Tom Long's Most Recent Email

Here is Tom Long's more recent mass Email. I WILL have some comments following it.

The views and facts offered by Tom Long are his and not necessarily mine.

"Dear RPV Residents,

The city council election on November 8th will fill three open seats with no incumbents running for re-election in the first time in the RPV’s history since its founding. Candidate forums and debates have taken place and are scheduled to be rebroadcast the coming week every day at 1:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. for the League of Women Voters forum and every day at 10:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. for the Council of Homeowners Association forum. I have provided links to each of the candidates’ websites on my web page (see: http://www.palosverdes.com/tomlong/index.cfm?go=websites ) as well as answers to questions which some of them provided to me. (see: http://www.palosverdes.com/tomlong/index.cfm?go=election2011 )

I offer below my perspective on issues in the election.

The Budget. The city gets only 6% of the property tax paid by its residents and receives very little sales tax because it has very little commercial development. Although the average city in California has nearly $4 per resident per day to provide all city services, Rancho Palos Verdes had less than $1 per resident per day when I first took office in 2003. As a result of the current council’s decision to keep the existing utility user tax in place and to institute a new storm drain user fee and the opening of the Terranea Resort, the city now has nearly $1.30 per resident per day to provide services. Most of the new revenues have been devoted to capital improvement programs rather than operating expense. These decisions have allowed the City to accumulate a large reserve and to compete for grants for large projects which will likely require matching funds. The city is on the brink of obtaining a $9.4 million grant from the State of California which will fund nearly half
of the estimated $20 million cost for protecting San Ramon Canyon.

Eric Alegria, Dave Emenhiser and Jim Knight will maintain the forward progress on the city’s budget described above as would Ken Dyda. However, three candidates, Susan Brooks, Jerry Duhovic and Dora De La Rosa are supported by PVP Watch and will take a different direction. PVP Watch opposed the utility user tax and the storm drain user fee and has urged the city to lay off employees, to reduce revenues and to meet needs for repair by spending down its reserves.

One of PVP Watch’s founders Barry Hildebrand identified its goal as to “drive government toward zero.” PVP Watch and its candidates have inaccurately suggested that the city is overstaffed and that its employees receive unduly high salaries and pension benefits. In reality, the city has fewer than 60 employees, leaner staffing than almost all other cities in the South Bay, and has reasonable salaries set as a result of surveys of comparable cities through policies maintained by city councils in Rancho Palos Verdes
for decades.

Moreover, the city council recently created a second tier pension plant and lowered pension benefits while at the same time requiring employees to pay a greater share of pension costs. PVP Watch, Mrs. Brooks and Mr. Duhovic falsely described this move as an increase in pension benefits. The divisive attacks on the city’s staff by PVP Watch and its slate of candidates caused the city’s employees to unionize for the first time in the city’s history. Electing PVP Watch candidates will disrupt the city’s budget. They can be expected to cancel the storm drain user fee and the utility user tax.

Ms. Brooks boasts that when she was last on council she turned a $2 million deficit into a $2 million surplus. She did not do this by increasing taxes or increasing spending. Instead, there were only half as many city employees when Ms. Brooks was on council before. The result was fewer city services, inadequate spending on infrastructure, and few employees to manage the contracts necessary for infrastructure repair. Nor could the city compete effectively for large multimillion dollar grants in the past. There is a danger that electing candidates endorsed by PVP watch will leave the city with higher expenses, poorer employee relations, and a union, while at the same time decreasing the city’s revenues leaving the city less able to keep streets, storm drains, sewers and other infrastructure vital to our property values in good working order.

Open Space. The current council achieved open space preservation with 15% of the city now being the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve. Over 90% of the cost was funded by state and federal grants. PVP Watch consistently opposed the current council’s efforts to create the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve, accusing us of wasting public money. Moreover, one of the candidates PVP Watch supports, Dora De La Rosa, was president of the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School Board when, during an official Sacramento tour, her close political ally and then PTA president (and current school board candidate and PVP Watch member) Erin LaMonte met with state officials to urge those officials to deny the city’s application for aCalifornia state grant for the preservation of open space. Look for a city council containing PVP Watch candidates to find some way to interfere with open space preservation that PVP Watch has so consistently opposed.

Special Interests And Transparency In Government. PVP Watch asserts that only the election of its slate will prevent “special interests” from dominating RPV’s city council. The exact opposite is true. Mrs. Brooks and Mr. Duhovic were recently endorsed by Los Angeles City Attorney Carmen Trutanich. Before Trutanich became City Attorney, his law firm represented Donald Trump in claims against Rancho Palos Verdes. Trutanich’s law firm also represented a number of parties adverse to the City of Los Angeles that he now serves. One of Susan Brooks’ leading supporters, Councilmember Brian Campbell, has been acting as an agent for the Trump Organization offering donations from it to council candidates. At Campbell’s suggestion Trump has delayed pending applications until after the election. Won’t it be interesting to see how votes on those applications go?

Further evidence that the election of a PVP Watch slate including Brooks, De La Rosa and Duhovic to the city council may weaken the transparency of government is found in Brooks’ promise to abolish “one hour rule.” The use of staff time is the use of taxpayer money. Under the “one hour rule” adopted by the current city council, no single councilmember can demand more than one hour of work from staff on an item that has not been put on the city council’s agenda unless the city council as a whole has approved the use of staff time. This prevents individual councilmembers from directing staff behind closed doors to carry out their own pet projects.

Prior to the election of the current council, an earlier council spent staff time and hundreds of thousands of dollars on a project to build a breakwater off the city’s coast that never saw the light of day in a public hearing. When Ms. Brooks tells you that one of the first things she will do is abolish the one hour rule, what she is telling you is that she wants to restore the ability of individual councilmembers to directly manage staff and to require staff to work on the pet projects of individual councilmembers that will never see the light of a public hearing.

Finally, it is worth remembering that PVP Watch itself is a special interest group. One of its founders Mr. Ken DeLong used his influence with an earlier councilmember, the late Peter Gardiner, to obtain a contract as a favor. At the time, PVP Watch had only one sympathetic ear on Council and Mr. DeLong was not able to get the contract and so complained bitterly in writing to Councilman Garidner. See DeLong’s e-mail at http://www.palosverdes.com/tomlong/pdfs/2002_09-09KenDeLong.pdf Look for a PVP Watch dominated council to push a “local first” campaign for contracting with public monies that will allow councilmembers to favor cronies like DeLong rather than letting staff pick the best services and products to buy with our tax money.

Divisiveness. PVP Watch surrogates have brought public records act requests and FPPC and District Attorney investigations against city staff and those on the council who have disagreed with them. None of these have led to anything, but all have wasted time and public money. After having created dissention with these unwarranted efforts and by opposing every initiative of the current council, PVP Watch and some of the candidates argue that electing the PVP Watch slate will bring “civility” to city government. In some sense that is true. If one has five members of the council who all think alike on all of the issues and if each councilmember is free to address personal projects outside of public view, then the council will give the appearance of greater civility. Everyone will agree on everything and all decisions will be made so as to satisfy the voices in the room at the time of the public hearing, or will be made outside of public view. If the appearance of good govern
ment is more important than the substance of good government, then the voters of the city should vote for the candidates who will agree with each other, will bow to the will of PVP Watch and who will otherwise agree with whatever point of view happens to be expressed at the time of any public hearing on any particular issue.

It’s worth keeping in mind the character of PVP Watch supporters. Most of the letters to the editor we see evincing the “divisiveness” PVP Watch mentions are written by PVP Watch members and are carefully designed to cause divisiveness by misinforming people on the issues. But what do they discuss when they think no one is watching?

One of their members was embarrassed enough by their private discussions to give me a copy of an e-mail chain. Read it for yourself and reach your own judgment. (see http://www.palosverdes.com/tomlong/pdfs/Carol_Mueller_20March2011.pdf ) Mrs. Muller was a letter writer to the Breeze today. I invited the addresses of Mueller’s e-mail to comment on it and only one of them denounced it. Such tolerance of intolerance is unfortunate. As long as PVP Watch members are involved in this city’s civic life we will have problems.

Summary. Rancho Palos Verdes is essentially a small nonprofit which has custody over a relatively small percentage of the taxes each of us pays. The city also has enormous responsibility over services and facilities that are vital to our quality of life and our property values. These issues go beyond particular individual land use issues. Whatever a candidate may promise you they would do on a particular land use issue is far less important than the way in which the candidate will approach the budget issues and issues of transparency in government described above.

Those issues will be far more important to the decisions that will actually affect the future of the city than particular individual land use decisions. Moreover, much as people may differ from time to time on particular land use issues, there is broad consensus that the character of the community will not change. No land use projects proposed in the city in the last 10 years would have resulted in any significant increase in population density or any significant expansion in commercial development. The population of the city has remained virtually the same in every single census taken since the city was founded in 1973. A broad consensus also supports open space preservation.

We must recognize, however, that the absence of much commercial development means that we must accept either significantly reduced city services or that we must pay extra taxes or both in order to obtain the minimum services that are essential to preserving our way of life and our property values. It is within those parameters where there is disagreement. Some, like PVP Watch, follow a dogma that seeks to “drive government toward zero.” Others of us recognize the possibility government, particularly local government, has to do constructive things.

If you vote for people who believe that government must fail, your vote will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Do not cast a vote for failure. Instead, cast a vote for the city’s future success and vote for candidates who are dedicated to that success. Please vote for Eric Alegria, David Emenhiser and Jim Knight.

Tom Long
Mayor, Rancho Palos Verdes
tomlong@palosverdes.com"

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

First, Tom Long WAS NOT my source for the "That Email" I have been referring to. He names Carol Muller as both the author of "That Email" and as someone who wrote a letter to the editor in Sunday's Daily Breeze.

Sadly and very unfortunately, the ONLY ONE individual who was addressed in the primary Email condemned Muller's bigotted rant and that person WAS NOT any of the current candidates.

I must also report that one of the current candidates specifically said to me they would take campaign contributions for any person or any group.

I personally feel that accepting any support or contributions from humans like Muller is shameful and they should be returned along with a stern rebuke of Carol's Email.

It is true that most of the candidates know more about the history of our city than I do. I really became more involved with our own city matters during the period of time I was fighting Bob Bisno's Ponte Vista over development.

After doing a good deal of research on many matters since becoming more aware of my own city, I stand more alligned with Tom Long, Doug Stern, Larry Clark and Steve Wolowicz compared to just about everything Palos Verdes Peninsula Watch puts out.

It is my personal feeling that the members of that group are more interested in being the power behind the throne rather than serving the best interests of the residents of our city.

I still have heard nothing from Susan Brooks about who she and/or her supporters believe are 'the group' that put out what was reported to be a six-page document.

It seems to me that the 'special interests' Susan has been mentioning as far as our current Council goes were dealt with reasonably and that she may have her own agenda of special interests, guided by 'the group' commonly known as PVP Watch.

Thank you Tom Long, for this latest Email. We still are at odds about Eric Alegria but I know if he gains more experiences in our town and with our city, he will make a truly great Council member, someday.

Please vote for Jim Knight and Dave Emenhiser on or by November 8. Neither one of them have the PVP Watch baggage others may be beholding to.

Bits and Pieces 47

If you didn't see me in the "Stand Up To Cancer" PSA during the World's Series, that is quite fine by me. I am now to the point where I don't even see me anymore, on any screen.

The life of a background/extra actor means I really should not be seen or recognized. I like to think I am the garnish on a plate, rather than food of any real substance.

I had a good conversation with an RPV resident who favors having individual workers allowed to control more of their retirement funds, through things like larger 401(k) contributions instead of 'regular' pensions.

The individual related that he lost quite a bit of his retirement when funds he used to provide greater self-controlled pension savings, were lost in 2008-2009.

I related to him that when I started work with 'the phone company', at the age of 25, I had absolutely no real clue about investing to provide for a more secure retirement.

When I was 25, I was just out of the U.S.A.F., with a wife and two very young sons. I was more worried about medical benefits and paying a mortgage than even considering when I would retire or how I could save more for retirement.

I was able to begin a company savings plan, but that was years after I started my long-term job.

It is my feeling that I am not very supportive of much of the 'pension reform' we have seen in our city, although I understand why many in our city want more reforms to happen.

I feel if our city was in greater financial dire or we didn't have the incredible brain trust we have in R.P.V., there might be more reasons to make more 'reforms' to our staff's pension plans.

It is also something I am pondering towards a more positive position concerning a two tier type of reform, but my conversation with the gentleman and my own knowledge, or lack thereof, of the best financial planning possible, make me still feel that allowing workers to have a greater control of their pension funds, especially when they are young or less informed about financial matters, is an overall negative thing.

I also have little to no trust in much of the Wall Street financial products and operations these days and voting to provide less regulation at a time when we are all feeling like victims of Wall Street, is also cause for caution, I think.

Many of us suspect that when the new Council is seated, there will be attempts to revisit pension 'reform' but I do not feel it is the correct time in our nations financial arena to change much of anything, except POSSIBLY for the two-tier system. I can live with that.

Yes, CalPers is a real problem, but I feel Bank of America, Chase, Citi Group, and the rest of Wall Street helped contribute to problems with CalPers and I feel our city's financials are well enough, with regards to what was recently voted on with pension reform, to be what is best, for the next few years.

Let's wait until we have higher employment, lower foreclosures and greater national and state financial bearings before we do much more changing.

As bad as the problems with San Ramon Canyon are, I continue to watch the problems with Paseo Del Mar in San Pedro as they might just be watching the birth of something akin to a minor version of our Portuguese Bend slide area.

Those good folks are going to have a real devil of a time attempting to reroute the roadbed through any portion of the White Point Nature Preserve and where the monies will come to even attempt that, is something I really don't want to imagine.

No matter what anyone feels about what our city is doing concerning the permanent repairs to San Ramon Canyon and the Terrapaca landslide, we are in a better position today than what I can think of what some former Councils would have placed us, had they been seated during these last few years.

I remember eight years ago when those campaigning for seats on the Council claimed time and time again that previous Councils ignored infrastructure issues.

I feel the fact that many of us pay a Storm Drain User Fee, we might have to take on a Sewer Maintenance Fee, and San Ramon Canyon finally has at least an emergency temporary strategy, almost shovel-ready, adds more reasons to claim that former Councils did, in fact, ignore infrastructure issues.

