Jerry and the Curmudgeon

Here is a photo taken of Mr. Jerry Duhovic and the Curmudgeon.

There are lots of us curmudgeons in the city, of all political thoughts.

Jerry is NOT a curmudgeon and although I truly wish it should not happen in this election cycle, it 'appears' that he has gained enough support to now be more considered as one of the three who just might get elected to our City Council.

Jerry Duhovic is a good guy even though we are quite far apart politically.

I would much prefer a 3-2 split on the new Council having the expected majority to be much more conservative in nature than previous councils over the past 6-10 years.

Mr. Jim Knight is a very thoughtful individual who has always considered the residents of our city over business interests in our city which is not what one reads from a certain group's Web site.

Dave Emenhiser has the financial expertise in our city as a candidate who has more knowledge about our city's current finances and recent history as a longer termed member of The Rancho Palos Verdes Finance Committee, before becoming a member of The Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission.

We are going to have a 'conservative' majority on our Council. But having a 4-1 split in the other direction for about 8 years didn't help our city and that is one reason I truly feel that we really need a 3-2 split of very well organized members who have worked together in the past on other committees or commissions and who will provide a much better balance than what many others currently suggest.

I feel it is fair and safe to write that Mayor Susan Brooks is probably the front runner for a seat on the new Council.

I have been assured by Susan that she would not bring the 'Well when I was on Council we did it this way' type of approach and she certainly would not try anything like, 'When I was Mayor/Councilwoman I did this or that and that is why my experiences are greater than those of Mayor Pro Tem Anthony Misetich and Councilman Brian Campbell'.

And elected or former elected official who even thinks that Anthony and Brian haven't gone through all the mills, fires, and controversies without gaining the worthiness to now be called seasoned veterans on the Council should not be elected!

And that paragraph was just written by a progressive who does not agree with Anthony and Brian, about how things need to be done in our city.

I feel that the very conservative mindset of many in our nation has proven that that type of mindset is not helping our nation and stagnation by businesses and a do-nothing mentality by too many in Congress, has further impoverished those who cannot afford to loose even more money and jobs.

I am somewhat frightened about is that a 4-1 or even a 5-0 conservative majority Council will copy what we are currently seeing in business and Washington government, no matter what the candidates say.

Because, we've heard it all before and I am not wishing to head to our Council and have to ask, "Where are the jobs?" "Where are the infrastructure improvements?" How do we get where we need to be when little or nothing continues to be the course our city is taking?"

"Palos Verdes Peninsula Watch" Isn't!

I've written about this before but I think it bares repeating and now containing even more comments from me about a 'fairly' small number of people living in Rancho Palos Verdes.

First, I challenge anyone out there to find any sort of equal numbers of information coming out of 'Palos Verdes Peninsula Watch' that deal with the cities of Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estates and Palos Verdes Estates, compared to the number of articles and comments about Rancho Palos Verdes.

By looking at"PVP Watch's" web site you can easily determine that group's interests in just two entities: the city of Rancho Palos Verdes and the PVPUSD School District.

So in essence, the group should really be named, in my opinion "Rancho Palos Verdes Moderates and Liberals Watch, With Some Facts And Opinions About The School District".

Yes, it's a mouthful, but it factually appears to be more accurate than what I feel is a misrepresentation of the group's name.

Now here I will defend my considerations that I fear the members of "PVP Watch" are very conservative politically to the point that I feel many of the members, if not all, just might have opinions closer to those who support Tea Party 'types'.

O.K. so next I would also like to suggest that many members of "PVP Watch" may be accepting 'Socialized Income' in the form of Social Security and also many of them may willingly accept 'Socialized Medicine' in the form of Medicare, including Medicare Part D, possibly.

According to a certain Email and the addresses appearing on it, there does not seem to be many members of "PVP Watch" and I suspect sadly, that the group has a much larger number of sympathetic residents within Rancho Palos Verdes, to the views expressed in the latest information coming from "PVP Watch".

This is alarming to me but I also need to include that I can find some opinions coming out to the newsletters and position papers I have read from "PVP Watch" are not necessarily all that bad.

Harking back to 'that' Email and the addresses listed on it still has me considering how many members and those that have common opinions and beliefs as many of folks more involved with "PVP Watch", might really feel about 'that' Email.

It also must be mentioned by me that if you remember the chaos and debacles regarding a Freedom of Information Act request that cost our city thousands and thousands of dollars, it is common thought by many, that there may have been connections with the anonymous person who had their attorney file a Freedom of Information Act Request.

Of course current elected members of our City Council can't and would not divulge any names of those they think may be associated in any way, with what went on.

Also, since I personally feel members of "PVP Watch" may wish to consider legal action against anyone who names them as members of "PVP Watch" in any negative manner, means I won't name them, either.

But you can find some names of members on the group's Web site.

This brings up another question: Why won't every member of "PVP Watch" have their name posted as members anywhere? What might they be afraid of?

What are the true goals of the members of "PVP Watch"? Might there be some things members of the group don't wish that you learn?

I have published just about everything regarding my life because even with some bad parts, I am proud of my life, extremely proud of my family and I really don't have anything to hide from anyone, including members and sympathizers of "PVP Watch".

Can I relate some similarities between some of the things written on the Web site of "PVP Watch" and some of what comes out of the various Tea Party entities? It would not be all that difficult for me, but I shall not do that on this post. I do invite you to take a good look at the comments, opinions, and information on the group's Web site to make your own decision.

Some to most of what some members of "PVP Watch" have written about the PVPUSD and its Board look accurate and I can find agreement with some of what has been written.

Since I am far, far to the left politically, as far as many members of "PVP Watch" appear to be, there are also a very few occasions when we meet on the 'back end' of the political circle.

It's just the way we reach those few positions that are different.

"PVP Watch" has endorsed three candidates for the City Council election.

As I have written, I would not support Ms. Susan Brooks and Ms. Dora de la Rosa because I feel that since there will be a 'fresh start' with the new Council makeup in December, I have opined that I feel current or former elected officials should not be elected, this time.

It seems some folks at "PVP Watch" agree with me with the not endorsing Mayor Ken Dyda.

The group and I agree that Mayor Ken is of great service to our city and his knowledge and expertise can help everyone in our city, but not as a member of the City Council.

I so wish I could endorse Mayor Ken. I did contribute to his campaign, though.

the "Watch's" third endorsement goes to Mr. Jerry Duhovic.

Jerry and I have two photos of us standing close together, taken at the Ice Cream Social hosted by the Rolling Hills Riviera HOA, last Saturday.

I like Jerry personally. He is a good fellow. I don't agree that he would be the 'only' member of our City Council with good financial experiences.

I find that Mr. Dave Emenhiser's much longer experiences dealing with the finances of OUR CITY trump the expertise in 'business' activities Mr. Duhovic has.

I DO NOT believe governments are businesses and that governments should be run like businesses.

I will now defend Jerry's remarks about how sometimes folks need to use business financial practices into governmental thinking. I just feel, after seeing what businesses have done to Wall Street and what began in 2008 by financial institutions on Wall Street, seems to have been a far greater factor to what we are going through now, than any governmental agency.

ESPECIALLY since the Republican Party now seems fit to continue to do nothing-to-very-little about working to get all of us out of this lingering recession.

No, I do not trust business over government because I, as a citizen of our city, state, and federal government, as well as the rest of you ARE and MUST BE part of "We the People".

With the candidacy of PVPUSD Board President Ms. Dora de la Rosa, I have been offered and provided information as to her considerations to allowing the children of U.S. Air Force members attending PVPUSD schools and I have found that alarming.

Since "PVP Watch" is endorsing a U.S. Air Force veteran (I'm one, too) and someone who reportedly was not favorable to allowing the children of U.S. Air Force members into the better school system, I find that odd to the point of requesting real answers I hope to hear in one of the next gatherings of candidates.

Also VERY alarming is that "PVP Watch" has a history of supporting Marymount College's "The Marymount Plan" versus the approved "Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project".

Now, Marymout officials have requested that the Project they found approval for might need two and one half times the length of time approved to have the project completed.

AND, they also want the student count raised to "1,200" students.

What might the three candidates "PVP Watch" endorsed, as well as the other active candidates opine about Marymount's "20-1,200 Plan"?

And WHY did Marymount's official feel it worthy to inject their requests when they did, during an election cycle, before the vote is taken?

Shouldn't somebody from "PVP Watch" and the candidates they endorsed offer more opinions about Marymount's 'interjection' into this coming election?

Mayor Susan Brooks was very active in opposing on-campus student housing from being constructed at Marymount and I bet she still feels that way.

Mr. Jerry Duhovic told me he didn't necessarily object to having on-campus housing built on Marymount's main campus. I did have the pleasure of meeting Jerry's mother and sister, both of whom still live in the Eastview area and both of them, along with Jerry continue to be worried about traffic along Western Avenue.

I still don't know Board President Dora de la Rosa's position on student housing along Palos Verdes Drive East. It's my fault for not asking her directly.

What does have some folks raising their eyebrows and scratching their heads is that "PVP Watch" is endorsing one registered Democrat. The group is doing this at the same time blasting away at two current members of our City Council that have more "Democratic Party" views.

Yes, it is a non partisan election and I am pleased for that.

Bits and Pieces 43

Here is the following post I found on my Face Book page today:

From San Pedro Chamber of Commerce: Important Notice
"Road Closure in San Pedro -- Due to a sinkhole, Paseo del Mar between Weymouth and White Point Preserve will be closed until further notice. Access to Royal Palms, the baseball diamond, and White Point Nature Preserve will remain open for traffic coming onto Paseo del Mar from Western Ave. -- Peggy at the The Corner Store reports that business is down due to the road closure so she sends these alternate routes to the store -- From Western: 1. Go left on 25th, right on Alma, right on 37th and 2 blks up. -- 2. Go left on 25th, right on Patterson, left on Hamilton, right on Barbara, left on 37th. -- From Gaffey: Go right on to Paseo Del Mar and right on Barbara (1st stop sign)."

This is bad for San Pedrans and all others wishing to drive along the coast, in San Pedro.

What alsom makes this worse is that it is going to take monies away from potentially being used to create a permanent fix for San Ramon Canyon and the switchbacks on Palos Verdes Drive East, in Rancho Palos Verdes.

In San Ramon Canyon and at the bottom of it, along 25Th Street in San Pedro, we know there is land in the city of Los Angeles and the folks who live in the more dangerous spots where a debris flow and water could become a real problem, are residents of San Pedro/Los Angeles.

Another sinkhole? Another sinkhole! It's not like those of us familiar with Western Avenue don't have experiences with them, but having a new one around the bend, at the end of Western Avenue is not going to be a picnic.

The last time I drove by the area, the signs were up about it being closed, but there were cars going by the 'smallish' sinkhole that was still mostly on the side of the road and not affecting much of the surface area of Paseo Del Mar.

What was underneath the surface of the asphalt is another story and that is probably the section is now deemed closed.

Well, if you do wish to bypass the area, take 25Th Street to Alma and turn right. As you motor along Alma, you won't be able to miss "The John M. and Muriel Olguin Campus of San Pedro High School" now under construction on the Upper Reservation of Fort MacArthur.

That new annex to the larger high school will have views allowing for watching whales and other wonderful sights between Point Fermin and Catalina Island, and beyond.

The new annex and its transit routes are now seemingly hampered by the prospect of even more sinkholes and cliff slides and had the sinkhole been happening while the approval process for the new annex was underway, I wonder if that might have made some sort of change in thinking as to the location of the new school site.

The good folks living in the Rolling Hills Riviera area of Eastview held an ice cream social over this past weekend. The treats were tasty and the conversations were lively.

The new Environmental Impact Report for Ponte Vista at San Pedro is nearing public release.

When it really is published for public comment depends on who one talks to. Most of the needed study and information regarding the Traffic and Transportation Study has already been published and found, by experts, to be truly bothersome in terms of future daily trip generation forecasts along Western Avenue.

I'll write companion pieces on this blog and my Ponte Vista Blog when I'm not doing 'my other life'.

Items In Three Pieces Of My Mail

In reviewing my Verizon Wireless bill, I notices an "RPV UUT" charge in my surcharges and taxes area of the bill.

The amount was for $1.91. To me that is really $1.91!!!

having spent almost 28 years with 'the phone company' I fielded more than my fair share of questions regarding phone bills, especially in the surcharges area.

It still seems odd to me that whoever created what amounts to this particular tax on my phone bill needs to be reminded that there sure are far too many 'dead areas' where my Verizon service is not up to par.

I understand that my phone is wireless and the peninsula is dominated by The Hill. Perhaps the powers that be might want to revisit this particular charge and realize there are others living in our city that have pretty bad cellphone service in their homes and neighborhoods and maybe that tax or charge should be lowered.

I like and honor Mayor Ken Dyda. He is a gentleman and has vast knowledge of the history and workings or our city, in our city.

I was saddened to open his most recent mailer and see among his promises, should he get elected is the following :"Oppose city tax increases and unnecessary proliferation of fees".

The part about opposing "unnecessary proliferation of fees" is something we all should work towards, I believe.

However, stating that Mayor Dyda would "oppose city tax increases" is very problematic to be because of many very important needs we still have to deal with, in our city.

I am very pleased that is appears that R.P.V. will receive a grant of State matching funds for the permanent repair of San Ramon Canyon.

That matching funds grant might be matched with Federal dollars coming from an infrastructure stimulus package no reasonable and respectful American could possibly object to.

Those monies could go almost all the way to repairing the Canyon's drainage issues and landslide problems, all perhaps, without any large amount of spending from any current city funding streams.

But there still are major infrastructure issues our city leaders need to tackle as soon as possible.

Please separate out "The Storm Drain User Fee" now charged to SOME residents in our city.

Instead, please look at the issues revolving around the city-owned SEWER systems and understand that our city owns them and must maintain them.

I happen to agree with outgoing Councilman Steve Wolowicz when he characterizes 'fees' as being 'taxes'.

There could be a need for a necessary fee or 'tax' to provide maintenance and/or upgrades to our city's infrastructure, including the SEWER lines and systems.

When a candidate states on their literature they would oppose city tax increases it illustrates a type of unwillingness to even discuss the possibilities of increases taxes or fees.

I do appreciate Mayor Dyda's opposing 'unnecessary proliferation of fees' and I do hope he does not mean he would not remain open to a new fee or 'tax' to be used for infrastructure purposes, including any new possible tax or fee for our city's SEWER system.

I capitalize 'SEWER' because I have heard far too many of our residents consider The Storm Drain fee associated with our SEWER system. They are different from each other.

I feel every candidate must remain open to the possiblity of having to discuss and even pass a new tax or necessary fee. That openness needs to carry through if they take a seat in December, on the new Council.

Marymount College administrators want you to know they have spent "$7 million in facility construction, renovation and development to the San Pedro residential communities located on Palos Verdes Drive North and West 24th Street".

This was done to allow more students living in San Pedro and all of it was done without any renovation dollars spent on the already approved Phase in which the parking lots at Marymount's main campus must be renovated and enlarged.

The mailer from Marymount also included the information that the College's administration has requested that The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, approved by our City Council should extend The Project's timeline out to a 20-year period. That's two and one half times the approved period of The Projects.

Marymount officials also wish to add more than 21% to the current student body count currently approved for the campus.

I can almost bet that Marymount officials want to add to the student totals before any of the facilities expansion approvals have been finished.

As it currently is factual, the increased student-resident count at Marymount's Palos Verdes North off-campus housing facility has or will negate the Traffic and Parking portions of the approvals granted for The Project and would have negated them had The Marymount Plan been approved.

I continue to support The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project and Marymount's wonderful moves into downtown San Pedro.

However, in Marymount's case, the horses are having a very difficult time searching for the carts.

Spam Comments

Blogger.com is the service I use to post on the World Wide Web.

Occasionally, someone attempts to post a comment that is obviously 'spam' in nature and it is placed in a "Spam Notification" area of my blog.

I will continue to post comments and guest posts on this blog and most of my other blogs.

However, I do not intend to allow spam 'advertisements' on my blogs. These spam comments usually contain very poor spelling and grammar, too.

My most recent 'spam comment' came with "Rolling hills Estates" in it. That is a dead giveaway that the comment was spam as it included a reference to a particular business.

Mark Wells

Shaming a Racist Bigot and Hopefully the Candidate(s) They Support

The following is an old Email sent out to a number of individuals who may be sympathetic to the author's issues and claims (bigotry).

I have personally talked to the writer of this Email as they were supporting at least one of the seven candidates for the three seats on our City Council. They seemed to be as bigoted and racist in my conversations as the Email seems to prove they are.

While I support and have defended our First Amendment rights of Free Speech and Assembly, I feel it is necessary to offer this Email in an attempt to expose one particular supporter of one or more candidates so that the candidate or those candidates get back to the author and talk to them how the author's support might not be the best thing for those seeking an elected position.

Also, I have redacted names, business names, names of countries, and gender to hinder those seeking the identity of the author for more rebuke than they are getting here.

I hope to shame the living **** (rhymes with 'hit') out of the writer and those that responded favorably to what the person wrote in an Email chain, I also have.

I do admit there was one very vocal critic of the writer's words in an organization associated with many of the Email addresses the writer sent the Email to, and other affiliations. I thank that individual for that.

I also commend the "V.I.P" who responded harshly critical of the writer's Email.

Now I have the Email and the addresses of all who the writer sent the original Email to, at the cusp of Winter to Spring of this year.

I also have the Email address of those who were part of the lengthy stream that followed the initial Email stream.

I found it sadly disgusting that so many 'prominent' people in our city would be considered to curry sympathetic feelings by the writer to be sent the original Email.

If this gets me into trouble with those folks who have addresses appearing on the original Email and throughout the response stream, well, how about they disavow everything the writer spews about?

Folks, we don't need this kind of crap coming from residents of our city. The author needs to pick up and head behind "The Orange Curtain" or to some other Tea Party region of the country, say Texas.

For what it is worth, the Email contains the admission that the writer receives "Federal Government socialized benefits" and therefore acknowledges their hypocrisy in kind and manner.

Here goes the Email from the racist bigot we need to all shy away from of confront them with their hate-filled, anti American trash-writing:

"Maybe my math is fuzzy as I do not believe the numbers add up to 41,643 for 2010 but rather 44,371. There are probably many reasons for this discrepancy, however, the reporter did not point out any. For example, the world seems to be mostly populating with mixed race people. Take President Obama, he is of mixed race (Caucasian and African American), and he and his immediate family prefer to call themselves black. I believe (my personal opinion and perhaps that of others) that for the most part people of mixed race prefer to list themselves in a minority group for many reasons. I think we can all think of many benefits extended to minorities without my listing any. From what I have read/heard, whites are a minority in CA (and I am surprised that our ******** population in RPV is not higher). It certainly appears to be in my neighborhood. When I purchased my home in **** there was one *********** directly across the street. I believe currently there are only 8 whites living on my street which has 23 individual houses. Of those, one house is vacant and one contains people who may or may not be mixed race? However, we are looking at way less than 50% whites here.

Although the walking voter list was old, apparently, most of the listed voters were not the **********....one single ******** is registered Republican, and one who has always claimed to be Republican did admit that ******** is not registered and was not on the list. Since I have known ******** for a great many years, when I approached ******** with my "No on C", and asked ******** why ******** was not on my voter list, ******** sheepishly admitted that ******** has never voted.

Then my experiences re passing out the literature in front of the supermarkets. I always asked people if they were RPV residents as we did not need to waste our precious volunteer monies, and most people would either state no RHE, PVE, Texas, etc. or no, I cannot vote as I am not a citizen. However, what was most disturbing was when I asked the ******** appearing people almost unanimously they would just immediately turn their face away from me and make NO response. To me that was rude that they refused to basically acknowledge my question. Someone suggested that they probably are not citizens. Of course, legal immigrants (I know some) cannot vote as they have never become citizens.

Maybe some of you are older and wiser, maybe some born here so have been here longer than I, however, the changes since I came to Los Angeles as an ** year old in **** just out of high school are not all for the better. For example, when I was ** years old (young without wrinkles in those days), I was managing 5 separate ******** on their night shifts. I specifically recall one night a week I was at the ******** office. I would lock up, take the money envelope and drop it in the bank night deposit box on my way to wait for the midnight bus. I wouldn't want to repeat that anywhere in Los Angeles these days.

Now, for the question, "How do we win them over"? I was taught there is no such thing as ALWAYS AND NEVER. That said, I will only point out the illegal Mexican issue and again bear in mind that not all people are bad......However, I believe the reason most (not all) immigrants from certain countries not only come here for our freedoms, but our benefits. How many times have we watched the news and hear, "I got here so now you owe me". I was born in the USA (of course, my great, great grandparents immigrated from Europe, however, they did not come here for free medical, housing, food, etc. There was none, and they worked hard to get ahead and earn their way.

Things seem to continue to disintegrate and it is harder and harder to find true Americans and/or honest people to do business with. Within the recent past, (I am on Medicare Advantage as I have no supplemental health insurance and cannot for the most part pick a specific doctor without a big hassle). Six months ago, I had ******** and was medicated and given a retyped paper to sign after being medicated to point I couldn't read it because I questioned (before medication) what it said and wrote on it. Now (I have) more discomfort/pain than before the surgery and limits (to) (what) I can wear. I believe ******** is a foreigner as ******** declined to state ********ethnicity. During that time, I took a custom made bedspread to ******** across from the ******** to be laundered. $25 later I got it home, still dirty. I went back, they refused to talk to me, refused to give me their names, refused to return calls, etc. I stopped payment of my cc payment, filed a complaint with the Better Business Bureau. I just received a letter from the BBB advising in the absence of any response from the company to this complaint despite our two request to them, we are closing our file on this complaint, but will keep it open for future inquiries for three years, etc. These people are ********. I have never before encountered someone refusing as these people do. I guess they get away with it. In their acknowledgement letter, the BBB suggested up front the need to report these type of people on the proper website and hurt their business via word of mouth. I was even told by another doctor to do the same re Dr.********. By the way, I have a friend who stated (others) also had trouble with ********. Apparently, other people got severe infections after seeing Dr.********, so I am not alone. I also got taken by ********. I paid for new read brakes and a couple months later had brake failure and an accident. I was stupid and went back to show them my car, of course, ******** wanted to examine it. An $80 brake fluid flush cover up fixed the air in the lines and after the brakes worked fine. I have since refused to go back to that (foreigner) despite the fact that ******** has the cheapest gas on the hill. Also, don't go to ******** just off Western before PCH. No Contractor’s License folks.Since ******** had a nice neat store (I never question HD or Lowe's stores re a license), I was careless and so far they have tried to intimidate and threaten me into letting them come back, however, I have told them they are not welcome until they produce valid licenses as I need no further incompetent work by them. The Contractor's License Bd. says they are definitely unlicensed, and regarding their offering me their licensed subcontractor at a discount to correct/finish the job.....that is also illegal. An unlicensed contractor cannot send/refer anyone. NOTE: on his business card ******** has an expired license number of some company in Oregon as I have learned after the fact.

