East Rancho Palos Verdes

South San Pedro and South East RPV andGets The PIT!

2012-02-08T16:51:00.000-08:00

Larger view of proposed Tunnel route from Carson to Royal Palms Beach.

More localized map of proposed route.

The Clearwater Program's Master Facilities Plan and the Draft Environmental Impact Report and E.I.S. was delivered via U.S. Mail all over the area, today.

Of the four plans that have been considered for the route of the Outfall System and the secondary Outfall Shaft, the Recommended Project includes an Outfall Shaft located at the base of the cliff at Royal Palms Beach, near where Western Avenue ends at its intersection with Paseo Del Mar, in San Pedro.

With the drilling of a multi-hundred foot deep outfall shaft, thousands of truckloads of dirt and debris will have to travel through San Pedro and through the intersection of Western Avenue and 25Th Street.

The comment period has begun for the E.I.R. and everyone is eligible and welcome to submit written and also oral comments to the report.

The Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County has selected the least expensive route for the new Outfall Tunnel, yet it will be the most disruptive to the most number of residents in both San Pedro and many portions of Rancho Palos Verdes, I strongly feel.

There are two options that has the small Outfall Tunnel dug on Terminal Island, closer to freeway traffic for trucks and not close to any residential units. The two options are the two most expensive to construct.

The third option, the second least costly has the Outfall Shaft dug on the parking lot below the Korean Bell, along Paseo Del Mar as it intersects Gaffey Street, in San Pedro.

The option of having dump trucks travel between the shaft site at Royal Palms and Gaffey Street has been severely limited because a section of Paseo Del Mar is....gone!

The comment period lasts (initially) 60 days between February 10, 2012 and April 10, 2002. With the landslide causing sever traffic restrictions in the area at this time, I am hopeful that everyone who makes comments will first demand an extension of the comment period so that more information about the repair of a major route will be considered.

I will publish more information about the Clearwater Program and the Joint Outfall System (JOS) in the near future.

Bits and Pieces 54

2012-02-01T12:11:00.000-08:00

Lots of bits and pieces, but I'll try to keep it short(er).

From our friends at RPV Listserver.

Mark your calendars! The next EDCO sponsored paper/document shredding day for RPV residents is on Saturday, April 14, 2012 from 9 am to noon at RPV City Hall parking area. Similar to last year, electronics waste will also be collected at that time. This event is open and free to EDCO and UWS residential customers. You will receive more information about this event in the upcoming months.

Thank You.

RPV Public Works

Terri and I used the last opportunity to rid ourselves of unwanted documents and I applaud our City Council, City Staff and especially EDCO for providing the service I hope all or our residents choose to use.

Terrace Cinemas

FEBRUARY FACEBOOK PROMO: Come in any day in February 2012 and receive a FREE CANDY with your purchase of any drink! Tell the concession cashier that you would "like to sweeten the deal" to redeem this offer. This offer is not valid with any other coupons or promotions. Valid any day in February 2012.

Terri and I availed ourselves of last month's free drink, with the purchase of popcorn and we were the first to use that opportunity.

I hope many others used the January promotion and I hope lots and lots of folks attend screenings at our very own Terrace Cinemas, here in Rancho Palos Verdes.

The ticket prices beat every other theatre and folks 'better' than 55 years of age still pay no more than $5 per ticket for non-3D showings. Wednesdays for 'us' is $4 and for everyone wanting to see 2D movies, Tuesdays AND Thursdays continue the fantastic $4 per ticket, anytime opportunities.

The Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Ponte Vista at San Pedro project is still not listed on the L.A. City Planning Department's Web site.

I continue to be hopeful that it will come out soon. We all need to take a look at it and demand an extension of the comment period.

Now that the two sessions by our City Council members are finished, dealing with the goals for our city, it is time to get working more on those goals.

It remains impressive that the repair of San Ramon Canyon is so important to so many people. Let's get that area fixed ASAP!

Bits and Pieces 53

2012-01-10T16:28:00.000-08:00

Happy New Year!

The new Miss California is Natalie Ann Pack, who grew up in.............do you really need a hint?

Of course not!

I didn't watch the contest and had no idea who was entered. The Pack family is probably pretty happy with the news.

I have no real excuse for not publishing posts for almost a month. Some might think I was 'burned out' with dealing with the election.

I was very busy with my 'hobby' in the last month of 2011, more busy than I expected to me, but happy to have taken the opportunities.

"Luck" has finally premiered. I don't appear on that show until the last two episodes of its second season. I might be all over the big screen and small screen in 2013.

I did another 'shoot' for a Spike T.V. series that is currently running. My 'bit' won't appear until the show's fourth season and they are just about to premiere the shows third season.

Dave and Pamela are continuing there 'here for a bit, gone for a while, back for a bit' time with our side of the family. They came from Abu Dubai in late December and now are on a cruise in the Carribean, then back for a bit before heading to Reno/Tahoe, the Park City, all before finally jetting away in early February.

Their around the world honeymoon adventures can be viewed at:

http://pamelaanddavertw.blogspot.com/

Now, some news dealing with eastern Rancho Palos Verdes and perhaps, other parts of our city.

Did you know the new Miss California grew up in Rancho Palos Verdes? See, I am now giving you the answer you probably already knew.

Asahi Grill is at least temporarily closed. One sign posted stated the eatery would have some 'remodeling' done.

I have not been to the L.A. Fitness/Bally's since January 1. I need to check it out to see if my registration moved or if I have to decide to join the new organization.

It probably did not matter that last night's fire was not mentioned by our Listserver. The fire broke out about the time of the last power outage last night and burned brush a little east of the area where the much larger fire was. No homes were damaged and it appears nobody got hurt, which is a very good thing.

Mayor Pro Tem Brian Campbell did keep those on his Email list informed and I want to thank him for that.

I have not tried this next bit out, but I read about it on the Facebook Page of the Terrace Theater in R.P.V. I guess if you order popcorn and you say "Popcorn make (you) thirsty" you just might get a free soft drink similar to the size of the popcorn you buy. Heck that is a GREAT thing for an already GREAT movie theater.

If this is true, I'll give another shout out to this wonderful business right here in eastern Rancho Palos Verdes.

I didn't attend the first City Council meeting of the year. It was scheduled for the P.V. I.C. at 6:00 P.M. on January 3 and the primary focus for the meeting were setting the goals for 2012. I will wait to see some of the highlights of the meeting, if there are any.

You do know that our city has its own television channel. It's Channel 33 on the cable system. You can also watch all the meetings you can possibly stand on our city's Web site, too.

I used to have to climb poles and set up and work underground while working for 'the phone company'. Back then I hated to work in the rain for more reasons than I shall type, here.

But now that rain is a memory, especially in late fall and winter, I don't seem to miss it, other than to consider what could happen without enough of it.

I think our water supplies got very well healed in the past few years and I don't think we will see water rationing any time soon.

But as a brush fire burning on January 9, 2012 indicates, we need to be understanding of what might be somewhere on or over the horizon.

I hope everyone has a great 2010. Please remember all the resolutions you made about this year. I have kept and will keep all of mine including not operation a leather-covered bulldozer this year.

I'll try to not procrastinate in writing on this blog and I hope to put out posts more regularly than once every months, or thereabouts.

Bits and Pieces 52

2011-12-06T23:20:00.000-08:00

Open Space Hazard Zoning is here on the east side of our city, particularly in the Miraleste, Rolling Hills Riviera, Mira Costa Terrace and possibly the Mira Vista area, as well.

City staff have been working on issues concerning residents living in the designated zoning area wishing to do improvements on their property and the steps and costs necessary to have the work get approved.

Right now, property owners within the O.S.H.Z. area usually need to have a zoning change if they wish to improve the portion of their property that lies within the boundaries of the zone.

Currently, owners can apply for a zoning change for no more than 30 of their property inside the zone and they must pay the costs to have that done.

Staff is working on moving the length out to up to 100 feet and they are also working on plans to bring to the Planning Commission a way for property owners, have a portion of the property within the zone re designated, to be done by having the fees waived.

Currently and until action is taken early next year, property owners who want to make improvements should probably wait until the City Council has voted on the changes so they can waive the fees now imposed and not have to pay to get the limit lines on their property changed to have their space removed from being within the Open Space Hazard Zone.

If you think your property is within the area and you want more information, please contact the Planning Department.

There are a number of residents with the Rolling Hills Riviera and Mira Costa Terrace areas that are affected and I still need to look at the maps for the Mira Vista area to see if that neighborhood has any of that type of zoning.

Did you like how I led off this post by not mentioning the retiring City Council members and the new ones that just took over?

It was like three lions left their den, two new lions entered along with one lioness that provided more smirks and quizzical looks that we have see for some time.

Both Tom Long and Susan Brooks offered books to the new makeup of the council.

Tom included a book about some negativity towards conservatives and their politics and a copy of The U.S. Constitution. He did this after what could be described as some negative words about conservatism.

Susan offered a book about finances for communities.

I'm not going to go into some of the other things Councilwoman Brooks talked about in her inaugural remarks but I must admit there were more than a few folks looking around in disbelief at what she talked about and what could surely be offered as 'three commercials'.

What I will write is that I have opened a new file that will contain items I may use in future posts. My first thought about most of her remarks was that the word "zany" came to mind, more than once.

