For the purposes of this particular post, I am going to presume that readers know some information about Measure C and its implications and having an opinion on the matters would help more.
Debating in support of Measure C was Mr. Bill James, a attorney specializing in tax matters. Mr. James currently volunteers with the city as a member of committees and has done so for years.
Debating in opposition of Measure C was Ms. Sharon Yarber, an attorney specializing in real estate matters. Ms. Yarber is the leader of the most organized group opposed to passage of Measure C, "No on C".
Since this is not a newspaper article, I am going to comment on various aspects and points made during the debate on both sides, while using my editorial privileges as author of this blog to make further comment. I shall do this in sections.
My brain versus my heart.
Today's debate did nothing to solve my issues between what my brain thinks and what my heart wants.
My brain continues to have me voting YES on Measure C. My heart on the other hand, is telling me on some important points to vote NO on Measure C. There are some aspects that my head and heart agree on and those points make up the few reasons I can defend for supporting our city becoming a Charter City.
No matter what anyone says or rights, at this moment, there are two main reasons and just a very few minor reasons I am voting YES on Measure C.
I do believe that having the opportunity to use Design and Build elements is a very good reason for us becoming a charter city.
Not only will 'some' money be saved and there is no one anywhere who can give an accurate and believable estimation as to how much money our city could save I feel, but we would be better able to deal with major projects having fewer obstacles, and limitations.
I do feel that the potential of keeping our municipal affairs funds from being taken by other governmental bodies is extremely important.
This would not be much of a matter if we did not have Transportation Occupancy Tax
(TOT) revenues streaming in from the Terranea Resort.
While I opposed having a rebate of portions the TOT being provided back to the resort, I feel it is essential that we find ways to protect those funds and all funds considered municipal affairs funds.
My brain also tell me that even though both sides are not necessarily being totally open and honest, I have some issues with some of the points made by the opposition and some of what I feel are parts of a larger hidden agenda I will comment on further down.
My heart is very troubled with passage of a charter city question at this time.
As stated in a previous post, I did and still hold that it should have been supporters of Measure C who needed to fund the election and provide other funds for some other pieces of the puzzle done by the city.
I do think Ms. Yarber made some valid and noteworthy points about how the charter city issues began and built steam last year.
Ms. Yarber spoke about other issues in the city that were studied on a extended basis, workshops conducted for community members who could assist in the development of plans, and objective investigations by residents about the construction of the proposed charter would have occurred.
When the Council voted to begin active work on creating a charter vote and moving forward with its first purposed charter, I was already quite involved with some city issues and I spoke early about my thoughts concerning the charter and when I felt a vote should be taken.
I think allegations that might suggest that members of the City Council and more outspoken supporters of having us become a charter city, 'steamrolled' through the processes and studies, is valid and has merit.
I never felt that was any open discussion as to whether we should become a charter city after last April and that much of the prior discussions either were done within circles more residents were not a part of or they were done by those with an agenda that would be aided by having us being a charter city.
My heart believes we have enough wonderful residents able to help draft the best charter in the State and that many of those same residents are a pool of potential Council members that would protect and develop our city as a charter city.
This is borne out to some extent by members of NO on C who don't object to becoming a charter city, at some point.
My heart is also more than greatly troubled by what I now feel would be a rush to have our city using full exemption of prevailing wage guidelines (PWG) eliminated as soon as possible after we officially become a charter city. My reasoning for this is mentioned in several prior posts, if you are interested in learning more concerning my thoughts about keeping PWG.
As of this moment, I will hold my nose in the voting booth and vote YES on Measure C.
Marymount
Dr. Michael Brophy will tell you that Marymount College takes no position on Measure C, he is correct, but he is also not telling you things you might want to know.
During today's debate, Ms. Yarber also stated some problems with having a City Council of a charter city using just a simple majority of City Council members, changing requirements for issues like the number of signatures required for an initiative and some other election-related issues.
In the case of Measure P, The Marymount Plan, supporters of that measure were told they needed "10%" of the registered voters of our city placing signatures on petitions to qualify the measure for the ballot. However, a second opinion raised the percentage needed to 15%.
Marymount's supporters gathered more signatures that any requirement required, even when it was put at 15%.
For anyone to deny that many opponents of The Marymount Plan considered that becoming a charter city would allow our Council to change initiative qualification requirements that could make it far less likely that any group would attempt to use a municipal initiative, would not be stating the fact.
One minor reason many of us supported becoming a charter city was that a City Council could adopt ordinances that COULD keep interested parties from trying to place ballot measures up for a vote on their own special interest issues.
It is true that it COULD become harder for a second measure regarding The Marymount Plan enter into the initiative process should we become a charter city AND new conditions are placed that would cause more restrictions on special interest groups having ballot measures before the electorate.
It is also true that many strong supporters of Measure P, The Marymount Plan are now strong opponents of Measure C and for anyone to not acknowledge that is demeaning to our residents, I feel.
I am sure there are still thousands of residents who share Marymount's dream of having on-campus housing built for students and that dream will probably come up in the future.
While I and thousands of others joined everyone on the City Council in support of The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, we oppose The Marymount Plan because of its on-campus housing element.
It would be honest of those opposed to Measure C stating how they feel about The Marymount Plan and on-campus student housing because our residents know what the opinions are of those very supportive of Measure C. I don't know if the No on C folks want to divulge that information, but I suspect not since Measure P was voted on by more than 66% of registered voters and it failed to pass by more than 9 points.
It is also true and should be revealed that at least some of the members of the Marymount College Board of Trustees are sponsoring functions and/or donating monies to the No on C campaign. They may claim no affiliation between the measure and Marymount College's interests.
I have been open and honest as to how I stand on both issues and I feel all voters can better decide whether to support or oppose the measure having all sides remaining open and honest.
Statements and Comments That Muddy the debate
Sadly and unfortunately I have heard and read things on both sides of the measure that can be considered less than forthright and attempting to muddy the consideration of the measure.
There is no real good in this because we have an group of registered voters who, if interested, are very well equipped to learn the truth and discount those who continue to muddy the waters of discussion.
Sure, it is done all the time and both sides have reasons to let potential voters know only what they want them to know, that's politics.
I have sitting next to my keyboard the "RPV Alert" which comes from the No on C campaign.
I will address this document before I comment about things the Yes on C want you to know versus what they may not want you to know.
The first bullet point printed on the Alert states under the "Enact all new election laws without voter approval, including..." is:
"A. dividing the city into voting districts,"
I don't know of a weaker excuse to try and fool voters. In the 38 years this city has been a city and with all who served the city whether elected or as volunteers, the idea of dividing RPV into districts is comical at best and very misleading at worst.
Ms. Yarber mentioned Councilman Brian Campbell as the only person she has heard of who has said anything that anyone might remotely consider a comment about dividing the city.
So, the first thing I did when I fired up my 'puter is Email Councilman Campbell with what I heard coming from Ms. Yarber.
Councilman Campbell and I talked directly within a half an hour after I sent the Email to him.
He stated he never spoke to anyone regarding any proposition about dividing the city and he termed Ms. Yarber's statement a "complete fabrication".
In further talking with Councilman Campbell, we both agreed he may have mentioned to someone about how Meause P, The Marymount Plan was dividing the city and I absolutely agree with Councilman Campbell that it did and still divides us.
The "RPV ALERT" stated the following in its opening:
"DID YOU KNOW that the proposed Measure C charter would give power to just three members of the council to:..."
Here is my response to that statement:
DID YOU KNOW that even though a City Council is given the power to do things by the people who elected them to office, it does not mean in any way, that any of the items outlined in the Alert would ever be enacted!
Three members of our City Council already have the right as members of a majority vote on an issue or ordinance to enact laws under our current General Law status.
The City Council of a charter city is granted greater OPPORTUNITIES to make new laws, but that does not mean those opportunities would necessarily be taken.
Historically when looking at those who make up the 'inner' group of member of the No on C campaign, you will find folks who rarely agree with many of the current and former members of our City Council.
Besides NO on C having supporters of The Marymount Plan as strong supporters, most Palos Verdes Peninsula Watch (PVP Watch) members also are strong opponents to passage of Measure P.
This is important to note for all to learn because it was PVP Watch that strongly supported the Freedom of Information Act inquiry concerning Palos Verdes on the Net and issues related to the City Council.
Our city was required to fund a Freedom of Information request seeking thousands and thousands of documents, which cost taxpayer funds and a great deal of staff time and effort, if I am not mistaken.
The outcome of that, something members of PVP Watch supported, was that once the documents were collected and ready to be delivered for possible lawsuit action, nobody ever picked up the vast amounts of documents.
I took away from that episode a consideration that there are some within our city who, when they really don't like someone or something done by our City Council, they have no trouble having city funds and city staff time being expended for what amounts to a witch hunt. This is my opinion on that.
Again, my heart wants to have a better charter constructed, using a wider array of interested residents, being considered better than whether a park should have an off-leash area for dots, and voted on when we know who will be the 'deciders' on our City Council AFTER this November's election.
My brain leads me, though. I trust more in those that serve on our City Council to have our interests best served rather than the potential of any special interest group having their own wants approved.
The Yes on C, having the entire City Council, the Planning Commission, the City Attorney, the Finance Advisory Committee and other current and former committee and commission members 'ganging' up in support of Measure C, seems to allow those who feel there has not been enough consideration or that other considerations might be squashed like a bug is something I feel the No on C folks can easily use.
Since the charter in this election is so broad, supporters not only can't guarantee much, but their speculations may not be all that well thought out.
I am not sure how the vote will turn out, but if you are reading this, thank you so much for being so concerned for everyone in Rancho Palos Verdes.
No comments:
Post a Comment