Finally, what can we do? I sure don't know. I think the Democrats in CA and other states have them in their pockets via promising benefits, keeping control of their political party. Why should anyone who gets free medical, housing, early age full salary retirement (some even take early benefits and start another career), and on and on, vote them out? The Democrats keep raising our taxes to pay for the inflated government benefits including salaries. Measure C, if the breakdown was known, was probably defeated more by the unions. Of course, City Hall does not like the fact that our small group awakened a sleeping lion to what they thought they could slip in under the table.

Of course, we can't give up, however, I am interested in hearing what people smarter and wiser than myself think we should/can do. Until I got tired of having my brain picked, I worked on my next door ******** neighbors (admitted Democrats) (they remodeled their house when it got too dirty and rotted out). Although ******** English is poor, ******** claimed a college degree from ********, passed the teaching exam. ******** taught downtown. It must have been fruitful for a poor English speaking teacher to teach Hispanics who did not speak English. They know how to make money. Last year, ******** was offered full early retirement, and I believe was offered 35K to retire. Shortly thereafter another new car appeared in the driveway. Initially, the ******** had a ********store (******** said most of the customers were on welfare/Orange County ), sold that and purchased a car wash with oil/service change station close to South Coast Shopping Mall. One day I asked ******** if ******** Mexican workers were legal. To which ******** responded, "Our attorney told us to just keep a copy of their driver's license and social security card, etc. What happened to the government number to call to verify legality? There is a sign in the window at the ********restaurant in the So. Bay Galleria that they call and verify legality. I also asked ******** one day if ******** was a licensed mechanic. ******** said no, didn't have to be as long as they have a licensed mechanic on duty to oversee all work. The Contractor's Lic. Bd. does not allow that. Now, I am wondering if they are illegally running a business?

(Name)

****************************************************

It is none of your business how I came to have the Email and response stream. I won't tell you when I received it, either.

I will admit that the Email, response stream and Email addresses contained are secure and I have no imminent reason to divulge any of it, to anyone.

It is hoped by me that the writer is confronted by the candidate(s) who they have offered vocal and repeated endorsement of, gets the writer alone in a room and tell the writer to either remain quiet or simply remove themselves from outward support for the candidate(s).

While they have a right to write what they wish to write, I think they might have the opportunity to help ruin the candidacy of at least one current candidate, or more.

I won't identify the author or the name(s) of the candidate(s), at this point. For now, I'll let others spread rumors as to all of the identities, if they wish, but not here on this post or in any comments.

What I would love to learn is that the candidate(s) who receive(s) campaign contributions from the writer of the Email, have a 'talk' with that writer and tells them that their thinking is not in line with any beliefs of the candidate(s) and then the candidate(s) returns all contributions made to their campaign(s) by the writer of the Email. That should determine whether the candate(s) is/are worthy of represeting ALL of the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes.

Quick Quiz For The Candidates

Let's make this simple. I'm going to post some questions and let's see if you and any candidates reading this blog can answer the majority of them correctly.

What is the name of the only access street into and out of Mira Costa Terrace from Western Avenue?

What is directly south of Peninsula Verde?

What is the name of the school located in Rolling Hills Riviera?

What is the name of the school located in Mira Vista?

What is the name of the RPV neighborhood east of Western Avenue?

In what city is Green Hills Cemetary located?

What is the current name of the former high school located on the east side of The Hill?

Which L.A. County Fire Station is located in the Miraleste area, Station 53 or Station 83?

The answers to these questions should be on the tips of the tongues of all the candidates, in my opinion or they may be proving themselves to be lacking in much interest in the Eastview and Miraleste area, perhaps.

My Opinions About Mr. Jerry Duhovic

*NOTE*

I am revising this post a small bit after I had some more conversations with Mr. Jerry Duhovic.

It is now time for me to opine on the candidacy of Mr. Jerry Duhovic to become one of the three new members of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council.

I am a progressive and Jerry is too conservative in many of his views for me to endorse or vote for him.

O.K., got that out, off my chest and formerly revealed. But wait, there's more.

Jerry is a good guy. He grew up in Eastview and I have written that we need more candidates and Council members who have greater experiences living on the east side and especially in the Eastview area.

Jerry Duhovic and I are both veterans of The United States Air Force. He was an officer and I rose to the rank of a 'non-com'.

So far, the only new yard sign I have seen on my block, other then the two I have, is one for Jerry Duhovic on the corner of Trudie Drive and Highmore Avenue, in a yard.

I had about a one-hour talk with Jerry Duhovic and I can tell you he is an honest fellow who loves his family and demonstrates a real devotion to R.P.V.

I do have some strong issues that Jerry and I respectfully disagree on. I do realize however, that as a progressive, I 'swim' against a majority of the political opinions of residents of our city.

Jerry told me that he does not necessarily object to having student housing built on the main campus of Marymount College.

I didn't go into a whole bunch of reasons why I find that opinion, not in the best interests of the majority of residents of our city, I feel.

Jerry and I both strongly agree and concur that Marymount's attempts with Measure P to give itself almost unlimited rights and powers of its property, without necessarily adhering to Conditional Use Permits, some municipal ordinances and many guidelines residents and businesses in our city must follow, isn't going to happen should he become a member of the Council. We both are very much together on that point.

I am adding here, on Saturday Sept. 24 that Jerry and I both are in complete accord as far as opposing the very unusual 'requirements' by Marymount's officials that seek to provide Marymount's official and land owners of the main campus site, far greater rights and authorities than any other business owner or land owner, and ever resident have over their land.

The most questionable issue I have with Jerry is his comments related to the considerations of taking at least some of the T.O.T. revenue and 'giving' it to taxpayers in some form or another.

To me, that is first and foremost, a gift to the wealthiest residents of our city, using revenue generated for the benefit of all residents and giving some it out to those who have some of the largest incomes in our city.

I felt a wisp of "TEA Party" in some of Jerry's words and I must admit it is my opion and scares me.

Also added on September 24 is this:

Many individuals really thought and felt that the T.O.T. revenues generated from Terranea were going to be placed into funding streams designated more toward infrastructure support and maintenance than has actually occurred.

This view was also express to me by Mayor Dyda, who is also running for a seat on the Council.

After discussions were held and many residents debated how the T.O.T. funds would be allocated, it was decided that the funds would go into the city's General Funds and not necessarily provided for special funding towards infrastructure needs.

It is my opinion that Jerry's thoughts and Ken Dyda's thoughts were reasonable even though their positions were not adopted, at that time.

For me, whether the T.O.T. is used for in our General Fund or used to deal with infrastructure issues, I continue to strongly feel that no monies from the T.O.T. be used to 'lower' taxes.

It is very much appreciated by me that Jerry views the lasting repair of the San Ramon Canyon issues as his top concern. That really must be the top concern of all of the candidates, I believe.

It is well understood by those who follow the current Council votes and dealings that the new Council will be more politically conservative than the current Council majority is.

On the first Tuesday in December, we will watch the Council move to at least a three to two majority of more politically conservative members and there is not any doubt among Council watchers that they will be, at least, the case.

It is my opinion that the balance is best with a three to two scenario and it looks more and more like Ms. Susan Brooks has the best chance currently, of being the third vote.

In an earlier post, I wrote that I feel now current of former elected person should sit on the new Council makeup, so that is why I can not endorse Ms. Brooks, Ms. Dora de la Rosa or Mr. Ken Dyda, although if Ken takes a seat, I'm not going to even think of getting displeased.

If you are a regular reader of this blog, you know I support and endorse the candidacies of Mr. Dave Emenhiser and Mr. Jim Knight.

For me, the best outcome of this election would be to welcome Dave and Jim onto the Council and let the chips fall where they may for the fifth member.

Mr. Jerry Duhovic is still a great young man. He is intelligent and caring and he is friendly even with those he disagrees with.

There may come a time when I could opine more favorably on his candidacy for a Council seat, but that day won't come before this November.

It is wonderful that the electorate has seven candidates to choose from. It demonstrates a level of service to others that many cities don't see. A neighbor city decided no cancel their Council election because no new candidates were willing to enter the race. How sad is that?

This post should wrap up my initial posts about the seven 'active' candidates for the three seats coming open in this election cycle.

I am still trying to learn more than nothing about Ms. Cynthia Smith and whether she is still a candidate. If you have any information, please write a comment or Email me at mrichards2@hotmail.com

I have absolutely nothing to write in any negative way about Ms. Smith because I only have confirmation of what the ballot will state as her occupation and that is not negative, it's just a fact.

When I spoke at the Council meeting on Tuesday evening, I forgot to ask that the next two debates by the candidates, happening at Hesse Park on October 5 and October 12, be televised.

The packed room on September 7 and the requests for more information about that event means that more folks than expected are taking a real look at the candidates in this election and that is what democracy and the rights to learn and vote are all about.

I have also given permission to Councilman Campbell that should he consider it wise, he can have the video I recorded on September 7 placed on the city's Web site and/or the city's television channel.

Only In "Eastview"

On Saturday, I talked with a friend of mine who also lives in the 'Eastview' section of Rancho Palos Verdes.

I can't remember the exact wording she and I spoke, but it went something like this:

Me: So, you are you going to vote for on Council?

Her: I can't vote, I was told I lived in a 'geographically undesirable location'.

Me: Your not going to vote in November?

Her: I want to vote for Gordon Teuber, but I can't!

Me: Wait just a minute. I gotcha!

Of course you can vote. You can vote for three new members on our Council.

Her: Oh, that's right.

Me: There 'you people' go again, not thinking that you don't live in San Pedro, you live in RPV.

Her: You're right, Mark. I keep forgetting.

Me: You get three votes in our election. So, who are you going to vote for in November?

Her: I don't even know who's running.

Me: You know, you really need to keep your heart in San Pedro, but you live in RPV and that is where your government is. You've got to get your head in RPV.

Her: You're right, again.

Folks, this is not atypical for many who have lived for decades in the Eastview area and it once again points out that even though folks may be interested in who their Council members are, far too many 'Eastviewers' still think the Councilman or Councilwoman goes to L.A. City Hall to have meetings.

It might also be true for those now-adults who grew up in Eastview. That is not the case with Mr. Jerry Duhovic though and I applaud him for that.

The majority of those living in eastern RPV in the Miraleste area have long known and appreciated where their city government is and who their city representatives are. They became part of RPV long before the Eastview area was annexed into our city.

But one would think and hope that since it has been decades since the vote for annexation took place, a higher percentage of Eastview residents should know who their Council members are and where they meet, don't you think.

I informed "Her" who the candidates are and who I support and have endorsed. She is on the correct side of reasoning (Left) and she appreciated my recommendations and alerts.

Maybe by the time Mr. Eric Alegria has enough 'RPV cred' and experiences within committees or Commissions in our city to make a much better candidate for OUR Council, most Eastview voters will know more about where their government resides and who truly represents them.

Perhaps then, in 6-8 years, Eric Alegria can be the top-vote-getter in our Council election.

A Contribution of a Post

On occasion, with several of my other blogs, I have welcomed posts contributed to me by others. This post is a contribution from Mr. Jim Gordon.

Mr. Jim Gordon is a member and an information-providing leader of Concerned Citizens Coalition/Marymount College, (CCC/ME).

Jim can routinely be seen in front of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council providing factual information and cogent opinions regarding The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project and The Marymount Plan.

Mr. Gordon has offered this contribution and has provided his permission to edit it, by me. I have only omitted his complementary words at the beginning of his Email/contribution to me, concerning two of three previous posts I wrote on this blog.

Mr. Gordon offered his opinions and some true facts concerning "My Third Vote" post where he takes issue with some of what I wrote.

Here are Jim's words written concerning the post I wrote and the opinions expressed in his contribution are his.

"With respect to the Third, however, I would observe that perhaps Mrs. Karp and her historical role in the Marymount Expansion history is both a bit skewed and inconsistent vis a vis Dr. Brophy's own tarnished history.

The word "opponent" - generally and as used in your blog - comes with negative baggage and a bad connotation - automatically. Persons who are described as an "opponent" already have one or two strikes against them. Conversely, add the word "worthy" in front of "opponent" and you get an entirely different picture and connotation.

Mrs. Karp has earned that title, "Worthy opponent". The history of Marymount's misguided Expansion goes back more than the commonly-referred to ten years when the City of RPV attempted to sneak in Marymounts' plans by way of a "Consent Calendar" Agenda item. An item that otherwise would not require any formal EIR as it was proposed to be under that radar also.

Fortunately for the Community, or unfortunately, if you are so inclined, that sneak attack was brought out into daylight and rejected. A couple years later, in May 2000, Dr. McFadden signed an application for Marymount's Modernization - with a plan that was never revealed to residents for any kind of prior review. Under the neighborhood radar again. Subsequently, in October 2000 (Saturday the 14th) Trustees reluctantly granted a Neighborhood review but with the proviso that no changes would be tolerated. Mrs. Karp, Larry Clark, Tom Redfield and myself were in attendance at that show trial.

This neighborhood group commented against the proposed three dormitories and shared our documented concerns with related campus geological issues. The College was unmoved and proceeded directly - until two and a half years later - when, based on underlying geological problems, were forced to withdraw their plans and re-set. Your favorite Library had been sited at the edge of a geological precipice and had to be moved.

By the time the new plans (and smoke) had cleared, the College had wasted over 5 years before re-commencing in August 2005. After about 6 more months, the College failed to deliver needed CEQA data and wasted an additional 13 months before re-commencing in June of 2007.

Dr. Brophy came on the scene in August 2006 when his first day of school featured a near death accident caused by one of his freshman students colliding - in the opposite lane - with Realtor Janet Levering, nearly killing her. We witnessed the aftermath during which time the now on-scene Dr. Brophy advised the errant student "not to say anything" to the authorities. Nice. The student was eventually dismissed from the College.

In September, one month later, Dr. Brophy visited with Mrs. Karp and myself with Jack in attendance at their home and was cautioned that the College's existing plans for construction over an "18 to 24 month" time period were unworkable as the College and campus would have to be closed for an unsustainable period of time.

This advice was later acknowledged to the City in a letter from Dr. Brophy of October 30, 2006 instituting a new three-Phase Plan with Phase I being 3 months to allow for only a summertime closure and continued operation in the fall, etc.