I hope we will find ALL of our Council members willing to continue to take on infrastructure issues because time marches, the earth keeps moving, and old things just get older.

Please be safe everyday and especially this coming MONDAY. I drove by the orange tank at the Conoco-Phillips refinery and the faces painted on it means it's Halloween time.

Chadwick School is about ready to have their Fall production. They cannot advertise it because of C.U.P guidelines in their local area, but I can.

I'll post more information about it after I get home from 'loading in' the production.

Every production I have seen or helped with, at that school, has been outstanding, FREE, and wonderful!

I'm still watching for the new Environmental Impact Report for Ponte Vista at San Pedro to be published for the public to use to make comment on.

Many of us are leery about the Traffic Study already published and if we all feel that R.P.V. should remain a 'low density' city, then having a 'medium density' project directly across the street from a 600-home HOA and one of the largest businesses in R.P.V. we should all support, demand and comment to keep Ponte Vista a 'low density' project, as well.

The developers of Ponte Vista can march down to L.A. City Hall on Monday and pull permits to build up to 429, single-family, detached houses, on lots of not less than 5,000 square feet. For a project site that is 61.53 acres in size, that makes it a 'low density' opportunity that we all need to recognize.

The 'Proposed Project' will be for 1,135 condominiums and apartments and what the developers don't want you to know is that the 'single-family', detached housing they are planning are still considered to be 'condominiums' on very small lots.

Have a safe and not too chocolaty Halloween!

The Plot Thickens

The following is from an Emailed newsletter from the campaign of Ms. Susan Brooks.

“Mailboxes Stuffed With Slander Against Brooks


It has come to our attention that an unspecified group is illegally(sic) stuffing RPV mailboxes with political hate mail against Susan Brooks. As local HOA President, Susan knows that your safety comes first. Please be aware that these people are creeping around your neighborhood in the middle of the night to illegally tamper with your mailboxes. THIS IS A FEDERAL OFFENSE. Please report this crime to our local Post Office(sic) at 541-0624 or the Lomita Sheriff's Dep't at 539-1661.

The use of these defaming smear tactics threatens the good campaign for the People that Susan has been fostering. If you have had enough with this ruthlessness and are ready for a POSITIVE change in our community, let your voice be heard on November 8th!”

Ms. Brooks’ editor is correct in that mailboxes or other devices used to distribute U.S. Mail can only be used for that purpose.

I have not spoken with Ms. Brooks directly about this matter. I have no idea why the words “unspecified group” were used and I am wondering if she or her supporters have knowledge of who might have distributed whatever they distributed.

The newsletter did not imply that it came from ‘an individual’ so I am thinking somebody in Ms. Brooks’ campaign may be about ready to name which group they think the distribution came from.

Perhaps it is time to demand from Ms. Brooks or her supporters who she thinks distributed the item, or call for reasons why she thinks it is coming from a group.

Somebody is making the allegation that ‘a group’ put out the ‘slanderous’ item, so I feel it is just, correct, and necessary to challenge the Brooks campaign to reveal who they feel that ‘group’ is, or shut up about it.

There are conspiracy theorists in our country who have mentioned things like law enforcement might sometimes engage in baiting a crowd towards violence by having some non-uniformed officers mimic protestors and begin throwing rocks or other things ,just to provide stimulus to crackdown on non-violent protestors.

It might not be inconceivable for some in our city to conger up the notion of an ‘inside job’ to spur sympathy towards Ms. Brook, by distributing something that really is slanderous towards Susan Brooks. I have no knowledge that something like that happened. but because we have heard nothing from the Books camp about who they think the slander-providing ‘group’ is, it can remain reasonable to wonder.

I have it on some pretty personal knowledge that one of Ms. Brooks’ supporters is someone who I wish to never deal with again. I would hope and encourage Ms. Brooks to avoid any further association with that person, lest she be tethered to some pretty foul, racist and bigoted words, if you get my drift. But that is a different story, or post.

Ms. Brooks, what ‘group’ do you or your campaign supporters feel distributed the item?

It's Dirty Tricks...But NOT From Me!

APPARENTLY, several sources have confided with me that there was a "six-page" document placed overnight into some mailboxes on "the east side" that state some very negative things about Ms. Susan Brooks, one of the seven active candidates for our City Council.

I have not seen the purported document nor do I have knowledge of who may have received the document. I would however, be very interested in reading it.

A couple of names of some folks have been offered to me as a possible source, but I probably will never see any confirmation about who may have written it.

As for my 'alibi' for last night, I had a 7:00 AM casting call at Travel Town to participate as a 'fake film crew member' for an AFI student thesis film titled, "The Date".

That call ended early enough for me to get home and take a too short nap to be ready for my second casting call, in Long Beach.

My 5:00 PM call was for a feature film shoot titled, "Ugly Shoes" and I was a 'finalist' to win a contest as part of the script, having the ugliest shoes.

I chose my 'Darryl Iyckt' drunk character and 'he' was recorded doing what he did for the shoot, which ended at about 8:30 PM.

Now folks might think I would have had lots of time during the rest of the night to do dirty tricks, but REST was foremost on my mind after two casting calls in a single day.

After I had a late dinner (I didn't know until last night that cheap tacos at Del Taco are three for a dollar on Tuesday evenings!) I plowed through a bunch of Emails for role submits and then I went to bed and didn't wake up until the alarm went off at 6:00 AM this morning.

Anyway, I don't need to resort to stuffing mailboxes or anything else, other than this blog, to try and get my ideas out.

Heck, there could be other sets of documents out there against other candidates I still don't know about. I'd be interested in reading any of them, if they also exist.

But I had nothing to do with any 'smear' documents provided against any candidates last night.

If I wanted to smear a particular candidate, I would offer the name of that candidate's supporter who wrote a racist and very bigoted Email, last March, along with absolutely no mention of contempt for that Email, by the candidate.

So, if anyone has a copy of the document, please scan it and Email it to me at mrichards2@hotmail.com. I won't acknowledge where it came from, but I might use a portion of it, IF I find anything really worthwhile to print.

Again, just to remind folks, the main reason I will not support or endorse Susan Brooks for Council is because since this election changes the Council more than when it first met, I believe no previously elected person should sit on the new Council, beginning this December.

Yes, I do have some other issues with Susan, but my first reason is the only reason I can see right now to hope that should folks wish to place ONE conservative onto the new Council, I would ask you to consider Mr. Jerry Duhovic, if you are a mind to vote for a conservative.

Daily Breeze Endorses Duhovic, Emenhiser, Knight

Here is and editorial that appeared in the October 24th edition of The South Bay Daily Breeze.

"A look at the field for RPV council

A big turnover is coming in Rancho Palos Verdes. On Nov. 8, voters elect three new City Council members.

More members are leaving, due to term limits, than staying. But the change isn't significant just because of quantity. The two remaining councilmen are relative newcomers to the panel. Both Brian Campbell and Anthony Misetich are just halfway through their first council terms.

That makes strong connections to the community and city workings even more important among the seven active candidates for the soon-to-open seats. However, while we see the strengths of current candidates and former council members Susan Brooks and Ken Dyda, we feel it's important for the city to look forward, not back. The City Council should be focused on capturing the city's future, not former, glory.

