I do not endorse either a Yes vote or a No vote on Measure C. I have some real problems with both groups organized in support or in opposition to the measure.
Here is what I hope folks will find is an open and honest set of comments regarding opposition to R.P.V. becoming a charter city.
Of the 481 incorporated cities in the State of California, only 120 -25% have become charter cities.
No city has gone from being a charter city back to a general law city, but you may want to know why that may be.
First, with our city's election, it is estimated that our city's portion of this March's election is approximately $70,000. Not many cities have those kinds of funds these days to fund such and election to become or be removed from charter city status.
There are no really firm estimates as to the prolonged costs and time requirements associated with moving from a general law city to a charter city and supporters of Measure C have not published a set of costs other cities had when they moved into charter city status.
The City Council of a charter city is provided the right to change municipal initiative and election laws and requirements. It is not inconceivable that a charter city's Council might change initiative requirements to make it almost impossible for residents to create a successful campaign to change a city back to general law status.
Some opponents consider what I also have considered. Once City Councils live within charter city 'constitutions' they want to keep whatever power and advantage they have over State of California matters and become reluctant to give up those powers and advantages.
So basically, moving from general law status and into a charter city status take taxpayers' funds and it would cost more to move back to the old status.
Of the 120 charter cities in California, supporters, opponents, and others interested in Measure C have only looked at about 34-37 established charters. Very few folks in R.P.V. have taken the time and energy to study the majority of charters in the state.
The charter proposed for R.P.V. may have been written by one individual and it was studied by the City Attorney who belongs to a firm that represents other charter cities.
The charter proposed by our City Council is two pages long and many residents within our community feel the length of the charter is too short and others, myself included, feel it does not contain enough language to support the city's General Plan and the ordinances already on the books.
Opponents continue to attempt to use statements suggesting they didn't have enough time to comment or discuss the charter before it was placed onto the March ballot. I happen to totally disagree with this position as I have been talking about having R.P.V. becoming a charter city since April, 2010 or sometime earlier. However, statements about how the charter status was discussed as early as year ago must be mitigated with the fact that real, moving-forward discussion, debate, and contributions didn't get going until late 2009 and into 2010.
The concept that this charter is incomplete does have some merit and some of the makers of the charter will state that is was created to be a broad document, in the first place.
There are a great number of very intelligent and caring people in Rancho Palos Verdes who could have helped create a proposed charter, but were not necessarily contacted for input. Now it was up to those individuals to speak up and speak out from at least the Spring of 2010, yet many remained silent. I consider that not asking these good folks for their thoughts about a charter was not truly in the best interests of all of the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes.
The charter allows greater OPPORTUNITIES for changes in initiative requirements and POSSIBLY local election laws. This does not mean that any would happen, but all must learn that there are possibilities from being a charter city that are not found with general law cities.
Some of the possibilities MIGHT take some things away from some opponents of the Measure, they might not like to see taken away. If we become a charter city, it COULD BE POSSIBLE that the requirments used to qualify The Marymount Plan for a ballot measure, or for some other entity, might be changed by a change of ordinances governing municipal elections.
Yes, three members of a charter city's Council could enact ordinances and other measures current opponents of Measure C don't like. HOWEVER, this has always been the case, within R.P.V.. When a Council meeting has a qurom of four or five members, it has always taken three votes one way on any vote to pass something. With a four-member qurom, a 2-2 vote would not see something get passed.
Since Councils of charter cities appear to have greater opportunities to enact things Councils of general law cities do not have the opportunity to do, It can seem like three members of a charter city's Council have more power than three members of our current general law Council.
Charter cities can currently enact means to offer partial or full exemption from paying prevailing wages on municipal projects funded using municipa affairs funds. This may or may not become moot because of a lawsuit before the California Supreme Court regarding Vista, California. Since the California Supreme Court has not published a decision on the case, it can correctly be mentioned that should we become a charter city and the Council spend time and money creating a full or partial exemption to prevailing wage guidelines, and then the Court rule against Vista's laws, taxpayers' funds could be spent on something that might be ruled unconstitutional.
Opponents do have genuine concerns as to how much OUR city might find in real savings by becoming a charter city. It is acknowledged on all sides that funds needed to create charter city status and the mechanism involved to change from being a general law city to a charter city cost an as yet unknown amount, no one knows how much it could ultimately cost realizing charter city status and maintaining that status year after year.
Opponents also question the amount of savings that might be found by exemptions to prevailing wage guidelines, Design and Build ordinances, changed bidding processes, abilities to alter some tax resources and whether charter cities can protect municipal affair funds, TOT revenues and utility tax revenues.
Some opponents suggest that R.P.V. could be separated into five districts, having a Council made up of members voted onto seats via a district vote instead of a city-wide election. If you hear this, you are being duped and it is a scare tactic.
While it is true that a charter city has the opportunity to create districts, this would never happen in R.P.V. because of those who currently support AND oppose Measure C.
R.P.V. is ultimately governed using the city's General Plan and ordinances supporting the General Plan. A charter means the methods of dealing with the General Plan changes to some degree or to a large degree. This depends on what opportunities a charter city Council seeks and legislates.
Some opponents seem to not have much trust with some members of the current City Council. I can't write much about that at this time other than to confirm that there is a trust issue between some opponents of Measure C and some members of the Council.
Some organized opponents of Measure C want you to know they feel a vote on the Measure should be held in November. There is a thought that more time spent on getting a better charter or getting this charter 'right' is important to them. You should know this.
You should also know that the committee hand selected to support the Council's efforts supporting passage of Measure C is made up of resident volunteers who are all very supportive of Measure C and it is NOT an objective committee put together to study the measure and respond with a summary or comments about Measure C.
Opponents have a right to know that one issue many supporters have for becoming a charter city is that should Marymount College or any other business entity or any entity not favored by a majority of the members of the Council at that particular time, could see changes in rules that would make it much more troublesome for something like The Marymount Plan going up for a vote of the people in the future (I think by reading between the lines, this is also a reason to support passage of Measure C if you do not want to have on-campus student housing built on the main campus of Marymount Collete.) I need to be honest with everyone.
One reason to consider opposing Measure C is because you may feel the charter as it is written, is too ambiguous and could lead to lawsuits over interpretation.
In some kind of summary, here is a shortening of some major reasons some folks oppose Measure C:
Purported savings may not in fact be realized.
Charter city Councils have more opportunities to make greater changes than general law Councils currently have.
The charter as written is too short, ambiguous, and COULD provide for restrictions to intiative and election laws.
Taxpayer funds have been used and must be used to change from a general law city to a charter city. (One critic of Measure C wrote: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.)
Considerations made by supporters about whether R.P.V. as a charter city can actually protect TOT and utility tax revenues from being taken away by State government, is far from certain and at least very questionable.
Greater public input was not used and may have been thwarted during the preparation time of the charter.
Once R.P.V. becomes a charter city, even though a great number of residents might not approve of something in the future, they are stuck with being governed under charter city status.
I hope I have openly and honestly offered reasonable comments with regards to opposition of Measure C.
I have done my best to remove much of the rhetoric some in the No on C group have been trying to use. If some opponents want to comment on this post to help make it better AND with much of the needless rhetoric removed from the discussion, I would appreciate that very much.
I guess I will now have to create a post with reasons to support Measure C, also removing as much of the foul and displeasing rhetoric and misstatements coming from some supporters of Measure C. That post will have to wait until tomorrow, perhaps.
No comments:
Post a Comment