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.
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?
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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment