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.
No comments:
Post a Comment