I was pleasingly impressed with the meeting held by the new council makeup.

As it was natural and supposed to happen, Mr. Anthony Misetich is now Mayor Anthony Misetich and that is a good thing, for me at least.

Also as expected and natural, Councilman Brian Campbell is now Mayor Pro Tem Brian Campbell and that is also as it should be.

Councilwoman Brooks brought forth some proposals for changes in the way council meetings are conducted and eliminating the One Hour Rule.

All five members did a fair, balanced and honest job at dealing with the One Hour Rule, the length of council meetings and whether applause from the gallery would be allowed.

The council voted unanimously to drop the One Hour Rule completely and to end council meetings by 11:00 PM.

There was a split vote on whether applause would be allowed at council meetings. The majority (Brooks, Campbell and Misetich) voted to allow limited applause and that the Mayor has the authority to determine what is appropriate or not.

Councilmembers Knight and Duhovic desented, both for good reasons, I feel. But what it also demonstrated was our first vote where a more progressive member sided with a more conservative on a particular vote. This is more encouraging to me and I hope to see more of that become the majority, as time goes by.

Doug Stern served on the council for twelve years.

Stefan Wolowicz, I believe, served 10 years.

Tom Long served 8 years.

All three men served our city better than very well, in my opinion.

We became and remain a better city because of the work of these three fine gentlemen.

It is now time to look forward and hope their efforts aren't going to become memories because of regression by a majority on the new council.

Remember, a certain 'jolly old elf' is going to be in our area the next few evenings. If you would like him to stop by your house, please call the Lomita Sheriff's Station to find out where Mr. Claus will be over the next three evenings.

Goodbye Bally's, Hello L.A. Fitness

2011-12-04T16:13:00.000-08:00

On December 1, 2011, the Bally's Total Fitness facility on Western Avenue in Rancho Palos Verdes became part of the LA Fitness family.

Terri and I took to the pools there earlier today and we noticed right away that something was afoot.

When we went to have our membership cards scanned, there was no scanner and it looked like there was only one person working at the site.

Later I found more workers there but they seemed very reluctant to provide much information.

Below is a link to the Web site for the new LA Fitness location:

https://www.lafitness.com/Pages/clubhome.aspx?clubid=773

It looks like The Australian Swim School is still operating at the facility as well as the physical therapy business, on the site.

The most I could garner out of one of the workers at the check in table was that my account was good for the remainder of the month and that I may have to have some changes made to it, but I hope that doesn't come to pass.

Right now, I was told that work is being done to convert Bally's membership cards to LA Fitness membership cards.

Terri and I have been members of Bally's at that location, for many years. It is close to our house and the pools and equipment really were beneficial for my recovery from the hip surgeries I have had.

What was a pleasant surprise to me is that the facility didn't close its doors and lock out members, when the changeover occurred. So many time folks will try for their regular visit to their gym only to find it closed down, out of business, with not even a 'thank you and goodbye' taped to the door.

I don't think I was paying attention to any Email that may have come to me about the changeover and even though I haven't shed my old Emails for a couple of weeks, I think I saw an address from Bally's that I must have 'lost' or can't find.

So, the changeover happened. It is fairly stark in the place on a Sunday afternoon. All the products in the coolers are gone and it looks like the minions of trainers attempting to secure more members are nowhere in sight, today.

The pools continue to be not as clean as we would like them to be, but they are all currently available and the temperature of the larger pool is about 80 degrees, with the smaller pool at about 90 degrees. The big jacuzzi-type pool is hot and the dry sauna also continues to offer folks who sweat exiting it.

See folks, things do change on the east side of Rancho Palos Verdes.

Bits and Pieces 51

2011-12-01T15:44:00.001-08:00

This Tuesday, our city will have a new Mayor, new Mayor Pro Tem and three new City Council members.

I hope and expect to watch Mr. Anthony Misetich sworn in as Mayor and Mr. Brian Campbell to be elected and then sworn in as Mayor Pro Tem.

I hope this happens, but I can't be sure it will. Boy, do I wish I could be more sure.

As of the end of the meeting on Tuesday, there will not be three 'former' Mayors sitting on the Council, but there will be one. Also, that former Mayor will have more time on the Council than all other members.

I want everyone to remember what Anthony Misetich and Brian Campbell have been doing these past two years and understand that, while I don't necessarily agree with them on many issues, I feel they have earned leadership positions and should be the next Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem.

Now, I am going to get myself in some really, truly HOT WATER with the following.

MIGHT, and I really mean MIGHT there be something going on at Miraleste Intermediate School and the lack of proper heating, there?

As you may know, my wife Terri works in the school's library and today she finally felt she 'had enough' of being cold in the library where the heat has not been turned on.

Terri went so far as calling the District's office to complain.

What she was told MIGHT be shocking and really should be investigated.

Here is my hypothesis, but I have no proof and it is simply MY conjecture and not from any other person, including Terri:

MIGHT it be that heat throughout at least parts of the Miraleste I.S. campus be turned off for reasons other than what one MIGHT expect?

MIGHT an official at either the campus or the School District be attempting to 'save money' or earn some other type of credit by keeping the heat off, in at least parts of the school?

I would like an investigation. I want District monitors to sit in the library, classrooms, the gymnasium, T.A.B. and other rooms, with thermometers, to study what the temperatures are inside the rooms, on days in the not too distant future are forecasted to be 'cool' to 'cold' days.

I think parents and others should be provided the information about the environment where students are being instructed or having other learning being conducted.

It may take monitors at other school campuses to create a study to determine which schools have heat turned on, or not and which campuses provide the most comfortable setting possible, for students to do their best, in those schools.

I HOPE nobody within any school or the District is attempting to gain favors for themselves or others if it turns out that adequate heat is not being provided.

The wind last night did some minor 'trimming' of our jacaranda tree. I think more 'trimming' will occur tonight.

A potted ficus was blown over and one of the four periaktoi blew over and onto the fence, also with the wind. Thankfully for me, the side that hit the fence was covered with luan and not one of the two sides covered with muslin.

Please remain safe, warm, cozy and comfortable during these windy times. The Low Pressure area is pretty far south, as viewed on a map and it is expected that there will be strong winds coming from a more northern area, as opposed to where last night's winds came from.

A certain 'right jolly old elf' is coming to R.P.V. and the Lomita Sheriff's Station is helping him with his travels through our city. It is wonderful for us to hear joy and laughter from the younger residents living on our block. For so many years, there were no 'little ones' on our block and there were some gaps of time that were measured in years and years, where the 'little ones' were not around.

There are now reasons for the 'elf in the red suit' stopping by our block. Welcome, Santa!

Bits and Pieces 50

2011-11-21T13:00:00.001-08:00

Bits and pieces of Paseo Del Mar in San Pedro got real huge as they fell off the cliff, yesterday.

With a very wet season possibly in our future, it looks like the city of Los Angeles and the city of Rancho Palos Verdes have common problems in multiple sites that will only cost all of us more, much more.

Rain is forecasted for Thanksgiving day and while we watch repair work along 'our' slide area along Palos Verdes Drive South, we can all only stand, sit and watch more land, mud and roadway movement continues.

For reasons that my all get placed back to human interaction and development in several areas, Mother Earth reminds us that she is truly in control of many human actions.

The city of Los Angeles could not afford the necessary repair costs associated with San Ramon Canyon and the Terrapaca landslide long before last March when engineers began monitoring small fissures and other cracks appearing and growing along Paseo Del Mar, in San Pedro.

Now, looking at the photo of Paseo Del Mar, we can clearly see that the money L.A. did not have to work on San Ramon Canyon and 25Th Street, certainly won't be there to deal with 'their' new road loss.

Here again and now more than ever, I want to plug The Corner Store on the corner of 37Th Street and Barbara, in San Pedro.

That small business has taken a horrific business toll because 'tourists' who might visit that store/cafe/meeting place while they drove along the San Pedro coast on Paseo Del Mar, now can't make that drive.

While there might be some 'looky-loos' visiting the area, all the 'regulars' know that business is down, way down, at a community place that is a real treasure, many of us think.

So, if you want to be a 'looky-loo' at the carnage of that landslide, please access it via the easterly way so you can treat yourself to some food and/or beverage at The Corner Store.

O.K., now I might be going to get some eastern Rancho Palos Verdes residents very mad at me.

Just recently, the PVPUSD School Board once again rejected the idea of stadium lighting being provided to Palos Verdes Peninsula High School (PenHi).

Many residents of "The Hill" remain outraged for various reasons that stadium lighting can't be placed at the high schools so that there could be real "Friday Night Lights" for football games and other night activities. No 'home' games under the lights for PenHi or Palos Verdes High School.

But wait, wait! There happens to be a football stadium, with lights, on "The Hill". I know this is true because I can see the bright glow from my house when they are turned on.

As I hope you all know, Miraleste Intermediate School was first built to be what it was for many years; Miraleste High School.

Might some of you be getting my drift?

I know there would be lots of 'bugs' to work out and there would need to be some studies done and many opinions collected, but what if both big P.V. high schools could play their 'home games' under the lights at Miraleste?

Traffic would be horrible and I take that into consideration because I live on a popular access route between P.V. Drive East and Western Avenue.

Then there is the noise, glare, and many other issues.