That plan was not revealed to CCC/ME by the College or City until a Mediterranea meeting on College premises in mid January 2007. Nice communication. It was subsequently determined that Phase I could not be completed in the forecast 3 months by consultation with experts at Terannea (Turner) suggested by Ara. The City and College have subsequently refused to update the Phasing Plan incorporating only the discredited 3 months span.

CCC/ME's "worthy opposition" to some of Marymount's overbearing Expansion Plans has consistently been based on the premise that dorms are inappropriate for this limited site,and that the expansion creates unnecessary and inappropriate parking and traffic levels with increased student enrollment levels and utilization, and that the proposed Athletic Facility as well as dorms belong at the College's site elsewhere.

These valid and worthy concerns have proved prescient, particularly in view of the original uses of this site which were far more limited and far less disruptive. Further, this now-abrasive College has a documented history of non-neighborly and independent actions detrimental to the surrounding community. This historical record - dating back to early 1975 - can be viewed in the Staff Report of April 22, 2008 regarding the FLS program review by the PC.

You may recall that Dr. Brophy was quite confused or intentionally deceptive about the PC not giving the College and their proposed dorms a fair hearing on that issue. In fact, at the CHOA meeting in March of 2010 he (falsely) responded to a question about "why" Measure P stating that it was necessary because the PC had not given the College a fair hearing by citing a straw poll of late 2008 as being the culprit. This was egregiously false because dorms were still alive and on the table at the April 14th 2009 PC Hearing, although at that time were recommended (for later final decision May 26, 2009) to be stricken. Before that could happen, however, Dr. Brophy ordered dorms withdrawn from further PC consideration on April 24, 2009, etc. and at that time stated that he would continue to fight for them. This College is good at withdrawing plans from consideration, dating back to June 2003.

Dr. Brophy's vow for dorms was ultimately proven true with the College's submission of Measure P. CCC/ME opposed those dorms and the ultimate Community vote was to deny that initiative. Dr. Brophy has since further indicated he will return to this dorms issue in an antagonistic letter of May 13, 2011 to Mayor Long with reference to Measure P "We will be back again. inevitably, to make similar requests of RPV." So there still is a need to keep a balance of opinion going forward.

My point here is to simply remind the author that Dr. Brophy and the College has been an "opponent" of the neighborhood, and not a worthy one at that. I have little or no sympathy for the 6th President of Marymount College for being "upset" at the City's designation of Mrs. Karp as an "opponent" in appointing her to the Neighborhood Advisory Committee (Condition #138) as the "at Large" member. I would somewhat agree with you had Dr. Brophy not been on the other side of the table on this with another representative of the College being in place. Nonetheless, Dr. Brophy's petulant and childlike tantrum the evening of September 6, 2011 was not followed up as he had promised to appeal and overturn this decision along with the Condition #138 itself. A most foolhardy and un presidential public position to make.

Not bad for your latest Blogs, however - two out of three" not bad at all."

I do not necessarily agree or disagree with opinions set forth in Jim's contribution but I did acknowledge to him that I have uses and do generalize the words 'opponent' and 'opponents' when considering those neighbors of Marymount College who have declared opposition to some or most of either The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project or The Marymount Plan.

In a forthcoming post, I will provide more independent information that allows us to learn that not all of the membership of CCC/ME or any other group are opposed to some types and issues relating to redevelopment of the Marymount College main campus.

I have struggled to learn what the elements of both The Project and The Plan are that members of CCC/ME and other neighbors wish to see on Marymount's Palos Verdes Drive East campus, but I have more information now that there are some basic elements of The Project/The Plan that curry favor and real support by some I might refer to as 'opponents'.

The bottom line is that there are actually very few members of our community that oppose everything about The Project, but they are really few in number and are not necessarily all that involved in the discussions and debates.

I support The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project as it was adopted and with the current timeline accepted by Marymount's officials, administrators and Trustees. I believe I am with the majority of residents in our city and I am pleased that all five members of our City Council made their final votes on The Project unanymous.

Thank you, Jim Gordon. Your thoughtful and fact-fill contribution illustrates that not all 'opponents' are really completely opposed to some redevelopment of Marymount's main campus and your accurate account of history can educate all of us.

Bob and Michael; Putting Their Mouths Where They Are Not Welcome!

Robert H. (Bob) Bisno came into San Pedro telling residents there HE knew what was best for that community with his Ponte Vista at San Pedro, "2,300" condominiums.

Bob went bankrupt. Bob's house was in foreclosure several times and it may have been sold because of a final foreclosure.

Bob was told to basically 'pack his bags' by members of the financial team bleeding money in torrents from the housing market collapse and Bob's unwillingness to demonstrate respect, reason, reality and responsibility towards the residents of San Pedro, eastern Rancho Palos Verdes and other communities near the Ponte Vista site.

Dr. Michael Brophy will repeat to you that he is the Sixth President of Marymount College, in "Palos Verdes". Yes, I have heard him say on recording, "Palos Verdes".

Dr. Michael Brophy's assistants stood with him to request an extension on completing The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, ultimately approved by our City Council with a 5-0 vote on final passage.

Dr. Brophy was also informed that the Appeal to The Project was turned down, I believe also by a 5-0 vote.

Dr. Brophy and/or his representatives agreed to the stipulations that The Project be completed in "Eight Years". This agreement was for a period of a longer time period Marymount representatives originally sought.

Now, according to a new Press Release, Dr. Brophy is going to seek an even longer extension to, TWENTY YEARS!. Really? Really!

Dr. Brophy and his team received original approval to begin Phase I of The Project several years ago.

Dr. Brophy and his associates have not truly viewed any demolition or new parking lots approved of in Phase I and there is no indication that any work towards using the provisions Dr. Brophy agreed to in Phase I, being started.

I think Dr. Brophy first need to explain to the voters in our city why he decided to interject more Marymount College issues into our municipal election.

He could have waited until November 9, now less than two months away.

Now, those who might support extending The Project's timeline out and those who oppose that being approved, will have to explain their views to an electorate who are fed up with dealing with Marymount College-related issues. This is the case whether you favor Marymount's new plans or not.

Our seven active candidates for the three City Council seats have more than enough issues to deal with that are more important than one business in our city, I feel.

I would image that if Dr. Brophy is serious about hoping voters elect three candidates who favor an extension, he puts up funds into an escrow account for the purposes of work related to the repair of San Ramon Canyon, demonstrating his willingness to work with the community he now whats 12 more years from.

It took over ten years to get what Dr. Brophy agreed to, approved and signed into new ordinances and guidelines. He and his associates certainly had far longer time periods to get what needed to be done done, that Bob did.

Both individuals had their chances. Both of them were found to be non-compliant with the will and votes of the residents of the communities they wished to increase development in.

Both were and are victims of current economy problems, but that has never been nor will be the fault of the residents who live near the two project sites.

The current zoning at Ponte Vista at San Pedro allows for up to 429-single family, detached residential dwellings, all sitting on lots of not less than 5,000 square feet. That type of housing density is designated "R1".

The Ponte Vista site has a residential dwelling zoning of R1 and many of Bob's activities directly led to all loss of any 'mandate' to allow for greater dwelling density.

This is something the new developers of Ponte Vista at San Pedro will soon learn they will have to deal with.

Bob blew it. He was arrogant. He was demanding. He was narcissistic in his resolve that he know more than others what is best for the community in and around his project's site.

Bob changed what he wanted, but it was too late, by then. Even a lowering of total numbers of residential units and a lessening of the size and numbers of businesses inside Ponte Vista could stem the bad blood Bob drew.

Now and certainly again, Dr. Brophy wishes to change the rules as far as Rancho Palos Verdes goes. The rules he wants to see changes to are the very same rules he agreed to and sadly, some rules that have been violated, at the College's Palos Verdes Drive East site.

What is even more problematic is that we are going to see more negativity towards Marymount College by those who will offer proof that Marymount College officials may not be adhering to mandates, ordinances and guidelines that may be continuing to be violated.

Most of Bob's problems at Ponte Vista at San Pedro were created by Bob. It can be shown that many of the negative issues now circulating around Marymount College's R.P.V. site are either directly caused by or possibly approved of by Dr. Michael Brophy.

The issues about the Fume Hood is one example. We are all going to learn more about the parking situations on surface streets near Marymount's R.P.V. campus and how guidelines are probably basically ignored by the staff of Marymount College and by many students who attend class there.

I've written this before, but again with the Press Release, I need to repeat it again.

As long as Dr. Michael Brophy continues along the path he has chosen and still remains employed in his capacity by the Board of Trustees of Marymount College, nothing truly positive will happen when considering The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, a project I support, endorse and wish would have been deep into Phase I over a year ago.

While I applaud Marymount's increasing presence in downtown San Pedro, I have to consider that as long as Dr. Brophy is the President of Marymount College, that school will continue to face unnecessary burdens that it needn't founder under.

In the Press Release, Dr. Brophy appears to acknowledge that his plans for dorms on Marymount's main campus is no longer being considered. This is because of his request for the extension of The Project out 20 years, a Project that does not include on-campus housing for students in the city of Rancho Palos Verdes.

I want Phase I to begin. I wanted it begun last Summer.

I feel with the interjection of the request to extend The Project's timeline out and what all of the candidates will quickly have to respond to, is something Dr. Brophy should not have done and I hope he does not get away with it.

Bob's gone. When will Michael go?

Bits and Pieces 42

Marymount now want TWENTY YEARS to complete what representatives gained approval for building with a much shorter time frame.

Since Marymount officials, I believe, knew all along they don't have the money to complete even the first phase of The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, it looks like they want more time to do what I have never thought they really wanted to do in the first place.

Yes, I know that the new "20 Year Plan" for Marymount in San Pedro and Rancho Palos Verdes just came out. I will do a much longer post on that in the near future.

Most of what college officials want to do in San Pedro is not only fine by me, I support growing all educational opportunities in that community and I hope they will let many of the residents of all the nearby communities help them aide in the rebuilding of downtown San Pedro.

But after over 10 years of some really difficult discussions, debates, studies, findings and everything else that got us through both The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, which I support and endorse and The Marymount Plan/Measure P, why on Earth would supporters and Trustees of Marymount College wish to extend that out for another up to 20 years? It boggles my mind.

Dr. Michael Brophy, Marymount's President, was quoted as hoping the new R.P.V. Council makeup would be more supportive of the new plans which include increasing the student body population at Marymount's Palos Verdes Drive East campus to '1,200 students', changing the authorities that allow for The Project to go forward in its currently prescribed timetable and offer post graduate studies beginning in 2013.

It wasn't all that long ago when Marymount College was a Junior College.

And look how close the Fourth Best Regional University in our country is located from Marymount College.

Yes folks, Loyola Marymount was just voted Fourth Best in the nation, for Regional Universities.

I guess Marymount College authorities just might not wish to compete on academic levels with Loyola Marymount. I do think Marymount College could someday be the 'go to' institution for arts and entertainment studies as well as marine studies. But that is way, way, way down the road. It would be a good road to go down, though.

The Lobster Festival is coming to San Pedro's Ports O'Call area and I hope folks enjoy a visit there, this weekend.

The following weekend is the TriArt Festival in the newest addition to the Waterfront redevelopment project, at the southern end of Ports O'Call Village.

The FREE EVENT features bands, dance groups and artists to vend their creations.

The TriArt Festival will be the first event held on the new grass and park located where the old Whaler's Wharf used to be.

I am not pleased that the supporters of new stadium lighting are threatening a lawsuit against the School District, but I do agree with SOME of their points.

I hope it does not come down to the District not having to have its insurance rates increased because of added lawsuit defenses, but that could happen.

I think if stadium lighting were approved, with restrictions, those restrictions would soon be overlooked and that neighbors living in R.P.V., most affected by the lights would basically have nowhere to go, outside of courts, to have the restrictions enforced.

I got conflicting 'stories' about when the new Environmental Impact Report for Ponte Vista at San Pedro will be published.

One source was told it would be out by this week and another source was told it would be published in a month.

It has not be published on the City of Los Angeles Planning Department's Web site as of this blog post.

Please remember that EDCO and another company is sponsoring a FREE document shredding event on Saturday October 1, 2011 from 9-Noon. Please check the city's Web site for more details. This is a good thing that is available to our residents ONLY.

If you have not submitted your Email address to R.P.V. Listserver, I feel you really should do so.

You can find information about rpvlisterserver on our city's Web site, too.

My Third Vote Goes To/More Pondering About Three Candidates

First off, I have made monetary campaign contributions to Mr. Dave Emenhiser and Mr. Jim Knight, the two candidates for City Council seats I have announced endorsements for.

I have also contributed a similar contribution to the campaign of Mayor Ken Dyda.

It has been my view for some time that since this is "an historic election", as stated by numerous persons within our city, I wish to keep that thought and process continuing.

I may not agree with the positions and votes on our Council given by Mayor Pro Tem Anthony Misetich and/or Councilman Brian Campbell, but I will defend their 'veteran' status and continue to be offended by those who question these two fine gentlemen as to their ability to be the leaders and guides when the three new Council members take their seats.

I feel if this really is going to be an historic election where a great deal of change will take place, I am comfortable to find that change include three new members who have not held elective office before.

Mayor Ken Dyda and Mayor Susan Brooks have served our residents from better than very well to true greatness as our city was born and nurtured.

In similar fashion I feel, Board President Dora de la Rosa has served the students, parents, employees, staff, and others in her capacities dealing with schools on the peninsula.

I have been working through the concepts and issues that could or might occur in some residents' minds, Not Mayor Dyda, Mayor Brooks or President de la Rosa, that Anthony Misetich and Brian Campbell's two year tenure on our Council is second best to the service provided by and potentially offered by the three former or current elected officials.

Anthony Misetich and Brian Campbell may very well seek counsel from anyone and everyone, but even the notion of hearing anyone on the council state, 'well, when I was so and so, we did it this way or that way', would be terrible, in my opinion.

Mayor Pro Tem Misetich and Councilman Campbell were the two top vote receivers in our last Council election and they 'beat' a large field of very qualified candidates, whether I liked that outcome or not. They have both proven themselves to me to be worthy of being real veterans on our Council.

All that being written, I also must write the following:

Former Mayor Ken Dyda and former Mayor Susan Brooks have years of experience of service to our residents, businesses, and others and they both offer unique qualities.

I happen to agree with much of what Ken Dyda considers to be essential to our city, its residents and businesses. Of course he would serve us again in the highest of standards, with integrity and intelligence.

I think as a Council member and having the tenure of many types of experiences, training and teaching, former Mayor Susan Brooks would also help to move our city forward.

If the PVPUSD School Board has considered the service and experiences of Board President Dora de la Rosa to be worthy of electing her to serve as it President for half of the time she has been on the Board, that says quite a lot about her, in many positive ways.