Differences are subtle - if not nonexistent - among all the candidates on issues that have dominated headlines in the past several years. All prize open space, are wary of Marymount College's expansion plans and cite fiscal sanity, public safety and infrastructure as priorities. (We must, however, commend Dyda for his detailed emphasis on preventing Portuguese Bend from becoming "Portuguese Bend Bay.") Civility in the city's dealings with staff and the public has also been a common theme.

But if we must choose, our recommendations go to Dave Emenhiser, Jim Knight and Jerry Duhovic.

Both Emenhiser and Knight would bring to the council long records of cityservice, and both currently serve on the planning commission, a post that assures a strong knowledge of some of the issues most vital to maintaining the character and general plan of Rancho Palos Verdes.

In addition to the planning commission, Emenhiser has also served on the city finance advisory committee and worked with PV Seniors and the Chamber of Commerce. He's well liked and has the backing of every current City Council member. We see in him a good listener who's easy to work with and brings enthusiasm to public service.

Knight's commitment to preserving open space (he has earned the endorsement of the Sierra Club) will be important as Rancho Palos Verdes evolves. We like the level-headed approach he's suggested for relations with city staff, emphasizing a need to balance appropriate compensation with workload and financial constraints, and his repeated intention to re-engage the community to set the city's agenda.

Duhovic's current work for the city comes from a different though important perspective; he is currently vice chair of the finance advisory committee. We like his desire to maximize recreational and youth sports opportunities and his interest in making the most of resources like the nature preserve (with the caveat, of course, that any such moves must be navigated with long-term preservation also in mind). He also displays a good sense for balancing that interest with protecting revenues, noting that right now, for example, there's no rush for improvements at Grandview and Hesse parks.

Two other candidates intrigued us. Eric Alegria's perspective as a newer resident with a potentially long future in the city could be an important one on the council. However, we share the concerns of the some in the community that Alegria hasn't been around quite long enough. As suggested earlier, not every council member need be a lifelong resident or a founder, but at least a year or two seems ideal to be a better informed councilman with a stronger connection to the community. Dora de la Rosa, meanwhile, has provided solid leadership as president of the Peninsula school board, but throughout the campaigning we wish we would have heard a few more solid opinions from her on issues specific to Rancho Palos Verdes.

With such talent in the pool for City Council all around, we look forward to seeing what the future holds for the city. But right now, we believe Emenhiser, Knight and Duhovic are the strongest options to lead Rancho Palos Verdes through whatever comes next.
"

The Candidates and the Palos Verdes Peninsula News

In today's edition of The Palos Verdes Peninsula News (PVN) we all got to learn the answers asked to the seven candidates running for the three seats up for grabs on our City Council on November 8.

There have already been a number of absentee ballots mailed back in, so I guess the PVN is trying to inform potential voters about the candidates and their nearing-the-end-of-campaigning attempts to sway voters who have not yet voted.

PVN asked the same questions to each of the candidates and as repeated throughout too much of the campaign, the vast majority of the answers could have been provided by one person simply replacing a word here or there, without hardly any arguments from or to the candidates.

"The News" started with a bla-bla-bla statement about the founding of the city and then each candidate was asked the following questions:

"Do you think the founding vision of RPV is dying?"

"What development, if any, would you allow in the city?"

"What is the single biggest issue residents have brought to your attention?"

"You're elected to the Council. What's your first priority?"

Most of the answers could have been very easily repeated by me even though I don't really agree with most of the answers given by the candidates.

Where I found some goodness to greatness was from a few candidates who know our city's history better than some of the other candidates.

Of course the vision and General Plan of our city is not dying! I agree with Ken Dyda that when our 'founding fathers' wrote the General Plan and when their nieces and nephews took a second look at the Plan, they all found it to be just about right for our city, for our residents, for our businesses, and for the general welfare of our city.

I applaud those who created the General Plan and then took on the update. They did a good job and another thing they did was to work very hard to make sure future Council members would have a difficult time screwing it up, as proven recently.

Jim Knight knew and still knows that whatever "special interest" Susan Brooks continues to not fully reveal, the General Plan and existing laws and guidelines would have ultimately resulted in disapproval of the lofty plans laid out by The Annenberg Foundation.

And would SOMEBODY please tell Ms. Brooks that the Point Vicente area will never be paved over with a giant parking lot as she seems to try and remind folks that was a 'special interest' she didn't like.

I still like Jerry Duhovic as a good fellow and someone who states he wants the best for our city. I do have to note by some of his answers in the PVN and out on the campaign trail that he sometimes allows for the prospects of more development within our city than most of the other candidates do.

Don't get me wrong about developments, though. I think that mindful, small, and beneficial development within our city that as Ms. Brooks will remind you has been, "Built out 20 years ago" should not be taken as necessarily a bad thing.

I also understand civility and manners as most of the candidates stated they feel there has been a lack of, in recent years, particularly from several now-term-ending members.

I have been called to task several times by these men and I am a big boy who knows that sometimes progress is a messy thing to work very hard for.

When you take a look at the tenure of Steve Wolowicz, Doug Stern and Tom Long, I don't know of any period of time where more progress has been made for the betterment than all, the during the past 8 years and then adding the term of Larry Clark to put the frosting on the cake.

We have the possibility of a very successful Expansion Project at one of the two colleges in our city. We have income continually streaming in from Terranea and after all the issues regarding Long Point over the years, our City Council, along with City Staff and others have provided a fantastic working relationship with a truly wonderful huge business interest in our city.

A few of the candidates stated they really like "The Donald". Other candidates, those having worked more directly with the executives and staff at Trump National, over the past several years, will tell you they may not enjoy "The Donald" but our city governors, staff, and those candidates now view the relationship between our city and Trump National folks, minus "The Donald" to be great and very beneficial to all parties.

No matter how much several candidates wish to trounce all over three Council members leaving their posts, it would be wrong, almost hate-filled, and definitely uncivil to not acknowledge the progress made by hard working caring City Council members.

And the paragraph above was written by someone who has had his runins with Council members and have found some of the issues they supported to not necessarily be in the best interests of all of our residents, in our city. Politics can get messy. If it never does, we would have the Republican side of the U.S. Senate, a do nothing, non-job creating body of 'No's".

Each Council has the obligation to promote and secure our city's General Plan. Those candidates like Ken Dyda, Jerry Duhovic, Dave Emenhiser and Jim Knight have all talked about taking another look at our General Plan to add to it, language regarding the Eastview section of our city, which was annexed into the city in the 1980's. This is really the ONLY area where anything more than just a minor tweaking of our General Plan must be considered, I feel.

I feel strongly that Jim Knight and Dave Emenhiser, both members of our Planning Department, can work well with Brian Campbell and Anthony Misetich to be the four good votes to help keep our General Plan safe, secure and the success it remains today.

I also feel strongly that these four gentlemen will take a generous and concerned look at our city's upcoming border issues concerning the new plans for Ponte Vista at San Pedro.

Since this blog is written for our eastern portion of R.P.V. in mind, I am also very pleased that so many candidates found even more time that candidates in prior elections, coming down and demonstrating interest and resolve to work for the benefit of our side of The Hill.

If you have not voted yet, please consider in the most positive light possible, voting for Jim Knight and Dave Emenhiser to sit on our Council alongside true 'veterans' on our Council, Brian Campbell and Anthony Misetich.