But we all know that there are high school students living on 'our' side of The Hill that would love to attend their high school home games 'under the lights', so 'our' side has stakeholders with students, parents and the case of Miraleste residents, taxpayers who fund P.V. schools.

The lights are already there. The Palos Verdes Peninsula School District owns the school.

Perhaps 'home' games would require attendees to gather at either PenHi or P.V. High to be shuttle bused to Miraleste, but that could be arranged and it might also help fund P.V. Transit more.

I am quite sure that local R.P.V. eateries along Western Avenue and even Francesco's in Miraleste Plaza would not mind more business from fans attending 'home' games at Miraleste.

That's good business for R.P.V., isn't it?

The parking lot at Miraleste I.S. was built for high school parking needs.

If there are residents on 'The Hill' that really want and 'need' Friday Night Lights for PenHi, it should also make sense that many of those same folks would want the same for P.V. High.

One solution that should be studied and would be less expensive and help local R.P.V. businesses just might be having both big high schools having their home games played at Miraleste.

What do think about that?

The huge Christmas Tree that signals you are at the Christmas Tree lot on the corner of 9Th Street and Western Avenue in San Pedro, is currently laying on its trailer, at the lot.

The pumpkin patch is long gone.

I hope everyone has a safe, joyous, and festive Thanksgiving Day.

Bits and Pieces 49

2011-11-15T22:55:00.000-08:00

It appears that the race has officially begun between the communities of Rancho Palos Verdes and San Pedro to determine which area has the fastest moving landslide.

Sadly in this race, nobody will win.

At the latest report, San Pedro's White Point landslide is moving at about 1/2 inch a day but it is more dramatic than 'ours' because the new land movement appears much more dramatic when viewing pieces falling down the cliff and into the Pacific Ocean.

The old access road down the cliff has been demolished and now giant portions of Paseo Del Mar have crumpled into pieces and begun their slides towards memories.

A new chain-link fence has been put up around the San Pedro slide area because I guess folks are so interested in getting up close and personal with their land movement while most of us just enjoy a walk through 'ours'.

If and when the landslide in San Pedro ends there are going to have to be some pretty serious discussions about the possibilities of rerouting a portion of the roadway through a portion of the White Point Nature Preserve.

That won't be an easy task because of all the agencies, rights of way and other issues that will involve a slew of governmental and environmental agencies, including the Palos Verdes Land Conservancy.

One of the real victims of the San Pedro landslide is The Corner Store on the corner of 37Th Street and Barbara.

There are some good folks who run that store which is a real hub of information and also a local gathering spot for local residents and folks who enjoy strolls along the coastline.

There are some great sandwiches and other food items at that store, quite a few different varieties of sodas and beer and some sundries that most folks don't normally see in a local store.

The Corner Store is a warm place to meet and eat and if you are of a mind to head down to the San Pedro coastline, please have a visit to The Corner Store and enjoy a beverage, some food or maybe some local crafts to shop for.

That store has taken a very hard financial hit because it is now not as easy to get to, but it is very much worth the trip. If you don't believe me, ask Terri. She loves the place!

What I am already fearing that might come to pass with our new City Council got a bit of a preview earlier this evening, at the City Council meeting.

It is known by this blogger that there will be some 'revisiting' of decisions made by the current City Council members and that what may have been settled for the benefit or our residents, may not be settled at all.

This is disturbing for me because I feel progress is better than regress and any revisiting and changing of things by the new Council, to what has been decided by the current Council will only take time out of progressing forward, in my view.

While I requested that any decision on approving the staff bonuses I feel staff has most certainly earned be held until the new Council is seated, that went as I suspected it would.

What I wanted to do is allow the new Council to verify the current Council's position on Staff bonuses and I am pretty sure the new Council would have done so. To me this would have also provided some evidence that the new Council makeup would offer to staff sort of an olive branch before I suspect they will head straight into revisiting and re deciding pension reform or some other staff compensation issue.

Our city has enough issues on its plate that the new Council makeup can work very hard and long on the issues before it, rather than trying to recreate the wheel, which I don't believe is bent or broken.

I am one who strongly believes that Mayor Tom Long, former Mayor Stefan Wolowicz and former Mayor Doug Stern provided great leadership through some very difficult times in our city and we are all better off for their good governance than some of the voters in the last election thought.

We are in a pretty good financial position and our city made it through the financial storms of 2008-2011+so far, better than many other cities and I place a hefty amount of thanks on our governors for working with staff to have our city and its residents in a much better place that where we could have been.

I have not always agreed with some of the decisions made by the three outgoing Council members, but I don't think anyone can intelligently argue that they didn't have our backs covered during some pretty tough times.

I hope these fine gentlemen come back to speak at Council meetings when the regressiveness I fear will be happening for far too long with the new Council, starts pulling our city down.

With the election of Mr. Jerry Duhovic and Mr. Jim Knight, there is now an opening on our city's Planning Commission and Finance Advisory Committee.

Interested persons are urged to contact city staff to make their wishes known.

I am not qualified to sit on either of those two bodies but I hope whoever does, is well qualified and since we have so many great residents in RPV, we have a wealth of knowledge pool we can put up against any other city.

I don't know if former Mayor Ken Dyda wants to volunteer, but I think he has already demonstrated his greatness with city planning so perhaps he wants to deal with financial matters on our Finance Advisory Committee.

The F.A.C. might also be someplace where Mr. Eric Alegria might want to seek a seat on.

Next year, we all get to vote on who will represent us in the new 66Th Assembly District.

Right now, the Daily Breeze has an article about three men who have at least announced some interest in the seat.

There is one Democrat and two Republicans apparently interested, at this point. One of the Republicans was mentioned as a young Tea Party member and the other Republican is none other than Craig Huey, who lost to Janice Hahn, for a seat in the House of Representatives.

Note to self...watch to see if Ms. Dora de la Rosa might be interested in running.

I still don't have any word on when the new Environmental Impact Report for Ponte Vista at San Pedro will be available to the public. The item was not on the agenda during the latest meeting of the Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council, which has the property in their area.

Increased Government Spending Coming In RPV

2011-11-10T12:03:00.000-08:00

Newly elected RPV Councilwoman Ms. Susan Brooks answered, "Absolutely" when she was asked by a Palos Verdes Peninsula News reporter if the new City Council would revisit pension reform.

That's going to cost time and money, won't it? Sure, there might be some savings down the road, once you add in the costs of changing what has already been decided, but probably not much.

Would revisiting pension reform be just one of the first things the new Council will try to revisit to change what has been adopted by the current Council?

A common thread running through the campaigns of some candidates concerned decisions made more recently by the current City Council.

If some of those decisions are revisited by the new Council makeup, it will certainly require additional costs and staff time.

If the new Council is successful in changing what has already been decided concerning pension reform, might that embolden them to seek changes to other decisions made by the current Council?

It is time for progress forward and not rehashing the past. Let's move on because it will probably be more financially prudent to just do so.

There are those of us in RPV who are demanding transparency in our government and staff so we can learn what is legal to learn and know about all things in our city.

There are those who wish to revisit staff compensation who also want to find full transparency as allowed by law. I don't object to this but I have some 'ideas' that the new Council might attempt to make changes in pension and other compensation before everyone has the opportunity, through transparency, to see what is actually the full facts.

I agree completely with former Mayor Ken Dyda that there is not enough transparency right now.

What I fear is that the discussions and decisions regarding staff compensation will be done before or during the time we are all still trying to learn what is actually the truth.

Transparency first! Then, when we all have the same facts before us, that will be the time to discuss and if necessary, make changes.

As long as there is still no true transparency, it will not be a good idea to decide anything else, in my view and it would then seem to indicate that the new Council will make changes to what has already been decided in a more vindictive way, rather than a rational and well-discussed way.

Since 8:00 PM Tuesday evening, I have been very busy but not busy enough to not have learned a thing or two about what might be in our city's future, whether you feel it is a good thing or a bad thing.

Even before the election, it has been considered that the new Council makeup will be much friendlier to big business than many claim the current Council has been.

It is not inconceivable that the makeup of the Council will allow for even more friendlier associations with and for big businesses.

Perhaps we won't see any more 'problems' with the folks at Trump National having their hedges and other things growing higher than municipal code currently allows.

That might not be a big deal for some, but when code enforcement visits your home and tells you that trimming is required, what will you do when you see what might be allowed for others?

With the election results, I certainly did not get what I was hoping for, but I did get some comfort in the results.

"Councilman Jim Knight" is a really neat moniker and all of us are going to be positively impacted by his governance, wisdom, intelligence and constructive reasoning on all the matters that come before Council. A sometimes quiet demeanor in a very thoughtful man.

"Councilman Jerry Duhovic" is also going to be a neat moniker for this decent and strong man.

While Jerry and I will disagree on much, he has demonstrated great strengths of character and a strong will to serve at his best, on our Council.

Unfortunately for folks like me, we are now back to a 4-1 imbalance towards many leanings, with the new Council makeup.

We all had to deal with a similar situation when the late Dr. Peter Gardiner served as the more conservative member of our Council with what was viewed as four 'liberal' members.

Back in those days it got so bad that lawsuits were filed and a Freedom of Information Act usage created a true storm against the calmer tide of staff and government.

Now, with a 180 degree turnaround, we are going to have to wait and see what unfolds.

The voters have spoken and I think they got two out of three correct. I'll take the 67% and be very pleased it wasn't 100% and work as hard as I can to help RPV progress forward without revisiting what most people was a pretty bad past. (Even though I won't contend the recent past was all that bad.)

The Results!

2011-11-09T00:28:00.000-08:00

I thank all the candidates who put themselves out there in service to all of us in Rancho Palos Verdes and I congratulate Ms. Susan Brooks, Mr. Jerry Duhovic and Mr. Jim Knight.

Candidate	Party	Votes	Percent
SUSAN BROOKS	NP	3,929	20.42
JERRY DUHOVIC	NP	3,398	17.66
JIM KNIGHT	NP	2,731	14.2
DAVE EMENHISER	NP	2,584	13.43
KEN DYDA	NP	2,529	13.15
DORA M DE LA ROSA	NP	2,319	12.05
ERIC ALEGRIA	NP	1,353	7.03
CYNTHIA SMITH	NP	396	2.06

Registration	27,264
Precincts Reporting	20
Total Precincts	20
% Precincts Reporting	100

The voters of RPV have spoken and although I am somewhat sad to be able to watch Dave Emenhiser join the council, I am very happy that we will be able to call Jim, Councilman Knight, in the near future.

I hope all the newly elected members find comfort in working with the future Mayor Anthony Misetich and most likely, Mayor Pro Tem Brian Campbell.

I voted exactly the way I wrote I would, by voting for just two candidates.

I will try to get a breakdown by precincts on the east side to see who did well in our area.

Again, I very much appreciated all of the candidates' concerns for those of us living on the east side of The Hill and they all recognized the importance of our residents and businesses 'over here' and I am waiting to see if 'we' provided more than a normal 11% voter turnout, which is embarrassing.

I also wish to thank the good folks in the Rolling Hills Riviera HOA who helped get the word out about the candidates so 'our' residents could make the most informed votes for whom they chose to vote for.

We may not agree on everything, but we just witnessed yet another victory for our right to vote, which is something so many people on this planet never have the choice to do.

24 Hours Until A Big Change

2011-11-07T20:18:00.000-08:00

At this writing, I think the best possible outcome that will become our next city council would be to see Mayor Anthony Misetich ending the December 6, 2011 city council meeting.

Next to him will be Mayor Pro Tem Brian Campbell and the two of them will welcome Dave Emenhiser, Jim Knight and Jerry Duhovic as members.

Whoever joins Anthony and Brian will make up the biggest change in council history since the council was first seated over 3-1/2 decades ago.

Current Mayor Tom long sent out a recent Email that stated that in some past elections, the membership of the council was not decided until the votes cast on election day made all the difference.

So, even if you think the outcome has already been determined by mailed in ballots, for this election, PLEASE don't decide to skip voting tomorrow.

This is especially true for those of us living in the Eastview area of eastern Rancho Palos Verdes because we only get to vote for who will be joining our city council.

We don't have any vote for PVPUSD Board candidates and we can't vote on Measure M.

What all registered voters in Rancho Palos Verdes have is the opportunity to help decide who your governors are and there are far too many people around the world who do not have those rights which should not be taken for granted or who would willingly 'waste' their votes.

If you have not yet decided who you will vote for, please consider most positively Mr. Jim Knight and Mr. Dave Emenhiser.

If you are still trying to decide whether to vote for Ms. Susan Brooks or Mr. Jerry Duhovic, please positively consider Mr. Jerry Duhovic over voting for Susan.

I never received the multi-page document distributed to some homes in RPV.

But I also never heard from Ms. Susan Brooks anything about whether the allegations in that document are true or false, point by point.

Since I still don't know what most of the document reported, who is to really factually determine whether the items within the document are true and if so, what might that mean about those who support Ms. Brooks' campaign?

Susan Brooks, via an item regarding her candidacy, called those who distributed the document, a 'group', but she never named the 'group' she associates with the distribution.

There is something classic going on here, I feel.

Somebody says or writes something about 'person A'. 'Person A' denies it until more facts reveal that what was said or written is true. Then, 'person A' changes their story to attempt to remain believable. More facts are revealed and then 'person A' finally has to acknowledge the truth or continue to deny something that is true.

In the recent week or so, we have seen something like this from a Presidential candidate, just like we saw with former Presidential candidate John Edwards and even President Clinton.

It is not implausible to imagine someone with a 'history' that may have some negative elements 'buried', trying to discredit those who remind folks of that 'history' rather than facing up and owning the true facts in that 'history'.

I don't feel Susan Brooks has done that effectively with the 'history' purported belonging to her and that is something Jerry Duhovic has any problem with in his 'history'.

If we are going to have a conservative elected to our council, I feel it is best for that new member not have the 'history' similar to Susan's or someone who may have a more checkered past.

If this makes me skeptical, than I plead guilty to not be willing to support a candidate who cannot or will not provide factual evidence that what was purported is, in fact, only fiction.

There have been quite a few 'little birds' willing to 'chirp' to me and those 'chirps' seem to point to the possibilities of greater difficulties in the governance of our city with Susan on our council, rather than Jerry Duhovic.

Now Jerry and I agree to disagree on quite a few things and he might truly wish to see Susan joining Brian, Anthony and him. But I feel that would be problematic to all residents in our city, that's just my opinion.

As for Ms. Dora de la Rosa, I feel she would be a great administrator in the PVPUSD or some other school district....until she runs for another office.

I like Mayor Ken Dyda's ways at looking at problems and working towards solutions. He is a real mentor to others in that capacity and he works hard at knowing how to solve problems and network towards achieving common goals.

But at this time, I feel those wonderful strengths he has provided better serve our residents and city by continuing to do what he has done for many years and assist both staff and council members in a more open and outside elective office.

I hope I am still living in RPV to campaign for and help elect Eric Alegria to our city council. He is a bright gentleman who has provided great services to so many and as an educator, provided some of the most important work a person can provide.

I'd like to campaign for him after his firstborn is walking and he might have the more time necessary to gain 'RPV cred' and be the dad he surely wants to be for his kids.

Seeing what I have seen and knowing what I know, all of our current and most of our former council members need lots and lots of time to do the work for our residents to be the best members possible. Eric will be one of those members, in the future and I wish for him more time to watch his family grow as his experiences involving RPV goes.

Now, how many of you readers can't wait to see how many votes Ms. Cynthia Smith receives.

I won't vote for her because my votes are too important to me to something I think is a waste of a vote. I'd rather use my two votes for the two candidates I feel will provide the best possible council members, as far as I am concerned and leave my third vote alone.

I mentioned all the good qualities that Eric possesses and some of the more negative issues I find revolving with Susan and Dora and she has decided that her third vote will go to Eric.

I mentioned Jerry's good qualities to Terri, too. But she is like me and she won't vote for someone as conservative as Jerry is.

Please vote! Thousands have dies and millions have been maimed, in a great part, to allow you to live where you live and have the remaining freedoms that haven't been taken away, in the last few years.

Honor yourself, your city and your rights to vote for the candidates you wish to vote for.

Bits and Pieces 48

2011-11-04T20:27:00.000-07:00

I apologized to Councilman Brian Campbell for using his viewed Email addresses he provided in error by not listing them in a "Bcc" line on an outgoing Email.

The Email was about Measure M which is a measure dealing with the Palos Verdes Peninsula School District, (PVPUSD).

I used those addresses that one time to create a 'Reply All' Email from me to address a very important issue for those of us paying property taxes in the 'Eastview' area of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes, (RPV).

My main point I wanted to get accross to those Emailed residents who don't live in Eastview is that while 'our' (Eastview living-PVPUSD schools attending) kids mostly attend PVPUSD schools rather than LAUSD schools, their parents and neighbors in Eastview have their portions of education monies collected via property taxes, going into Los Angeles Unified School District coffers and NOT PVPUSD coffers.

It is true and should be stated that Eastview school students attending PVPUSD schools allow for the state of California providing the funding going to PVPUSD schools, but for property tax payers like me, our dollars go into LAUSD because we don't have children attending either district.

Back when annexation of the Eastview area was discussed, some people considered joining either Lomita or San Pedro.

But when the vote for annexation happened (I was not living in the area at that time) the majority of Eastview residents voted to become part of RPV.

At first, being part of RPV did not mean 'our' kids could attend PVPUSD schools. After some years, 'our' kids gained and still have the option, determined by their parents, to attend either district.

I think you already know where the vast majority of 'our' kids attend schools.

But what you know yet other residents on 'The Hill' might not know is that Eastview voters have no right to vote for PVPUSD Board members or are allowed to vote on PVPUSD measures.

What many still can't or won't acknowledge is that since 'we' send 'our' kids to PVPUSD schools in such numbers, schools like Dapplegray Elementary, Miraleste I.S. and Palos Verdes H.S. are open today.

That benefits all parents and students dealing with all PVPUSD schools and all lessening of most overcrowding conditions in those schools, when finances allow for that.

The property tax dollars I pay, while living in my home, have their education portion going to LAUSD when I would much rather prefer that those dollars go to PVPUSD.

I don't get to vote for members of the PVPUSD Board and because I live in Eastview, I will not get to vote for or against Measure M, the subject of Councilman Campbell's mass Email.

I know many current and former members of the PVPUSD school board would love to have our dollars flowing into that district. I suppose they would not mind Eastview voters voting on measures dealing with schools 'our' kids attend, or at least I hope they would not mind.

