAN Rancho Palos Verdes, should our voters approve Measure C.
I know Mr. Jones is informed and has offered some checks and balances, which can be thought of as a responsibility of a well-informed electorate.
Again in Mr. Jones' letter, a question to trust is put forward. I think if you go back and look at our city's history, there have usually been residents providing checks and balances to major issues brought before our City Councils.
We have some current evidence of that regarding the Annenberg Project. I think most folks would agree that if a wealthy benefactor offers a project that might have been approved of by many other City Councils, I have seen residents who oppose the project brought by The Annenberg Foundation to our City, have been carefully listened to our City Council has responded to these checks and balances.
I have confidence in our residents keeping our current and future Councils honest.
(*NOTE- I know the members of PVP Watch don't share my confidence in many of our residents' ability to keeping our City Council honest. However, I think the actions of those residents/members of PVP Watch have demonstrated exactly the opposite of what they are saying. I do believe that PVP Watch is one group that looks into the major issues brought to the City Council and I feel they keep our Council honest.)
Ms. Carol Mueller wrote the following: At the Jan. 18 council meeting I asked Mayor [Tom] Long and Councilmen [Steve] Wolowicz and [Doug] Stern what impediments they had encountered over their many years of service that they would not have encountered had we been a charter city. They all gave lengthy responses, but the only “impediments” they revealed were payment of prevailing wages and not being able to potentially hold onto tax revenues. They did not indicate any problems with any other laws that govern general law cities.
I was in the room when Ms. Mueller spoke and as part of my right to use my 'checks and balances' regarding the City Council, I wrote about the exchange in the blog and that I thought Ms. Mueller has a great question and what we all heard was not only not what she asked, but also included one Council member who was not asked the question.
To be fair at this point, (now) Mayor Pro Tem Anthony Misetich did not answer the questions as he respectfully realized he was not one of the members being asked for answers.
Ms. Mueller's question was clear and quite to the point and it deserved answers that were only on the points she was asking about.
Sadly and madly for me, what we all had to sit through was four members of the City Council going to great lengths to lobby the room and T.V. audience for passage of Measure C, rather than having only the three asked, their thoughts about the very specific question.
After what seemed to be a rally in support for passage, Ms. Mueller and the rest of us came away with the basic remarks which Mr. Mueller included. Those two points were the ability to provide exemptions to prevailing wage guidelines and "not being able to potentially hold onto tax revenues.
**NOTE: Fact check. A charter city CURRENTLY has the opportunity to approve language to partially or fully exempt the city from paying prevailing wages on municipal projects funded by only the city. Also, While there are well-regarded opinions that hold that a charter city MIGHT be able to hold onto some tax revenue, there doesn't seem to be any caseload as to how much money charter cities have 'held' onto rather than having those funds taken away or back by a State, County, or Federal entity. That being written, I support the opportunity to do whatever is possible to try and keep other entities from taking away tax revenues now being used by our city, such as the TOT.
Sadly though, Ms. Mueller is among many who continue to include "Bell" in their opposition of Measure C in our city. Rancho Palos Verdes would not, could not, and never will be Bell and problems anything like what we see with Bell. PVP Watch, myself, and hundreds of other R.P.V. residents who are resolved to remain informed about OUR government would NEVER allow even a remote chance of what happened in Bell to happen in R.P.V. This is the trust issue I write about. I trust our residents more than most opponents of Measure C.
From Mr. Patrick Ryan: "please know that the prevailing wage rate established by the California Department of Industrial Relations provides a “level playing field” among contractors bidding on taxpayer-funded projects. These wages provide a good living to an American worker."
Mr. Ryan, I could not agree more. Recently PVP Watch provided documentation that, with the McCarrell Canyon repairs, prevailing wage guidelines were not used during the time we are still a general law city. That written, readers still might like to be reminded that the California Supreme Court has not yet offered its opinion on an Appeal regarding Vista, California. At this time, nobody can accurately confirm that charter cities will have the right to partially or fully exempt their municipal projects, funded with municipal funds, in the future.
Readers need to also remember that Mr. Cruikshank, the earlier writer Mr. Ryan is using his letter to reply to is not only a member of the Rancho Palos Verdes Charter City Committee, (A committee set up more like and educational and lobbying group made up exclusively of Measure C supporters) he is also an employer of workers who work either for prevailing wages or not being paid should a project not be required to follow prevailing wage guidelines.
Ms. Sharon Yarber is the leader of No on C. I felt it necessary to identifier in such a manner because of her position. I have not noted until this point where each previous writer will vote Yes or No on measure C.
Mr. Yarber wrote: "If the city does not have to competitively bid this opens the door for cronyism. The city’s Finance Advisory Committee guesstimates that maybe $1.3 million to $2.6 million might be saved over the next five years (lots of speculation in everything they say about saving money). The staff has decided to come up with numbers that sound way more appealing by including savings on unfunded projects in its
$8.1 million to $16.2 million number pulled out of thin air."
First, I do not agree that the city does not have to use competitive bidding. I know that if Council members ever considered it within their right no avoid competitive bids, there are enough lawyers living in R.P.V., Ms. Yarber being one of them, who would take the city to court in less than a heartbeat, should Council members try a stunt like that.