However, if we are truly going to have "an historic election", it is my feeling that our Council should begin anew with the 'veterans' that have gone through fires and turmoil in these very tough times and welcome three new members who have not been provided the chance, honor and high privilege given by voters in our city to represent them, as Rancho Palos Verdes City Council members.

Over the last several years, there have been calls to 'get rid' of everyone in Congress and/or in Sacramento, so things can start over or get fixed.

This November, we have a real opportunity to thank and honor those who have served us in elected office by showing them that their desire to serve so very well, has rubbed off onto others who will take a great legacy forward.

This post offers my primary reason for me being unable to announce a full endorsement for Mayor Ken Dyda, Mayor Susan Brooks or Board President de la Rosa.

A Plague On All That NONSENSE!

When Mayor Tom Long stated, "A plague on both your houses" he may have been very rough and perhaps he could have used a bit different wording, but I really agree that what I finally saw on my computer screen tonight, was something that should have never happened.

Boy, I don't know who deserve the most blame for that Tuesday evening fiasco. There are more than a few folks who might need some talking to.

I do feel that when Mayor Long did his blasting away, I don't know if he remembered that HE gave Dr. Brophy 5 minutes to speak, during a time residents normally are only given three minutes.

Mayor Long gave Dr. Brophy 5 minutes, "without objection" when he himself eventually soundly admitted he was very objected what transpired, before it began.

Why oh why Tom, if you had an objection going in, why didn't you limit Dr. Brophy to the three minutes you allotted to all the other speakers? You knew you weren't going to 'play nice' beforehand. I note your frustration and I have some real great frustrations I share with you.

The idea that Mr. Joel Rojas appointed Ms. Lois Karp to the Neighborhood Advisory Committee established by one of the Conditional Use Permits (CUP) in the approval of The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project is so far beyond any respectful reasoning, it borders on the ridiculous!

Ms. Karp is the leader of Concerned Citizens Coalition/Marymount College, (CCC/ME). the very group that has been the most active in opposing many of the plans Marymount College has established.

I think I could agree with Dr. Brophy in that Ms. Karp's appointment might indicate something about Mr. Rojas' reasoning and his true considerations about being fair and impartial.

There are other find members of Ms. Karp's specific neighborhood that would not seem as 'poisonous' to all the processes as having the leader of the opposition sitting on the Advisory Committee. I know there are well qualified and caring residents in Ms. Karp's neighborhood that could do a wonderful job representing her neighborhood as well as other neighborhoods that don't have HOAs represented on the Advisory Committee.

Gees! What was Mr. Rojas thinking?

Factually, Mr. Jim Gordon and Mr. Jack Karp were correct with their comments about the issues surrounding the fume hoods and the fire inspection materials, lists and documentations.

Dr. Michael Brophy, the President of Marymount College continues to offer information that is irresponsible, unreasonable, unrealistic and frankly, disrespectful to just about everyone who doesn't understand some major changes happening in the education field, specifically with information storage and resourcing.

Brick and mortar libraries are OBSOLETE. Spending one dime on actually taking out permits for demolition of some buildings and then building a physical library on Marymount's campus is ridiculous at best and might well be found to possibly be considered underhanded at worst.

Especially for Marymount College where I believe the majority of students will not take classes at the college's Rancho Palos Verdes campus, because of the wonderful growing involvement in the downtown San Pedro area, there really would be a horrific problem spending money to build an already obsolete structure that, as currently planned, has absolutely no ability to store the number of books and other resource materials a 'good' four-year college must offer.

Just look around at all the iPads, notebook computers, tablet computers and smartphones that provide an ever expanding template for the transmission, storage, usage, and availability of information that could never be stored or resourced at a physical library building.

It is completely disingenuous for Dr. Brophy, a man with at least one Ph.D. to continue to talk about a building that would be far too small to house the number of volumes his 'good' college would have to store.

It is ludicrous, in my opinion, to keep talking about a structure that will never be built.

Why does anyone, considered by many, to be a person of intelligence, continue harping about something they cannot and should not afford?

Come on! Let's just stop all this babble about an obsolete structure that would be too small even before the foundation is poured.

If Dr. Brophy continues with his plans for a brick and mortar library of the size approved and allotted for via The Marymount Plan, he should be called out for counseling by the college's Board of Trustees and anyone who thinks of donating any money for a structure that could never be adequate enough for a 'four-year institution of higher learning'.

It will cost a great deal less to set up a physical resources/media center, a physical hub of information to share with the various Marymount sites within our community and in San Pedro and it would allow a large portion of the money already set aside for the physical library to be used on other building plans.

Since Measure P did not pass, the college must follow all the guidelines and ordinances established in our city and that may very well mean a whole new process for securing the approval to build something I don't really believe should or will be built.

Dr. Brophy knows the English language. When he stated in his opening remarks that Marymount College is located in "Palos Verdes and San Pedro" I am quite sure he knows that Marymount College is located in Rancho Palos Verdes and San Pedro and I won't give him any leave to claim he misstated his location wording. I feel it is a deliberate swipe at our Council and our residents when he misstates the name of the city where the college's main campus is located.

As for Dr. Brophy's appeal at having Ms. Karp on the committee, I am leaning towards supporting his appeal, depending on what he says and how he states it. I do understand and have more than a little sympathy for Marymount's position on Ms. Karp's appointment and since that is offered in this post, if Dr. Brophy or others wish to use that, I don't object.

Having Lois Karp on the Advisory Committee is akin to having Texas Governor Perry on a Board of Pardons for Felons condemned to die, in Texas.

I was pleased to hear from Mr. Jack Karp that he feels CCC/ME is not 'against' improvements at Marymount. However, the Appeal of the Council's approval of The Marymount College Facilities Project by CCC/ME offers little proof that the group endorses many changes I support for Marymount College.

The fume hoods and other equipment requested by Marymount's administration, until they pulled the plug themselves on that project, did have problems and issues that were not addressed properly, in my opinion.

I think when those plans were brought forward it was a 'between-the-lines' acknowledgement by Marymount that there will not be the physical library built according to the approved Project, at Marymount. It was a 'tell' or it was 'telegraphed' but too few folks looked and listened carefully enough.

Councilman Stern and Councilman Campbell were very well spoken when they offered their remarks, after Mayor Long's somewhat emotional words.

Yes, we are sick of the continuation of the chaos and fiascoes coming from all sides. Yes, I am guilty of a bit of that, too. But I am certainly not the only one.

Marymount will continue to do wonderful expansion into San Pedro, especially in the downtown area where they could make so many positive and lasting contributions that will be shared by many. Marymount seeks to be a college where students from all over the world come to study. It is very good that many of those students will learn in a World Port like the Port of Los Angeles.

The long term plans for Marymount's Palos Verdes North facilities are humorous at best, but they will not pan out more that just having that location be student housing with some resource opportunities there.

What Marymount can and should do is take some of the money they say they would use for a library building and offer to buy the remaining residential structures now owned by The Volunteers of America, right next door to Palos Verdes North.

A new physical library building for Marymount? NONSENSE!

Having Ms. Karp sit on the Neighborhood Advisory Committee when there are well qualified residents of her neighborhood that could do a great job? NONSENSE!

Not having Marymount's Board of Trustees order Dr. Brophy to come completely clean about any and all real and true plans for the Rancho Palos Verdes campus is also, NONSENSE!

Not supporting many needed improvements to Marymount's campuses is also, NONSENSE!

Having on-campus housing for students on the Palos Verdes Drive East campus of Marymount College has always been, NONSENSE!

All sides must work better towards finding reasoning, reality, responsibility and certainly, respect. Four qualities that must be put above all this NONSENSE!