In our history there were PVPUSD Board members who wished to exclude 'our' kids from attending 'their' schools, but they apparently didn't realize that 'our' impact on 'their' district would be as great as it is now.

We need our tax dollars going to PVPUSD schools because we must have a say in how the schools and district we send so many students to, is run.

We aren't taxed to the correct district and so we have no true representation in Eastview towards PVPUSD.

As just about every reader of this blog knows, there remains two LAUSD campuses within the limits of the Eastview area of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes.

Folks, there is nothing we can possibly do about that, for a very very long time. It will probably come to pass that the upkeep of Dodson Middle School will become so expensive that LAUSD will eventually shut it down.

The Mira Vista neighborhood sees a large majority of students attending Crestwood Street Elementary School coming into and out of RPV, while not residing in any portion of RPV.

Crestwood was my elementary school and its student test scores are nice and high and equal some other PVPUSD elementary schools.

Crestwood has a good campus and the best thing I can hope for is that LAUSD and PVPUSD come to some arrangement to where LAUSD students would be moved to 7Th Street Elementary School, Taper Avenue Elementary, or Park Western Place Elementary School so PVPUSD could take over that site to ease crowding at Dapplegray, Mira Catalina, and/or a few other local PVPUSD elementary schools. This is not implausible.

The 'elephant in the room' is and will continue to be Dodson Middle School.

The Rolling Hills Riviera neighborhood sees up to 600 students bussed into and out of their area of RPV without any real compensation by LAUSD, near that school site.

Neighbors of that school have had to seek parking restrictions in front of their own homes because of Dodson being used to help relieve over crowding at other LAUSD middle schools.

We are now seeing busing to these two schools because of over crowding at other schools even during a lengthening time frame where we are watching student enrollment within LAUSD shrinking.

What I find worse is that Dodson is home to at least one magnet program that sees magnet students being transported into and out of RPV by parents and others who don't live in the nearby area.

Magnet programs are fine by me, but NOT on a school site within the limits of another school district and where the truly vast majority of students attending that school do not come from homes within RPV or the "three" other cities commonly cited as being on 'The Hill'.

Folks, this is not a busing for racial reasons for me and I also attended Rudecinda Floracinda Sepulveda de Dodson Junior High School, where 'Navy kids' also attended and we saw a real 'world view' of students, which is and was not a bad thing at all (sorry Carol).

LAUSD middle schools remain over crowded in Lomita, Wilmington and other areas and I don't think the K-8 monster school is open yet in Wilmington.

My wife is one of the two library aids at Miraleste I.S. This is another reason I would like to see my property tax dollars going to better funding of PVPUSD schools, but that certainly is not the only reason.

Our one block of the street I live on now has six of the six student-age kids attending PVPUSD schools. Our seventh 'little buddy' is not yet old enough for kindergarten. He will go to Dapplegray starting in 2013.

What this illustrates to me and the parents of our block's students is that our tax dollars should go more directly to funding the schools our block's children attend. Our votes should also be used to help better educate all students in the district we send 'our' kids to.

Isn't that what democracy and representative government is all about?

Wow! It's cold! Terri and I saw snow on our local mountains when the clouds cleared up today.

Does this portend a colder and wetter late fall and winter in our community?

I'm no fan of wind and if this cold and wetter weather continues I will be pleased that local fire danger will probably be diminished. But it may also mean that the grasses that will grow tall will become more of a threat when the weather warms to hotness and we get into a long dry spell.

I don't ever wish to view again that terrible glow over the top of San Pedro Hill we all watched, not all that long ago.

Redondo Beach Police have stated they cannot afford to send Santa Claus out this year, to greet kids throughout that city. I hope that is not the case with our Lomita Sheriffs.

I think I will check with the Lomita station to see if there is a fund folks can contribute to to see that what looks to be happening in Redondo Beach doesn't happen to our communities.

Christmas or 'Holiday' shopping has begun, not in Earnest but in stores throughout the area. Whatever you want to call it is fine by me but I hope you consider shops and stores in RPV when looking for gifts for whatever you do or do not celebrate.

And while you are shopping in RPV, please consider dining there, too.

Remember, Coco's is in RPV but Carrow's is not. We have lots of great eateries in our city and now we have four supermarkets here, too.

Tom Long's Latest Email

2011-11-02T23:03:00.001-07:00

I just read Tom Long's latest Email about this election and it is beginning to look repetitive on some of the issues. I would like to see him hammer away at PVP Watch using other issues and seeking comments from the three candidates endorsed by PVP Watch as to their own acceptance or rejection of things PVP Watch stands for.

No matter what anyone says, giving back a 6-1/2% pension contribution and then receiving just a 5% pay increase is NOT an increase. It currently amounts to a loss in a climate where workers are continuing to lose real buying power and opportunities.

I wish Tom would do more illustration that PVP Watch does not watch the Palos Verdes Peninsula.

Throughout their Web history, that group of what I feel are ultra-conservative former government or government-allied workers, have dealt with JUST Rancho Palos Verdes issues and issues related to the PVPUSD.

These senior citizens may have gleaned an education direct and/or indirect pay, pension benefits and other income directly or indirectly from governmental entites, all the while bemoaning and badmouthing governments.

I bet Tom and I would agree that PVP Watch members wish to be the puppet masters of some council members.

I think that should Susan, Dora and/or Jerry wish to 'get away' from any moniker of being under any influence of or by PVP Watch, they should do it now, in public and with a sincere determination to make us all know they are not beholding to any group.

I want all voters to be absolutely sure about this, that the three candidates endorsed by PVP Watch will not be influenced by any puppet masters whether any of believe PVP Watch is such a group or not, or with any other group in our city or beyond.

Unfortunately, Tom's last Email comes to me more like a skipping record rather than any new music that we haven't heard before. Tom can and should do much better, I feel.

When there was what I would call an almost ultra-conservative on our council, the divisiveness created brought lawsuits that cost our city thousands and thousands of dollars along with thousands of hours worked by staff that ultimately came up to be worthless when the attorney associated with that former council member never picked up the boxes of records demanded from our city, as the lawsuit seemingly vanished into thin air.

I don't have all the history on that debacle but I do remember some men who I later found out were prominent members of PVP Watch, being central in the arguments surrounding that episode that cost our city so much and created some very foul issues within our city.

I do think that if folks disagree with Tom Long's Emails, they should write their own Emails or even offer a post on this blog that I will gladly publish.

I never have to agree with a post contributor as long as they meet minimum criteria of being truthful and not hypocritical. Their opinions are their opinions and they have every right to express those opinions, whether I agree with them or not.

There is however, one RPV resident who is NOT WELCOME to post their opinions on this blog. Tom mentioned that individual in one of his Emails.

With that person, I learned that even though only one PVP Watch member has publicly stated some reasonable defamation of 'That Email's" writer, nobody else from PVP Watch or the candidates that group endorses have made any public comment about 'That Email' and they really should.

I have come to learn that the author of "That Email" has been asked to steer clear of PVP Watch, but that does not mean in any way, that group has stated in public any rebuke of the contents of 'That Email'. or its author.

Of this I really don't care how 'busy' any candidate is. I think it should be important enough for all candidates to offer their personal opinions, one way or the other, about the contents of Carol's Email.

Silence is not golden to me, in this regard. Guilt by association is still considered guilt, by some and it remains sickly and sad we have not heard from all of the candidates concerning this issue.

I do not want to see our city tarnished with even a hint that some folk who may think of PVP Watch as a prominent group, will not offer a formal rebuke and condemnation of such writings. I am sure they don't take comments written by Tom Long too kindly.

But I do realize that most of this is probably moot by now. With the attendance voting less than a week away, there are probably close to a majority of ballots already mailed into the County Registrar's office.

In Eastview, our ballots contain only ONE item. All we get to vote on is who will represent us on our city council.

We don't get to vote for new members of the PVPUSD Board and we have absolutely no vote on Measure M.

It is extremely important for everyone with any interest or knowledge of our city's workings to vote in this election but I can see lots of Eastview residents, not voting by mail in balloting, simply avoiding going to the polls. And that is a very bad thing!

At least for the rest of our city, there are three items to vote on.

This election is not going to end as pretty as it should, I suspect.

I do know for a fact that there will be fireworks in the aftermath of this election and that saddens me.

There are those more conservative than I am who are looking forward to bashing outgoing council members and I feel that negative energy would be better used in a more positive manner by working on the future of our city.

At least we probably won't see the rant about a 'wealthy' candidate winning as was stated by one candidate regarding the victor over that candidate by another person.

These remaining several days finds my calendar fairly full of casting calls. I may get a couple more posts written before November 8 and I still encourage anyone to submit their own comments or even a guest post to this blog.

On election eve I am a 'hopeless drunk' and I think I have one more zombie role between now and election day. I am not cast as anything other than my regular curmudgeon self on November 8, so I'll probably head to my elementary alma mater's auditorium about 9:00 AM to vote for Dave Emenhiser and Jim Knight.

I'm still befuddled by today's Daily Breeze news about campaign contributions provided to the seven active candidates.

It is really true that Eric Alegria only received ONE contribution to his campaign by a resident of R.P.V.?

Whey didn't the Daily Breeze report that Susan Brooks and Dora de la Rosa received $1,000 from Trump National Golf Course while both Jerry Duhovic and Dave Emenhiser received their $1,000 from "VH Properties", a Trump-associated entity, in New York? There is a difference, you know. Maybe not much, but not mentioning Emenhiser's contribution is a miss. I still fully endorse Dave and Jim.

There are at least two versions of why staff members ultimately sought union representation. Both seem plausible but I think we need full disclosure from unionizing staff members to get to which version is correct.

One version is that the huge differences in higher level staff compensation compared to the compensation packages offered to lower level staff members is the reason staff members sought unionization.

The other prominent version is a fear that a too-conservative new city council makeup will further erode staff members' compensation packages and opportunities.

It really depends on whether you are a conservative or more progressive on which of the two reasoning are more believable to you.

Good night and thanks for reading!

If You Want To Vote For One Conservative, Vote For Jerry Duhovic

2011-11-02T21:53:00.001-07:00

This post is NOT an endorsement suggesting everyone should vote for Mr. Jerry Duhovic but if you wish to put him onto our council rather than Susan Brooks, and/or Dora de la Rosa, please positively consider Jerry Duhovic.

Jerry is a decent person, yet one who is too conservative for me to vote for and he recognizes that. He certainly does not appear to me to be someone who could be bought or buy a ficcus "hedge" from Trump.

There is one very important thing that all voters should know about where Jerry lives and what he would most likely do, concerning anything at Trump National Golf Course. It is something Dora and Susan are not affected by or potentially restricted by, either.

Jerry lives within 500 feet of the property line of Trump National Golf Course.

As such, he will most probably recuse himself from any vote on any issue regarding anything involving Trump National Golf Course. Jerry has stated that to me and restated that to others.

I agree with Jerry's position on this so I know any contribution made to him by any Trump entity would garner no vote either for or against any vote brought forth concerning Trump National Golf Course. That's just plain honest and correct.

I strongly urge all to vote for Mr. Dave Emenhiser and Mr. Jim Knight.

But since there are three seats open on our new council AND I have written previously that I do not feel any candidate who has already been elected to any office should gain a seat on this new council, it become more realistic that should voters choose to vote for a third candidate, then I feel that Jerry Duhovic would be a much better choice than Susan, Dora, Eric and yes, even Ken Dyda.

I feel there would be the best balance available to all of our residents by having the vastest amounts of experiences demonstrated on our council and having Dave and Jim joining Brian and Anthony will allow someone like Jerry to also fit in the best into the mix.

A new council made of of these five, Anthony, Brian, Dave, Jim and Jerry would bring a much greater depth of 'coverage' in most of the matters we have to deal with, in RPV.

The real estate experiences of Brian's, the business experiences and community sharing we see with Anthony's associations with both RPV and San Pedro will be bolstered quite well by the three other candidates that might join them to create the most effective and balanced council we could have.

Dave Emenhiser has been a educated leader for human resources and he has a record on the Finance Advisory Committee and now our Planning Commission that will offer all our residents and businesses very good representation throughout our city. He has worked in government and for governments so he knows all sides of the aisles, I feel.

Our city needs Jim Knight on the council, probably now more than ever. His vast knowledge of environmental, planning, development, and governmental matters are now so very important as we move forward with issues like San Ramon Canyon, our city's sewer system, Portuguese Bend, our storm drains and other infrastructure issues as well as how we can lead other cities by showing them 'how it is done so very well'.

Jerry Duhovic may add the best balance that no other conservative candidate will offer, now that our council will move from a more 'liberal' status to a more 'conservative' status, compared to every other conservative candidate now running.

Jerry is also an experienced business person. He is currently Vice Chair of our Finanace Advisory Committee.

If folks think Tom Long has been and is continuing to be divisive, I can assure you that Jerry will not bring any sort of divisiveness that I strongly suspect Susan Brooks would join the new council with, in the form of baggage she seems to have been carrying since she lost her races for Congress.

Jerry, along with Dave Emenhiser both understand that when our council was considering 'pension reform' the Finance Advisory Committee should have been given the go ahead by the council to study and then ADVISE the council. Both men have expressed dissatisfaction with our council that the Finance Advisory Committee was not asked to ADVISE council members.

Jerry also shares a strong issue with me and others that ALL of our residents need to see transparency with information from our city's staff that good folks like Ken Dyda has also been calling for.

I think Jerry and I will have better discussions about our differences related to pension reform and the unionization of our staff than I suspect I would have with Susan Brooks or even Dora de la Rosa. I know we are going to disagree, but Jerry and I have already had several decent discussions where we can disagree, but remain respectful of each other.

Sadly, neither Susan or Dora has sought to discuss many issues with me that we may agree or disagree with.

I feel it would be the far worst case scenario should Dora, Susan and Jerry all get elected, this November.

It would be a still very bad election night ending to see Susan and Jerry get elected.

But seeing Dave, Jim and Jerry taking seats this December may be the best outcome for everyone in our city. All three have demonstrated more respect and offered the most intelligent and thoughtful answers to questions in all three Forums, than I have recorded for the other candidates, even though I might not like their answers, personally.

If you are already prepared to vote for Dave and Jim, I think you are making the correct choices.

If you still wish to vote for a third candidate I can think of lots of reasons to NOT VOTE for Susan, Dora or Eric (yet).

I think that IF you decide to vote for a third candidate and you are considering between Jerry Duhovic and Ken Dyda, you have a very difficult decision to make, but if you still want that third ink-a-vote dot placed somewhere, you may want to consider the wonderfulness of an honored mentor that Ken Dyda is and should remain as you might simply place your dot by Jerry's name.

Again, I still am not willing to place a third mark on my ballot, but since I still have somewhat of a Constitution to live by, we all have the right to make the choices we feel our best.

Both Jerry and I find it a bit strange that the article about campaign contributions made by a Trump organization in The Daily Breeze did not mention a similar campaign contribution made to Dave Emenhiser by "VH Properties", the same check-writing group that provided Jerry and Dave with the $1,000 contributions. I hope it was just an error by the newspaper's staff.

Also I too find Tom Long's interpretation of the positions taken by Jerry and another candidate about the pension plan issues. Workers actually were voted a give-back by our council with the city-paid 6-1/2% portion of the pension plan that workers now must pay for.

The gain was a 5% increase in pay as an offset for a 6-1/2% 'contribution' that the city was ending and which the individual workers would now have to pay for.

No matter what anyone says, a 6-1/2% giveback for a 5% increase in pay, is a loss, not a gain.

I am sure we will get to revisit pension reform with the new council. I would much rather state my points to Anthony, Brian, Dave, Jim and Jerry than I would to a council membership that includes Susan and/or Dora.

No Susan, It's About Being Bought!

2011-11-02T11:07:00.000-07:00

I begin this post with a quote from candidate Ms. Susan Brook which appears in today's South Bay Daily Breeze concerning her receiving a $1,000 campaign contribution from Trump National Golf Club:

"I have absolutely no problem taking money from Donald Trump. What is $1,000 supposed to buy me? A hedge, a ficus hedge? No," said Brooks, referring to a dispute over golf course shrubs.

Susan, it's not about what you can buy but what Trump might be trying to buy from you.

It has been obvious and proven over and over again that large entities use campaign contributions to, at least, gain more access to an elected official over access the elected official might provide to others.

In Tom Long's Emails today he offered facts about last night's council meeting where the Trump organization took back a proposal for something it sought approval for and Tom may be suggesting that the Trump organization will bring the issue back to the new council, after perhaps one or more of the up to four candidates it contributed $1,000 each to sit on the new council, beginning in December.

Tom also stated that the contributions made by Trump National Golf Course to Susan, and Dora de la Rosa were legal and they certainly are.

Two other candidates, Jerry Duhovic and Dave Emenhiser both received $1,000 contributions from "VH Properties" based in New York and that may also be from a Trump organization.

Only Susan and Dora received $1,000 contributions from "Trump National Golf Course".

It now seems not surprising whatsoever that the same twoTrump National Golf Course folks donated money to are the very same two candidates Palos Verdes Peninsula Watch, (PVP Watch) is endorsing.

PVP Watch also is endorsing Jerry Duhovic, who received a check similar in size to one received by Dave Emenhiser.

Now come to find out that Trump National Golf Course, PVP Watch and 'That Email' writer all endorse the same three candidates without any of those same candidates publicly stating any rebuke to the person who wrote 'That Email' mentioned in a recent mass Email from Tom Long.

Has racism and bigotry become a 'special interest', too? I sure hope it is not. But without hearing or reading any rebuke from PVP Watch and the three candidates Carol mentioned in her letter to the editor, I think it is shameful and I feel our residents are better served by those who would not even offer any condemnation to anyone who would write such a racist note.

What folks might also not know about Susan is that she has offered statements related to her loss to Jane Harman that suggests that Harmon may have won, in part, because she is wealthy or had a wealthy campaign war chest.

So when The Daily Breeze just released campaign funds information that show that Susan Brooks now has the wealthiest campaign war chest gathered from all of the seven active candidates, it seems odd that Susan would have made any negative comment about a candidate who has the most money to finance their campaign.

According to the information released today in The Daily Breeze, candidate Ms. Dora de la Rosa spent $13,783 on a campaign that raised "$9,704.

What might and should have anyone wondering is where did the $4,079 difference come from? Credit Cards?

Mr. Jerry Duhovic loaned his campaign just about half of what has been spent on his campaign. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that but had he not loaned his campaign the funds, it appears he would be the third lowest fundraiser among the candidates, only besting the two candidates who, records indicate, received no loans to their campaigns, de la Rosa and Knight.

I also found very alarming is the paragraph in the newspaper that candidate Eric Alegria received all but one campaign contribution from outside Rancho Palos Verdes. I think when Eric runs again he will be mindful that the bulk of campaign contributions for a city council seat in R.P.V. should come from residents and business within Rancho Palos Verdes.

Did you read that, Jerry Duhovic, Susan Brooks and the rest of the candidates? I hope so.

Ms. Brooks, Trump National Golf Course did not contribute a grand to your campaign just so you could buy a hedge or "ficcus hedge" from them. They may have provided you with the contribution to 'buy' them a favorable vote should you gain a seat on our council. I am surprised you seemingly don't get that, with you previous campaigns and your one term on our council. Well, maybe you did get it, but decided to offer something completely ridiculous as a response. That seems something akin to when you were asked what was the one question you wanted to be asked during the earlier part of your campaign but wasn't asked.

If I remember what you said in your response during a Forum to that question, it had something to do with not being asked out on a date. Oh yea, I have an audio recording of that, don't I.?

Tom Long's Most Recent Email

2011-10-30T23:58:00.000-07:00

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

2011-10-29T23:54:00.000-07:00

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

2011-10-29T23:32:00.001-07:00

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!

2011-10-26T17:23:00.000-07:00

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

2011-10-24T09:43:00.000-07:00

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

2011-10-20T13:37:00.000-07:00

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

2011-10-18T14:33:00.000-07:00

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.

2011-10-13T21:37:00.000-07:00

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

2011-10-13T12:17:00.000-07:00

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

2011-10-13T09:40:00.000-07:00

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

2011-10-11T23:50:00.000-07:00

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.

Bits and Pieces 45

2011-10-11T22:07:00.000-07:00

This post begins with an admission that I may have been incorrect since 2007 about whether the address I currently reside at is within or outside the area assessed for the R.P.V. Storm Drain User Fee.

I had thought back then, that our house was outside the area where voting took place, two time, regarding the establishment of the Storm Drain User Fee.

At this time I have written to our city seeking guidance as to whether our house should be assessed the User Fee that appears in the "DIRECT ASSESSMENTS" section of the property tax bill, recently received.

It looks more ominous than ever that city of Los Angeles Transportation funds will head towards the repairs needed for Paseo Del Mar in San Pedro rather than being saved and spent to work on that city's portion of the permanent repair of the San Ramon Canyon area.

HOWEVER, this is not really a good time to speak or write harshly of the real problems many people are now facing, along the San Pedro coastline.

There is a new high school annex that will open next year less than one mile from the fissures now growing along Paseo Del Mar and transportation issues involving residents of The Palisades area of San Pedro along with all involved with the John M. and Muriel Olguin Annex of San Pedro High School are going to face impacts not dissimilar to what many of us faced when sinkholes appeared along Western Avenue.

L.A. City transportation dollars, already tight, may simply vanish before any expenses that L.A. may incur, dealing with their portion of the San Ramon Canyon fix.

But I hope there is someone now in Washington D.C. who can really help with both major issues.

When Congresswoman Janice Hahn was recently elected, she brought to Congress a much better set of facts, opinions and ideas regarding the San Ramon Canyon issues because as the City Councilwoman for San Pedro, she and her city staff worked long hours dealing with border issues with our city, including San Ramon Canyon.

There may be little time for her to help get both projects funded, but I think we all need to provide encouragement to her and her staff in that we hope that all of us can work with her and with some help from our current Congressman, who sadly may now only be willing to ignore us. But hope we must!

Another reason why the failure of the roadbed along Paseo Del Mar is bad is because when 'tourists' from everywhere now wish to take a local coastal drive, their options of two directions has recently been cut by one and that one is along the Rancho Palos Verdes coastline.

In fact, now pedestrians wishing to walk just about cliffside along Paseo Del Mar must now detour through a portion of the White Point Nature Preserve.

Ouch! IF the city of L.A. wished to provide a temporary or even a permanent detour around their new slide area by involving a significant portion of the White Point Nature Preserves land, that is going to take some real doing, some long time periods and studies that will take time, effort and lots and lots of money.

I really wish and hope for the best outcomes possible for both San Ramon Canyon and Paseo Del Mar but it is going to take work by many folks on both problems, unfortunately at the same time.

Good fortune to all of us.

It now appears that the next time I will be on network television will be in a Public Service Announcement (PSA) that was recorded this past Sunday.

"Stand Up To Cancer" was shot using 'regular' folks who have either have or had to deal directly with Cancer or those affected by family members who had to deal with cancer.

There were at least 7 individual scenes shots and at least part of me appears in "The French Quarter Restaurant" scene and "The Coffee Bean and Tea Leaf" scene. I am a background/extra person so there may be no close or even middle shot of me.

Throughout the PSA some very well known V.I.P.s super stars, notable persons volunteered to be part of the PSA whether you will recognize them or not. Many of them did what most of us did, only used as backgrounds to others who are voiced in the PSA.

I think if you try to spot or guess some of the big name stars that appear in the PSA, you won't have a very good chance finding them all. I was extremely impressed by some of the biggest names in entertainment, fashion and other fields who came in on a Sunday and did just what the rest of us did for absolutely no recognition on camera.

To the you-know-who's I 'crossed paths' with and did other scenes with, thank you. I am not more impressed with you than I might have been earlier. We all done good!

Anyway, the PSA will begin as part of the first World Series Game. Major League Baseball is a huge sponsor of the organization that worked to produce the PSA and many other sponsors lent their hands and efforts to get the huge PSA done in just one day.

My guess is that the PSA will be shown throughout the World Series and probably beyond it.

I Got It Really Wrong!

2011-10-11T15:21:00.000-07:00

I 'oopsed' really big and it took me about four years to finally get it correct.

I had originally thought that my address was outside the area for the R.P.V. Storm Drain User Fee assessment.

For all this time until now, I opined that I couldn't support or vote on a fee that I didn't benefit from and that others would have to pay, in our city.

I know the first vote was taken by mailed ballots and the results showed an every too slightly approval of the fee, so a second vote was taken.

I don't think I received a mailed ballot, but perhaps I did. Had I received the ballot and still considered that I was not a part of the area, I would have not voted. I don't vote when there is only one candidate for that office or there is only one way to vote on some type of measure.

Anyway, I was also informed that the second vote was held during a General Election.

Back then, had that also been on my ballot and had I still thought I was not living within the fee area, I would have not voted either way or perhaps I would have voted 'no' because I do not feel it is correct to receive a benefit without being charged a fee others in our city were going to be charged.

This also means I probably didn't take as good of a look at the small print of the property tax bills I have paid on the property I live at, since 1998. My bad, there, too.

When I took a good look at the property tax bill I usually only look at the total amount owed and the two payments, I found the fee in the "Direct Assessment" portion of the bill.

I think I did a fairly good job in straightening out my error that I gave myself, before hooping and hollering.

I've owed the fee. I have paid the assessment and I am certainly not all that unhappy that I found out how incorrect I was.

I do believe that if I am going to receive a benefit others in our city have to pay for, I should have to pay for it, too. I guess that is just too 'progressive' for some in our city.

I think that since I have paid the Storm Drain User Fee I now can deal better with all prospects with any discussions about a city Sewer maintenance levy, fee, assessment or tax.

I do think the maintenance of our city's owned sewer system is very important and I will make more sure whether I might fall into the realm of a resident who could be subject to such fee.

What all this means may amount to nothing since so few R.P.V. residents actually read this blog.

I don't mind though. Writers write, no matter who necessarily reads what they write.

I REALLY DO APPRECIATE EVERY SINGLE ONE OF MY REGULAR READERS AND EACH AND EVERY 'VISITING' READER OF ANY POST ON THIS BLOG.

Mayor Tom Long's Email Blast And More From Mayor Long

2011-10-11T09:18:00.000-07:00

This is the Email blast sent out by Mayor Tom Long regarding the candidates in the upcoming Council Election on November 8, 2011.

Naturally, I will opine on some of the content in the Mayor's Email and you are also welcome to.

"From: tomlong@palosverdes.com

Subject: RPV Council Election November 2011

Message:

October 9, 2011

Dear RPV Residents:

On Tuesday November 8th RPV residents will vote to select 3 new councilmembers to replace Steve Wolowicz, Doug Stern and myself. There are 8 candidates, 7 of whom have been actively campaigning. I have posted connections to the candidates’ webpages here http://www.palosverdes.com/tomlong/index.cfm?go=websites
and answers to my questions here http://www.palosverdes.com/tomlong/index.cfm?go=election2011 RPV TV (Channel 33 on Cox and 38 on Verizon) will be running broadcasts of city council candidate debates every day except Friday at 8 p.m. and school board candidate debates at 10 p.m. also every day except Friday. This election may be among the most important in the city’s history.