We've got many very important issues to deal with in the coming few years. I don't wish to see one who I refer to as an 'office hopper', one who derides 'special interests' without clearly identifying them, one who WILL make a great Council member in four years or so, one who is an honored founder who can best be more beneficial to all of us as one who is not hemmed in by office to get things done in our city and another candidate who, as good as he is, is still far too conservative for me to vote for, on this coming new Council.

Bits and Pieces 46

A new opportunity to create a video recording of some geographic failures is now at hand and something I wish historians had considered in the early 1950's when the Portuguese Bend hill failures began occurring.

I think it would have been a great historical video that would continue being recorded today had specialized cameras had been set up when the hillside began failing below Crest Road. We all might be able to go onto our city's Web site and watch decades worth of land movement and all the destruction of a neighborhood that began, so long ago.

But wait! Our friends and neighbors in the Paseo Del Mar area of San Pedro may just be at their own beginning of (hopefully) a much, much smaller version of what is now being called "cliff failure".

There is a chance right now, to set up video recording devices to catch the smallest to largest of land movement in the now closed area of Paseo Del Mar, near the White Point Nature Preserve.

Having a recording of that potential cliff failure might help those who seek to curtail land movement in our own Portuguese Bend landslide area.

The small fissures and cracks that began to be observed this past March on one side of the coastal view road in San Pedro have now buckled the roadbed and forced closure of a portion of that road, along with pedestrian traffic, close to the failing cliffside.

All this does not bode well for those 'tourists' who wish to have a leisurely drive along 'the coast' in San Pedro. They may very well, in growing numbers, venture west along 25th. Street until its asphalt becomes Palos Verdes Drive South, in our city.

While I don't know yet what impacts, both positively or negatively that may have, in the coming months and perhaps years, perhaps it is something our city staff members might want to start watching.

I feel some of our businesses might benefit from more visitors. I will miss taking in views along Paseo Del Mar on my way towards Point Fermin.

It will certainly be interesting to see how many venture out to have a nice coastal visit if more negativity comes to the bottom of San Ramon Canyon, prior to its permanent fix.

Old things are moving, in Rancho Palos Verdes.

I was delighted to learn that "Annie's Stand" won't be torn down and discarded, but rather taken apart and stored for possible reconstruction, in our city.

How many of us 'oldsters' living in our city have not been to that comfortable stand at least several times prior to its closing?

I feel very strongly that Annie's Stand reminds all of us of the roots of coastal farming along the coast of what is now Rancho Palos Verdes and we are well to remind ourselves of the history of our area, especially when developers attempt to come in and take more of our history and 'put up a parking lot'.

We are also about to welcome an old San Pedro church into our city.

The old Saint Peter's Episcopal Church, which was moved to Harbor View Cemetery in San Pedro, some time ago, is going to head along Western Avenue and its new home at Green Hills Cemetery, in Rancho Palos Verdes.

There are many San Pedrans who remember 'the old days' when the canneries were open, Todd Shipyard was building and maintaining ships, and the U.S. Navy had a shipyard on Terminal Island.

The 'old days' are long gone, but sometimes it is good to have reminders like Annie's Stand and the Church to remind us of our roots and what it was like to live in the communities of San Pedro and what is now Rancho Palos Verdes.

The more I learn about the Western Avenue Corridor grant that was just awarded to our city, the more I like the idea of working with others in San Pedro to try and make significant changes, as much as we can, to all of the areas along Western Avenue, between P.V. Drive North and 25th. Street.

I hope the San Pedro area is awarded a similar grant to the one just provided to our city. Two grants and ways to pay for all upgrades, without increases in costs to residents, is a good thing, I think.

As a reminder to all, the Western Avenue Task Force was a body of residents from several communities, including R.P.V. that created as much studied set of possibilities for the stretch of Western our city shares with San Pedro.

The main stumbling block to the Task Force's recommendation that Western be built out to three lanes in each direction is that Western is a State Highway and the lanes of a State Highway must be wider than lanes on municipal routes and other types of streets.

In the early 1950's, Western Avenue had a break in it, in Lomita, CA. The road ended at its intersection with Anaheim Street and did not begin again until Pacific Coast Highway.

When that tiny stretch of Western Avenue finally was paved to allow traffic between the Anaheim intersection and the P.C.H. intersection, it became the longest continuous 'Avenue' on the planet.

I have not checked lately to see if Western Avenue still has that distinction.

Western Avenue is continuous between Paseo Del Mar in San Pedro and where it bends around to become Los Feliz Drive at a corner of Griffith Park.

Western Avenue does continue north of Griffith Park in the Burbank area, but who really cares about that?

In my tenure with 'the phone company' my work truck and I have, at times, been at both ends of the continuous portions of Western Avenue and at many addresses along its route.

Rancho Palos Verdes is a great place to live in.

Tonight's Marymount Forum.

I'm beginning this post with some followup to something I wrote about a candidate's remarks from last night's Forum.

I wrote down what Jerry Duhovic actually stated and he and I know both agree some of his words left an imperfect impression on me and probably others.

We talked prior to tonight's Forum and I told Jerry I know for sure he would engage everyone and not necessarily shy away from comments or just smile and walk away with comments he does not agree with.

I am comfortable with Jerry's position and I believe him on this matter. He remains a good guy.

Now for another issue that surfaced prior to tonight's Forum.

I feel it was a mistake for both Dave Emenhiser and Eric Alegria missing tonight's Forum, for whatever reasons.

Both candidates had an open opportunity to use three minutes of opening remarks to clear up and confusions and issues related to their campaigns and this Forum.

I still endorse electing Dave to our City Council even though I feel he should have attended tonight's Forum and I know that had Eric also attended, he would have cleared up things and done a repeat of a great job he did, last night on many questions.

Now to the Forum.

It appeared that I may have been one of the five Democrats or left-of-center attendees in an audience of probably 50-70 persons.

'The usual suspects, me included' made up a sizable number of seat holders all with our minds already made up.

But I will eagerly admit that tonight's Forum was a great event to learn about the candidates and I applaud Dr. Brophy and everyone at Marymount for putting on a classy Forum that was truly open to all.

The five candidates who attended the Forum were Mr. Ken Dyda, Mr. Jim Knight, Ms. Dora de la Rosa, Ms. Susan Brooks and Mr. Jerry Duhovic.

All five did a better job at representing their campaigns better this time I feel, than they have done in the previous Forums, again in my opinion.

There was more clarity in the words coming from the candidates whether I supported their opinions or not and some of the candidates I have chided via previous Forums provided answers I found interesting again, whether I agree with their positions or not.

If I had to make a judgement on who 'won' tonight's Forum, I would give a tie to Jim Knight and Jerry Duhovic. I feel both of them did a more clear job of representing themselves and their positions than the three others, but not by any wide margin, mind you.

The moderator of the Forum asked several questions I found fairly mainstream and repetitive so I am going to write more about several other questions I found more interesting and the responses by the candidates.

A Question was asked as to the candidate's opinion on the recent grant by SCAG to work on the Western Avenue corridor area. This is a grant to our city for $100,000 to have a consultant come in and provide studies and review as to how the areas within R.P.V. along Western Avenue be improved in various ways.

I was pleased that the candidates appeared to make sound opinions on this matter. I will get to where I believe the "East Side" or our city is, further down this post.