What I do share with Ms. Yarber is a certain amount of anxiety about the possible prospect of cronyism. Might that happen our city become a charter city? Perhaps. But look at our city's history and consider that contract bids could have been approved in the past having some cronyism involved and I don't believe it ever happened for a fact. I regard the aspect of cronyism as something that could happen but is something an informed electorate would never allow happening.
Ms. Yarber included: "U.S. Constitution is short and narrow! Only powers that are enumerated therein are granted to the feds. Everything else is retained by the states (which explains why state constitutions, which govern everything else, are necessarily longer).
What an insult to our intelligence."
I guess using 'logic' established by Ms. Yarber, a city charter for R.P.V. might have to be longer and contain more than our State Constitution, because of her statement regarding the U.S. and California's Constitutions.
I find that Ms. Yarber's letter is demeaning to our residents intelligence. Her letter muddies the discussion regarding the truthful vote by the City Council. (Yes, Councilman Wolowicz wanted to have the election in November, but he voted to put the Measure onto the March Ballot, making the 5-0 vote unanimous.)
I do feel That Ms. Yarber, PVP Watch, members of the Board of Trustees of Marymount College who are recognized opponents of Measure C, and others have as one element of a hidden agenda, keeping all opportunities to utilize existing municipal initiative and election laws remaining in support of the goal to have on-campus housing constructed on the campus of Marymount College.
Mr. Paul Tetreault contributed the following:
“The basic difference between general law and charter cities is found in the degree of control which the state government may exercise over them. Charter cities have more freedom to innovate and to pass ordinances according to local need.”
While Mr. Tetrault's inclusion is almost complete and true, I need to inject more information voters may need to help them decide.
Charter city status allows for greater opportunities to enact legislation more directly impacting municipal affairs, as compared to general law status for cities.
It is the OPPORTUNITY a charter city is awarded by its voters that must remain at the forefront of all of the discussions.
A charter city's Council can do very good things for the people of that city. It can also provide ordinances that place some restrictions on residents than what is currently enjoyed in R.P.V.
Yes, an R.P.V. City Council, having use of a charter, can and MIGHT change the number of signatures required for residents to place a measure on a future ballot.
New ordinances under a charter, IF CREATED, could change other election laws and requirements for candidates.
HOWEVER, any notion or comment from any opponent that R.P.V. would ever be divided up into Districts for the purposes of electing Council members or anything else is PURE NONSENSE!
Anyone telling you that R.P.V. would be divided up that way is laying a very foul smokescreen over the issue and trying to scare voters into voting No on C.
Let's say Measure C is approved on March 8. One of the first ordinances created once the charter is fully recognized and governing our city, was an ordinance that states that for the City Council election following this November's election, Only those residents who lived in a house that is now within R.P.V. who moved into the house prior to 1956 are eligible to run for a Council seat.
Let's see, right now only Mr. and Mrs. Graham and me would be allowed to run from the eastview area. That is not going to happen and it is about as reasonable as the city being broken up into districts.
Mr. Tetreault later wrote: Few of us have much trust in government. But I prefer letting my neighbors decide how RPV should be run than our state Legislature and governor, especially at a time when Sacramento is working to raid cities of their revenue sources.
I completely agree with Mr. Tetreault's statement, even the "few of us trust in government" part.
It is the few who seek election to a City Council seat. It is also the few who look over the shoulders of Council members, working long and hard to keep them honest, when we need to look closely.
It has always been the few who voters feel can represent them and be their watchdogs when things don't seem right.
But here is where Mr. Tetreault and I have differing views. From Mr. Tetreault's letter: "
Here is another way to look at it: If we were already a charter city would you vote to give up local control in favor of Sacramento? I didn’t think so. In fact, in California’s history no charter city has ever reverted back to a general law city."
The above statement is just as disenginous than much of Ms. Yarber's letter.
It is quite true that no charter city in California has returned to being a general law city. But there are several factors Mr. Tetreault's letter provided no education for.
The cost of R.P.V. becoming a charter BEGINS with at least $70,000.00. This is for all the staff time and election costs and other costs related to getting the measure through the ballot processes.
It is still to be firmly determined how much added costs will come should the charter be approved and our city change from a general law city.
So, the economics of returning to a general law city would probably be prohibitive and require another ballot measure for voters.
Secondly, as Ms. Yarber correctly considered, a charter city's Council has the OPPORTUNITY to change requirements, municipally. So, if the majority of a charter city's Council wants the option or returning back to general city status, they MIGHT and/or COULD make it more difficult for residents to float an initiative to have such a measure qualify for voting.
I wish supporters of Measure C would just get away from the point that no charter city has gone back to being a general city. It does a real disservice to open and honest debate on this very important matter.
Both sides still use what I can only consider 'deflecting' or 'scare' statements to sway voters in one direction or the other. It is natural for this to be done, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't educate residents when I can see very clearly through the muck and mire.
I hope more residents feel confident in writing letters to the editor concerning Measure C. I think the leadership on both sides of the measure need to read what our residents think and feel.
I hope I have offered an open and honest reflection on portions of letters written to the PVP News.
I think I can be an objective commentator and hopefully educate folks about the pros AND cons about becoming a charter city.
Voters deserve all information and resources to use their high intelligence to determine how they will vote. We all witnessed dramatically what happens when a special interest group tries to pull the wool over the eyes of our electorate.
I continue to call on all leaders of both sides of the Measure C question to keep in mind the intelligence of our city's interested electorate.
For those who really don't care, there's always Facebook.
No comments:
Post a Comment