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.