I think comments from candidates mentioning that the Chamber of Commerce on "The Hill" should work with business owners along Western Avenue more, but I don't know how many of the candidates know about these businesses being part of the San Pedro and Peninsula C. of C. already.

My question I wrote for this Forum was also picked and I wrote it in such a way as to learn how much the candidates really know about this issue.

"Should our Council lobby to have a Paramedic Squad (unit) placed at either Station 53 or Station 83, in R.P.V.?

All five candidates considered that our Council has little more than a lobby effort with Los Angeles County and there are many factors that determine where Paramedic Squad truck are placed.

Susan Brooks correctly stated that both Station 53 and Station 83 have a Paramedic. This is a true statement in that the Engines in both Stations have a Paramedic assigned to each Engine on a 24/7 basis.

However, there is more to the question that was not mentioned by any of the candidates that might be better for our residents to learn.

While it is true we have a Paramedic on our Engines, the question was written to establish the candidate's knowledge and response to having a Paramedic Squad at either Station and a Paramedic Squad has far greater equipment and options to better serve our residents than any one single Paramedic on a Fire Engine can offer.

Paramedic Squads offer more rescue resources than any single Fire Engine has, by design.

When someone on the 'real' East Side of R.P.V. dials 911 for an injury or illness, a Paramedic assigned to Engine 83 heads for the address along with a Paramedic Squad from Station 6, located in Lomita, Ca. If Squad 6 is on a call, a Paramedic Squad from places like Carson or even Lakewood might meet the call.

Squad 6 is also the primary Paramedic unit for the areas of unincorporated Los Angeles County near the hospital which is surrounded by San Pedro/city of L.A.

In essence, folks in Miraleste, Eastview and most of the north side of Rolling Hills Estates and Lomita share one Paramedic Squad with folks in parts of unincorporated County land near San Pedro.

If you live on what I feel is the "South" side of R.P.V. and you call 911, your primary Paramedic Squad is located near the Peninsula Center with County Fire Station 106.

The area near Marymount College, along with much of the areas along Palos Verdes Drive South in our city receive the Paramedic Squad coming from Crenshaw and through the Crest Road gates of the city of Rolling Hills.

Station 106 is closer to Marymount College than Paramedic Squad 6 is to the Rolling Hills Riviera section of R.P.V.

I am satisfied with the answers coming from all five candidates to my question but I do hope everyone learns where their primary Paramedic Squad comes from so they can help me and other to lobby for a true Paramedic Squad coming to Station 83 or Station 53, sooner than later.

A very good question was asked and the moderator actually allowed it to go forward that concerned the parking situations at Marymount. BRAVO!!!

For this question about what should be done to lessen the problems with on-street parking by students attending Marymount College, we FINALLY got a differing of opinions by all five candidates and that was very refreshing and none of them were bad in any way, I feel.

Susan Brooks began the answering by suggesting that cars should park on the currently unimproved areas of dirt on Marymount's campus. That certainly sounded reasonable to me and I hope others. She was also the first to mention some sort of decal for students or perhaps residents, in the area.

Jerry Duhovic echoed Susan's thoughts but added that such parking should only be temporary until Marymount officials made the required additions to parking on its campus.

Ken Dyda mentioned that Marymount needs to have its parking phase done by September, 2012, which is true but goes against Marymount's request to have the phasing of its Expansion Project elongated by a factor of 2-1/2 times, out to 20 years, instead of eight.

Jim Knight was straightforward with his statement that ALL parking associated with Marymount College must be accomplished on Marymount's property.

Dora de la Rosa brought up her experiences with traffic around schools and suggested that students, faculty, staff and others associated with Marymount College be provided with decals that needed to be on the vehicles and that decaled vehicles parking on public roads should be subject to citations by either Marymount Security of public law enforcement, perhaps.

The last question asked to the candidates revolved around what would be their very first issue they would work on when joining the Council.

Of all five candidates, Susan Brooks was the only candidate to have a straightforward clear answer to this question that also did not involve any cliche. She stated firmly that she would work to end the "One Hour Rule".

Those of you who don't know about that rule also appear to join at least one other candidate who seems to also not know what that rule is and who is it applied to.

So now onto; Where is the East side of R.P.V.?

For me, I feel the East side of our city includes just the Miraleste area and the Eastview area.

I have a position that is you can see a good portion of Catalina Island from you property and it is NOT in Miraleste, you live on the "South" side of R.P.V. a city that seems to only have a "West, East and South" side. I think the R.P.V. residents who live near PenHi are part of the "West" side of R.P.V. joining many others who have views of the South Bay (Torrance to Malibu) and parts of downtown L.A.

It is my opinion, based on the fact that I first came to this area and the house I currently live in 1955, that the areas with views of P.V. Drive South, Catalina Island, Marymount College, Terranea, Trump National, Santa Barbara Island, Pointe Vicente, and other coastal views are along the "South" side of R.P.V.

When I round the bend along P.V. Drive East and first view the straight stretch of roadway that fronts Marymount College, I leave the "East" side and enter the "South" side of our city.

Susan Brooks can certainly claim she lives anywhere she wishes to claim, but my much longer experiences within this area point to my thoughts about where the "East", "West" and "South" parts of our city, may be more accurate.

I've got 56 years, five months and until midnight, 10 days of crossing over the threshold of my home outside of my mom's womb, here in what is now Rancho Palos Verdes. I think that counts for something.

Forum For Candidates at Marymount College

Tonight, the fourth in a series of Forums for candidates for the three City Council seats on the November 8, 2011 election, is scheduled to be held.

If you have not attended a prior Forum, please make sure you attend this one.

If you have attended any of the other three Forums, it might also be a good idea to attend this one to see if different questions are asked and what the answers to those questions will come from the candidates who have confirmed would attend.

Candidate, Mr. Eric Alegria has stated he would not attend this Forum but after learning his views on many issues, last night I encouraged him to reconsider.

Whatever surfaced at the beginning of his campaign that might have made folks feel he was 'in the pocket' of anyone supporting or even representing Marymount College is not VERY moot.

At last night's League of Women Voters Forum, when Eric was asked whether Marymount's enrollment should be allowed to rise to 1,200 students, he was probably the most emphatic with is quick answer of "NO".

Mr. Alegria brought up his concerns with the ongoing problems revolving around on-street parking and other issues regarding struggles by Marymount officials to comply with all of the guidelines with the Conditional Use Permits.

While I cannot endorse Mr. Alegria's campaign, I was very impressed with his comments on this and some other matters, during that Forum.

The 'chirps' by 'little birds' have grown to a deafening volume of late, regarding the Forum at Marymount College.

Heck, this might be the most interesting of the four scheduled Forums and I don't want anyone to miss out on whatever may come up.

More will be revealed to you by your attendance at the Forum.

I am still making sure the batteries on my video camera are at full and I am still wishing to create a video for the candidates and even Marymount's use, so we all can make sure of what was said and how everything occurs, tonight.

I was able to hand a DVD from the first Forum held, to Mr. Alegria and what the candidates did with their copies are their business, at this moment. I have not found any editing of any of that video that needs any questioning or does not appear to be altered against any candidate and that is something we can be pleased about.

I did not find any real need to consider any of the video I took needing to be dealt with on this blog.

Last night's Forum will be available for viewing I believe, this coming Wednesday. Please check your CATV schedule or our city's Web site for more information about future broadcasts.

I hope to see each and every one of you at Marymount College, later today.

The Forum is scheduled to begin at 7:00 PM and parking is available on Marymount's campus.

Last Night's Forum

The League of Women Voters sponsored a Forum for candidates in the upcoming City Council election.

I made an error about Mr. Alegria's participation and he appeared at that Forum but he told me he would not be at the Marymount Forum for candidates, but more about Eric and Marymount, further down the post.

Most of the evening's offerings were basic repeats from much of what was said at the previous two Forum, but some clarity was brought out by some candidates and one (former) major issues was absent...THANK YOU CANDIDATES!

The Annenberg Project was not mentioned last night and that allowed for other items to be talked about instead of that now-very-dead issue.

I counted 11 questions being asked from cards submitted by attendees. Most of the questions dealt with issues already discussed but there were a couple of new questions that candidates offered their opinions on.

When questions regarding our city's staff came up, including the prospect of unionizing staff members, there were some views I found quite different that one might expect coming from some candidates.

Ms. Susan Brooks stated she would welcome an 'association' or watching staff members join and 'association'. It appears that she had no intention of stating that staff members may 'unionize' or join a 'union'. Good try and changing the words, but whether you call it an 'association' or not, it still can be more easily known as a 'union'.

I wonder what more conservative supporters of Ms. Brooks might think if they simply change her word 'association' to 'union' and realize that Susan supports staff workers joining a union?

Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought many on the more conservative spectrum of politics do not like unions and unionization of workers.

One of my questions finally got asked about Marymount College, in a Forum environment.

"What is your opinion on whether Marymount College should be allowed to increase its student enrollment to 1,200 students?"

I'll write what I remember from each candidate, to this question.

Mr. Jim Knight stated that he didn't believe they 'needed' the increase. As an 8-year member of our Planning Commission and one of the majority of the candidates to remind folks that Marymount College officials may not be living to the guidelines of the current Conditional Use Permits granted by our city and Marymount's inability to adhere to the guidelines previously established for off-campus parking, he was just one of the candidates who seemed to regard Marymount's current problems in some reasoning to object to the allowance or granting of more students at the campus.

A general thought prevailed that since Marymount representatives have not done what they have been asked to do with parking issues and other things, those representatives should not be granted other requests until they demonstrate positive results to the things already on their plates.

Ms. Susan Brooks also commented that the C.U.P. is not being followed with parking issues and other things, but then she offered what I can only call a political statement from a candidate who really doesn't want to answer the question, specifically.

When I wrote down what I though Ms. Brooks offered as no real answer to the question, I made sure to ask her directly whether she favors allowing Marymount's student enrollment to increase to 1,200 students. So, I asked her directly, after the Forum ended.

Susan Brooks told me that since she might serve on the Council and the issue would be brought before the new Council, she would not offer her opinion one way or another and she did not say 'yes' or 'no' to the question.

Well, there you go folks with a 'politician' not being willing to offer a 'yes' or 'no' answer. But don't call out Susan just right yet. She was not the only candidate that avoided a direct answer to a question. But Susan was the only candidate who did not offer a true answer, one way or another to the 1,200-student question.

Mr. Dave Emenhiser felt that "Twelve Hundred Fifty" students were too many at the campus.

OOPS! I have no idea where Dave came up with the extra 50 students, but I feel a need to mention that one of 'my' candidates made an error, in fairness to the other candidates.

Mr. Eric Alegria also joined in the comments from just about every other candidate that Marymount officials have not dealt with the on-street parking issues adequately and he offered a very smart and simple response: "keep enrollment as it is."

Ms. Dora de la Rosa offered no set opinion, in my mind. She commented that the 'processes' should be done better and if I remember correctly, she opined that she wanted more study and possibly a commission or other panel looking into the issues. More about this too, down the post.

Mr. Jerry Duhovic Did not sound all that objectionable to allowing Marymount College's increase in enrollment to 1,200-students SOME DAY in the future, but certainly not now.

He also illustrated Marymount's lack of adherences to the C.U.P. and other things and that he would not be supportive of Marymount's request until he was assured that steps already mandated towards Marymount were accomplished in a more positive and complete manner.

Although I feel Marymount might never find the parking and other improvements necessary to allow a greater number of students attending the campus, I think Jerry's opinions are fine because he offered that he know what he needs to see before he might positively consider any change to a greater student body enrollment.

Mr. Ken Dyda included that we all must 'be careful' with Marymount's current Conditional Use Permits and whether Marymount is currently following them and/or will, in the future. He stated that he does not feel any increase in enrollment at Marymount's main campus should be raised anytime soon. I personally doubt he or any other candidate acknowledging the issues regarding the current C.U.P. issues, would approve any increase in student enrollment while they served on our Council.

The last question asked was whether the candidate supported or opposed passage of 'Measure M', the new parcel tax of the School District.

Two candidates I spoke to after the Forum had different views on whether that question should have been asked to candidates running for City Council in one of the four cities using the PVPUSD schools.

I don't know if, during a Forum for candidates to the School Board, questions were asked or appropriate for those candidates to opine on who should or should not be elected to each city's Council and why.

It is with that thought that I agree with Susan Brooks in that I felt the question was inappropriate for our Council Forum candidates.

Also, since City Voters in the Eastview area of R.P.V. cannot vote for School Board candidates or Measures for the PVPUSD schools, that question reminds folks there are still quite a few disenfranchised residents of the area who provide the children that keep several schools within the PVPUSD open, rather than being shuttered and having more "Hill" kids seeking longer commutes to more crowded classrooms.

The question about Measure M was answered by Dora de la Rosa.

Do I even need to write what she feels should be done?

Jerry Duhovic and most others were more than quite concerned that the new measure would replace two taxes that have 'sunsets' applied and be replaced with a tax that contains no sunset clause. He does not seem impressed with the measure and he offered little support, if any, for passage.

Ken Dyda and Jim Knight do not support passage of Measure M and they both spoke well and short about the measure.

Dave Emenhiser and Eric Alegria both spoke well and short but both of them support passage of the measure.

Susan Brooks again appeared to take the 'mediator' in her and some added 'politician' in her when she basically did not answer the question directly.

Naturally she opined about the lack of a sunset clause before she added a possible increase to the tax via a cost-of-living portion but during the Forum and when I asked her directly about it, she provided neither a 'yes' or 'no' to the questions posed.

Since I, along with those of us who send kids to keep some PVPUSD schools open truly have no voice on the matter because we have no vote but if all Eastview parents of kids attending PVPUSD schools pulled their kids out and sent them to L.A. Unified or private schools, just imagine the turmoil that would be created in the PVPUSD schools when the funds provided to them by 'our' kids attending 'their' schools, would vanish. That is a nightmare nobody wants to have.

Last night's Forum was the third of four major Forums of the seven active candidates for the three seats on our City Council.

The Forum also demonstration some greater crystalization in my mind about all the candidates.

I really, really, really, I mean REALLY wish I could endorse Mr. Eric Alegria for one of the seats.

Last night on the questions he knew reasonable information about, he was clear, to the point and offered his direct views. I does appear he made need to study our General Plan more and learn more about some very major issues he seemed to fumble with, last night.

Eric will make a great City Council member someday. He truly will, if he stays in R.P.V.

Mr. Jim Knight remains solid in his facts and opinions and as an 8-year member of the Planning Commission I know he would make an active and very informed member of our City Council.

Mr. Dave Emenhiser, along with Jim have my full endorsement even though I cringe a bit when Dave starts talking about taxation on a more conservative base than I would like. Dave is also a solid veteran of service to our community and his knowledge of finances and his leadership in missions with other agencies make him a sure bet that he will provide all of our residents and businesses in our city with the leadership and governance we need today and tomorrow.

Mr. Jerry Duhovic is still a great fellow and he remains far too conservative in his opinions for me to endorse. He is well spoken and knowledgeable about our city.

His statement that rather than doing something else, he would rather smile and walk away finds me troubled that he might try to ignore those he disagrees with, smiling all the way, but without really interacting in the best manner I would like to find in a Councilman.

NOTE* If you think I am 'bashing' another conservative you just have no clue how Brian Campbell and I get into it more than a few times and how we both respect each other's views even though we don't necessarily agree with each other.

If Mr. Ken Dyda gets elected to the Council, that is fine with me and I would support him as he takes a seat on the Council and work with him to provide what he would like to see from our community.

In becoming more crystallized about all the candidates, I am now even more crystallized in sadly, more negative ways towards two candidates.

Jerry Duhovic mentioned VERY WELL that he is NOT A POLITICIAN!. But it appears that two of Jerry's associates on the ballot for Council membership don't appear to be able to make that claim and remain totally honest.

The following are again, my opinions based on what I have read, seen and heard since the election cycle began and during the time all of the candidates filed for office.

Folks, it is clear to me that Ms. Dora de la Rosa may be a career politician, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes we need politicians but in her case, I think she might want to work to become Superintendent of Schools or something County or State wide.

She continues to call for studies, commissions, meetings, and more administrative things rather than providing real examples of actions she would take on city matters

Perhaps she does this because for the last 8 years she has been so involved with school issues she has done little preparation in knowing and learning what really goes on in OUR city.

When asked where she sees R.P.V. being in 10 years I wrote my impression that she had 'no set position' and that is a position she seems to have on other matters related to the governance and workings within Rancho Palos Verdes.

Ms. de la Rosa also mentioned 'rebuilding trust and respect on the Council'. Politics is a messy business. If you don't know that and don't know what has gone on for the last 10 years or so in our city and with our Councils, then I feel you are ill-informed.

A candidate other than Ms. de la Rosa reminded attendees that one of our former Council members brought his attorney to Council meetings. It just so happens that that Council member was the most conservative member serving at that time and it did not appear that the other Council members had fear enough to make them feel they had to bring their own attorneys into city matters.

It is just my opinion but I feel Ms. de la Rosa is seeking to gain a Council seat as a stepping stone towards 'higher' elective office and it appears that during the previous Forum, her words may have indicated as much.

At the previous Forum Ms. de la Rosa opined that since she was School Board President over a District with more residents impacted by her that what would be found as a member of our City Council, she basically admitted, again in my opinion, that she views being an R.P.V. City Council member as a 'step down'.

If she were to get elected to a second office seat, how long might she use her 'two offices' election as a springboard toward some other elected office?

Don't we have plenty of harsh words for termed out elected officials who try to get elected straight away, to another elected office. How is Ms. Dora de la Rosa different in that regard, truly?

Ah, Ms. Susan Brooks. At previous Forums Ms. Brooks talked about the "Special Interest Projects" adopted by the current Council and perhaps, prior Council. She stated both then and now that during each Forum, she would reveal with "Special Projects" she was talking about.

Well, Ms. Brooks, you didn't mention individual "Special Projects" last night or during the other Forums you spoke too little about them, so just what are those "Special Projects" specifically.

Surely as a mediator, trained in how to negotiate and speak, Ms. Brooks should be able to, with little to no effort, ring off the "Special Projects" she started talking about.

Of course readers know Ms. Brooks is far too conservative for me to endorse and I find her use of 'association' rather than 'union' to be particularly unpleasant allowing for the idea that she just may feel our residents aren't smart enough to recognize that she basically supports a unionization for staff but afraid of using anything 'union' to offend her supporters.

Watch politicians and listen to them carefully. They speak differently than the five other candidates for our City Council, I feel.

Do any of you remember Mr. Ross Perot? Of course you do. He was the Presidential candidate who would list all the problems in our country and then suggest ways of TALKING about solutions rather than actively promoting real solutions.

We have lots of major issues to deal with in Rancho Palos Verdes.

Now is NOT the time to bash the Council membership that is termed out or the abilities of the two remaining members.

Along with every candidate who seeks election to our Council, I have been what some would call a 'victim' when dealing with some Council members.

GROW UP, CERTAIN CANDIDATES! This is Rancho Palos Verdes and politics is sometimes a dirty business. If you can't take the heat, rightly or wrongly, get away from the fire pit. Heck, even I know this and I'll never run for elective office.

Two Forums, One Chance To Ask THE QUESTIONS

On Wednesday night, October 12, 2011, the League of Women Voters is sponsoring a Forum for candidates for the three seats opening up on our City Council.

The Forum is scheduled to begin at Hesse Park at 7:00 PM.

This Forum will be most likely be the last chance to ask the collected candidates the questions that have been avoided in the two previous Forums and should show divisions growing between the candidates, which is something needed for voters to make the best informed choices possible.

Here are the questions you won't hear at the Marymount Forum on Thursday night:

What is your opinion on the request by officials at Marymount College to lengthen the time periods for construction of The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project from its current 8 year phasing to a new 20-year time limit?

What are your opinions on the request made by Marymount College officials to increase the student body population at Marymount's R.P.V. site to 1,200 students?

I know the answers I am looking for and I have a pretty good idea of which candidates would like the answers I am looking for and which candidates will offer answers that leave doors open to different interpretations and make the issues more gray than black and white.

Some ancillary questions to ask yourself when pondering what answers may come from each candidate include, but are certainly not limited to the following:

What have Marymount officials done recently to earn the ability to increase student population and allow the time periods to be elongated?

Have Marymount officials done all they could with regards to on street parking situations they have been criticized for, recently?

After Marymount officials spent about 7 million dollars redeveloping other facilities for the college in San Pedro, how much money has been spent on the approved Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project since its approval date?

On Thursday evening, beginning at 7:00 PM Marymount College officials will sponsor a Forum for candidates for the Council election.

It has previously been published that Mr. Eric Alegria may not be in attendance for that Forum as he has other responsibilities to attend to.

Six other candidates have confirmed attendance at that Forum. However, Ms. Cynthia Smith, the candidate who works for the college or is associated with a company involved with the college is not one of the confirmed candidates, at this point.

Marymount officials put out an Email stating who the moderator will be and the qualifications of that person who lives in.....Pasadena.

In that Email, there was also a section of areas that might be considered to have questions coming from.

In that section there was not one word regarding anything revolving around Marymount College or its existence in our community.

I hope somebody brings the ability to show the Forum live on our city's cable channel or allow a recording of it to be played on that channel or on our city's Web site.

The Email also contains mention of the prospect of a candidate being able to ask another candidate or candidates a direct question.

If the moderator is as well respected as his published credentials state, he probably shouldn't allow this to happen, in my opinion.

But it might be one heck of a Forum to not miss.