Barry's Email contained information created by Mr. Don Reeves, also of PVP Watch and it appears Mr. Reeves' comments were meant for the Ladera Linda HOA's meeting and for others to digest.
In my research concerning PVP Watch I have found through looking at their past newsletters and information on their Web site that they are primarily interested in matters regarding Rancho Palos Verdsa and the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District.
I continue to find it hard to understand what the group is named as it is named because the group rarely focuses on matters within Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estates, Palos Verdes Estates, and San Pedro. But that is just one of my issues.
You should know that I appreciate the discussions I have had with various members of PVP Watch, even though I disagree almost completely with every stand they take. I also want to recognize Mr. Barry Hildebrand who was a mentor for me while I was a Traffic Safety Commissioner and he helped provide and keep a large three dimensional diorama of the Palos Verdes Peninsula that still sits and is enjoyed by students and others at Miraleste Intermediate School's library.
But I do have issues with what Mr. Hildebrand provided via Mr. Reeves' comments.
Here is one thing I find totally absurd on its face, and quite contrary to the facts. It also seems to place blame on folks other than those actually responsible. Here is that portion of the Email:
"Frankly, our PVP Watch group missed the deadline for submitting and Against Argument-perhaps the voters were a bit pre-occupied with the Marymount and Annenberg issues."
NO! PVP Watch members had exactly the same ability to do whatever they wished, just like I did, since at least April, 2011. I attended the City Council meeting where the ballot measure was created and approved and there was plenty of time for those opposed to R.P.V. becoming a charter city, to create an argument against the measure AND a rebuttal to the Argument in Favor of Measure C.
I strongly feel that the membership of PVP Watch was working so hard at seeking voter approval of Measure P, The Marymount Plan and whatever they were commenting on regarding the Annenberg Project, that they themselves simply failed to accomplish their own due diligence, if the members were truly concerned about the charter city measure.
To blame "voters" for the inaction and incompetence by members of PVP Watch or any other group or individual opposed to Measure C is ludicrous on its face, completely inaccurate factually, and offers a probably true glimpse and what some members of PVP Watch actually feel about some voters, including me. Really, Don? Really, Don!
I stand firm in my disagreement with PVP Watch that there has been any type of rush, rushing, a rush to judgement, or any term concerning speed with which the processes and discussion have gone forward.
I find the word associated with 'bulldozing' much more appropriate, because I have some pretty good evidence, supplied by many supporters of Measure C, that this a more accurate type of term to use.
While it is true with PVP Watch's complaint, shared by other associated with "NO on C", that at least one speaker was basically shot down by our City Council, when making comments regarding charter city issues, that fellow was not alone. I too, was someone basically told to take a hike by at least one member of our City Council when I spoke before that body and questioned the makeup of the City sponsored Committee that was being formed. At is turned out, the committee was created as more of a lobbying group in support of our city becoming a charter city.
I have spoken at City Council meetings, individually to some Council members and you can tell by this blog that I have a substantial amount of knowledge and opinions about both sides of the charter city discussions.
If I know what I knew then and know what I know now, it is implausible that others folks, representing PVP Watch and "NO on C" to think they did not have the rights and abilities I have and used, regarding Measure C.
I must remind everyone that during the period of time Mr. Reeves claims voters may have been distracted because of Marymount and Annenberg, I can assure you, via your opportunities at looking at my past blog posts, I was able to learn what I felt I wanted to learn and needed to learn while I was quite involved with Measure P, The Marymount Plan. Don and everyone else in PVP Watch have no leg to stand on if they continue to claim something that is absolutely untrue.
I agree with Mr. Reeves' comments about what is missing from this charter, even though I don't necessarily agree with what he feels should be in this charter as opposed to what I have written about dealing with what I feel should have been in this charter.
What is important to remind folks though, is that while I made recommendations as to what I feel should have been included in this charter, Mr. Reeves' comments, along with comments and statements made by others within the organized "NO on C" movement, there are only elements of what is missing and not what 'they' would include in a charter many of have stated that R.P.V. could become a successful charter city.
This is to me, a put up or shut up issue. 'They' will tell you what is not in this charter and question why things were left out, but 'they' won't provide voters with any real alternative to use to vote down this charter. Where is the courage to truthfully include what 'they' want to use as charter elements?
Well, I think one thing that is obvious, especially via the latest letter to the editor by Dr. Michael Brophy, is that the organized opposition to Measure C wants no restrictions in any abilities for Marymount College seeking future approval to place on campus housing at their site.
This is evidenced by the following from Don's comments: "Charter cities can (a) toughen requirements for initiatives, recalls and referendums...". Yes, this is true. Please view the word, "CAN" in the statement.
I think our voters last November, with a 68+% turnout that saw Measure P fail by about 10% have demonstrated that the majority of our residents do not want on campus student housing at Marymount College, no matter what Dr. Brophy, PVP Watch, "NO on C" and every other opponent of Measure C may wish. It appears that voters may actually want it to become harder for special interest groups attempting to have their ways as opposed to what our voters feel is best for our city's residents.
Mr. Reeves' comments contain many questions without his offering any reasonable answers. How come I can provide speculative answers that may or may not come to pass and think Mr. Reeves' avoidance of such answers is not something to find troublesome? He is part of an organized group of volunteers who have monitored the governance of our City since it became a city, almost 38 year ago. Surely he and his brain trust could have provided voters with more information as to what should be included in a 'good' charter. This is the biggest failing of the "NO on C" camp, I feel.
It is estimated that up to 45% of those choosing to vote on Measure C have already done so using their mailed ballot. Redondo Beach recently approved municipal vote by mail and that city will save taxpayer dollars by moving to that type of voting.
This is just one area both myself and the "NO on C" folks did not comment on when dealing what we feel is missing from this charter.
When Mr. Reeves wrote "good job voters" in commenting on the fact that we voted down an increase in TOT, he fails to mention that he, his group, the City Council, and many others were very much in support of handing Terranea taxpayer funds in the form of a partial rebate of the TOT for a period of time lasting YEARS. I feel anyone who supports handing taxpayer funds back to a business that does not necessarily serve the public good for residents of Rancho Palos Verdes, should hold their tongue, pen, and keyboard, as far a tax benefits or problems regarding Measure C.
Here is one of the last sentences in the comments Emailed: "Our advice is to not take a leap of faith – just say NO to Measure C and then maybe we can have a real conversation about the merits of a charter city."
I don't feel it takes any 'faith' to vote yes or no on Measure C. I think the history of PVP Watch being 'out there' and commenting on city matters is demonstration enough that there will and should be residents who watch was is happening and take interest in their own governance. Many of the issues within our city over the last 37+ years have met with great opposition from members of PVP Watch as they must continue to have the right to do.
On Tuesday evening I heard Councilman Wolowicz comment on something he inquired about, regarding a sewer line next to San Ramon Canyon. His inquiry was made first back in 2002.
How long did it take from the first inquiry about what would be built on the old Marineland site until Terranea finally opened.
How long did it take from the time representatives of Marymount College came to our city's staff and governors about the Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project and its associated plans, until that Project was finally approved? How long are the Marymount College representitives going to work on securing on campus student housing and how might they attempt to influence voters in the future?
How long have we been and how long do you feel the Annenberg Project discussions have lasted and will last until there is approval to build something or the Annenberg Foundation finally walks away? How many full page ads in the PVP News and other places are we going to see between the time they first appeared and the last time one is published?
How long did discussions and voting and then re voting take on the Storm Drain User Fee?
Take a short but revealing look at the years it takes to get anything done in Rancho Palos Verdes and then ask yourself if you want to do the same thing regarding becoming a charter city.
Take a gander at who is opposing Measure C and remember their names when all the candidates for the November election comes to pass. See who just might want to gain a Council seat so they can offer a charter, should Measure C be voted down.
I found the comments in Mr. Reeves' letter regarding the power grab by some on our City Council to be among the worst comments possible. Folks, Long, Stern, and Wolowicz will leave their seats on the first Tuesday in December, this December. It is ridiculous to consider a 'power grab' by those who will not have any Council voting authority less than nine months from today.
I do not believe for one second that Councilman Campbell and Mayor Pro Tem Misetich support Measure C because they will 'grab' more power. If that were the case, both gentlemen are at least, approaching the conservative political nature displayed by members of PVP Watch and others.
If anyone must be accused of trying to grant more power by the Council, it is me! I want our City Council to take whatever measures that are legal, necessary, and comply with the majority of voters from last November's election, to make any approval to build on campus housing at Marymount, from happening. If it means being called a NIMBY, so be it. The driveway of Marymount is almost exactly 3 miles from my driveway.
Protecting our residents must always be first and foremost in any discussion regarding charter city status. Attempting to protect their funds is equally as important, regarding charter city status.
In the end though, this charter may stink to high heaven, but it is the only one we will most likely get to vote on for the next 10 years or so. We have to realize that whether we vote to approve it or reject it.
We all must be sick and tired of the misinformation coming from both sides. We also must call out every scare tactic used by both sides and we must condemn everyone on either side who does not fully respect the intelligence of our city's residents and the resolve by many to watch, monitor, and comment on everything happening in Rancho Palos Verdes.
No comments:
Post a Comment