Over the last 8 years that Steve, Doug and I have been on council some important changes have been made. The city obtained grant monies that funded the acquisition of the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve, establishing 2 square miles—15% of the city’s land area--as open space in perpetuity. City revenues have increased from about $1 per resident per day to about $1.30. Most of the added revenue has been devoted to increase spending to restore decayed infrastructure that the city had neglected for decades. The council specifically decided to devote all of the new revenues from the Terranea resort to capital improvement projects rather than to the city’s operating budget. We are on the brink of obtaining a $9.4 million grant toward the repair of San Ramon canyon where the city and its staff outdid other applications from much larger agencies. We can also begin to plan for other civic improvements as well if we stay on course. All of this has happened with one of the smallest
city payrolls and employee headcounts and, until last week, without a city employees’ union—unlike most cities.

I am confident that the three candidates I endorse, Eric Alegria, Dave Emenhiser and Jim Knight will keep us on the constructive path the city chose 8 years ago with the 2003 re-election of Doug Stern and the election of Steve Wolowicz and me. Both Doug Stern and Steve Wolowicz have endorsed both Dave Emenhiser and Jim Knight as well. Dave and Jim both have considerable experience serving the city. Dave is a communications executive and a current planning commissioner and also previously chaired the city’s finance committee. Dave is an exceptionally skilled consensus builder. Jim is a retired real estate professional and has been a planning commissioner for 8 years. Jim is exceptionally intelligent and detail oriented. Currently I am the only former planning commissioner on the council. The city has almost always had former planning commissioners on council. Eric is a health care executive. Eric is new to the city but has experience with other city governments and non-profits and is a state commissioner such that he can bring a valuable and different perspective to governing our city. I have seen that Eric is a quick study on the issues facing the city. Our current city manager had not lived in the area before she was hired and yet the perspective she has given us has been very helpful. Many residents of the city moved here relatively recently and deserve a voice as well. Eric can provide that voice.

I am less confident that the 5 candidates I do not endorse will stay on a constructive path and I want to explain why. Unlike most voters I personally know all but one of the candidates and have had an opportunity to learn about their backgrounds and views. I address the candidates I do not endorse in alphabetical order below. Scroll down after my name if you are interested in these thoughts.

Tom Long
Mayor, Rancho Palos Verdes

Susan Brooks is a former one-term councilmember from about a decade ago. She spent much of that term running for Congress. She is a charismatic public speaker, president of her HOA, and has been very involved in local issues, particularly opposition to Marymount’s Measure P, although she is now supported by that Measure’s proponents. Ms. Brooks has been candid about her stand on the issues. She has stressed that the city had half the employees it has now when she was on council. Even though RPV has far fewer public employees and much lower payroll costs than most other cities our size, Brooks will reduce public employment—and services--even further in a quest to return to the “good old days.” Ms. Brooks claims that as mayor she “turned a $2 million budget deficit into a $2 million budget surplus.” But she doesn’t tell you she did so by abdicating the city’s responsibilities. City infrastructure was neglected during Brooks’ prior council term leaving the current council to deal with millions of dollars of deferred maintenance and property damage she and others left behind. Look for Brooks to seek abolition of the storm drain user fee and the utility user tax, which her PVP Watch supporters oppose and which combined make up about 20% of city revenue and are vital to street and storm drain maintenance. We could each save as much as $90 per resident per year as a result, but the impact on our public infrastructure would damage our property values. Brooks and her fellow PVP Watch slate candidates Duhovic and De La Rosa should also be credited with the city employees’ vote to form a union last week. Brooks and her supporters have exaggerated staff salary increases and have falsely stated that the council recently increased pension benefits. The council actually decreased pension benefits to the tune of estimated net savings of $1.2 million to $1.6 million over the next 6 years. By waging an anti-government, anti-staff campaign based on
falsehoods, Brooks and her supporters have given the city a union for the first time in its history. This will lead to increased costs and reduced efficiency and undermines a positive employer-employee relationship that took years to achieve and is instrumental to the city’s success in obtaining competitive grants.

Dora De La Rosa is the President of the School Board where she has served as a trustee for 8 years, a clear demonstration of her commitment to public service. Ms. De La Rosa is well spoken, intelligent, and the only lawyer among the candidates, although she has not actively practiced law for some time. Her views on city issues are a bit of a mystery. Although she is a registered Democrat, her support comes primarily from the Libertarian PVP Watch group, one of whose founders indicated that its goal is “to drive government toward zero” and which consistently opposed the city’s open space preservation policies, recently describing them as “mismanagement.” Ms. De La Rosa declined to answer any questions about her views indicating that “As to specific issues, I will wait until I am seated on the council and have all the information before making any decision on any issue.” In sum, De La Rosa appears to be a mystery candidate. Her prior history does give some clue to her views, though. De La Rosa is a close political ally of Erin LaMonte a PVP Watch member who is currently running for School Board. LaMonte is the former PTA President who, while on a lobbying trip to Sacramento with then Board President De La Rosa met with the state official in charge of the city’s grant application for millions in state funding for the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve to urge the state to reject the city’s application. (Former RPV Mayor Larry Clark confirmed the meeting by talking to the state official involved.) De La Rosa has been unhelpful on other issues important to RPV as well. Under her leadership the school board refused to cooperate with efforts to bring Eastview into the district and efforts to allow military dependents from the LA Air Force base to attend. The board also rejected the city’s advice to put the Peninsula HS lights issue through the normal planning process, instead triggering a lawsuit through a confused and chaotic process that treat
ed both sides of the question unfairly. Finally, as board president, De La Rosa has misapplied the Brown Act suggesting that it forbids board members from responding to public questions and public meetings and has stifled dissent from board members who have sought to change policy or just express an opinion De La Rosa did not like.

Jerry Duhovic is a financial services executive who has donated his time to public service as a member of the city’s finance committee. Jerry is very well spoken and exceptionally intelligent. Although he declined to directly answer my questions, the issues page on his website provides a very good summary of his thinking and is very thoughtful and well written. Mr. Duhovic indicated that he would not accept endorsements from any sitting councilmembers. But he does have the endorsement of PVP Watch and appears to share their views and distrust of city councilmembers, city staff and city government in general. He has also repeated some of the misinformation Brooks and others have spread about city staff benefits and salaries. But his time in city government has been limited to only a couple of years so perhaps with more time he will be able to better focus on the real issues and less on political dogma. Until then I cannot support him despite his good qualifications.

Ken Dyda was on the second city council and was one of the city’s founders and first mayors. No one has given more heart, soul, and time to the city than Ken Dyda and all of what he has given has been motivated purely and solely by a desire to serve the city with no thought to what is in his own best interest. Mr. Dyda is intelligent, well-spoken and a real assert to the city. He served on the council for several months with me filling a temporary vacancy. This allowed me to see that he is definitely up to the job despite his age (late 70s). Mr. Dyda would surely do his best to figure out what is best for the city. However, I think electing Mr. Dyda to council at this time would be wrong. Mr. Dyda is not shy with his opinions, so the new council will have the benefit of his views whether he is elected or not. When he was appointed to serve for a few months he hit the ground running because he was already familiar with all of the issues. He will spend the same amount of time helping the city as an elder statesman (which has been his role now for decades). It is time to develop new leadership for the future and electing Mr. Dyda would only delay developing that new leadership. I am also concerned that as a councilmember Mr. Dyda would micromanage the city. The city has changed in the decades since Mr. Dyda was first elected. It is no longer a brand new city with inexperienced staff. Instead it has a highly professional staff that needs to be allowed to run day to day affairs without improper interference. Indeed state law requires as much, making “councilmanic interference” illegal. The council is a board of directors and sets policy. Day-to-day decisions are handled by staff without favoritism toward the friends of particular councilmembers. Mr. Dyda’s desire to put individual councilmembers into city hall and supervising departments, however well intentioned, would be a serious mistake. Moreover, realistically, Mr. Dyda may no
t be able to serve 2 terms. Term limits means we will be having a lot of turnover on council in the future. We should not make the situation even worse by electing people who are much less likely to be able to serve a second term.

Cynthia Smith is the candidate about whom I know nothing. She did not respond to my efforts to contact her and I have been unable to find a website or any campaign information about her. I have no knowledge of her background or views and have seen no means for me or other voters to learn more about her."

---------------------------------------------------------

I wish Mayor Long had used an option to not endorse a third candidate.

It is tough to find what I have found in others in our community who have agreed with me that it might be the better thing to simply endorse candidates that they feel would do the best job in our city and for our residents, without necessarily needing to endorse a candidate for all three of the seats opening up.

It remains difficult for me to stick by my guns with the decision to not have a third endorsement offered. But I feel strongly enough, as others seem to tell me they also do, in endorsing those we feel would be best and remaining silent on who could best fill out the third or sometimes, second endorsement.

There may be some in our city who might also 'endorse' "none of the above", but I hope there are very few of them.

I am still at odds with someone like Tom Long who endorses someone like the wonderful-but-not-credible-enough-candidate Mr. Eric Alegria.

Sure, he may be a progressive Democrat. Yes, he may have a skillset that WILL benefit our city sometime in the future.

Of course he volunteers his time, intelligence and efforts in the greater good.

But he lacks a tenure in our city, with our city and its residents to make him, in my opinion, a candidate who I could vote for in this election.

He was not endorsed by Palos Verdes Peninsula Watch, so I give him great credit for not meeting what I feel is a narrow mindedness toward more progressive views and lasting progress in our city.

I truly feel he would make a wonderful Councilman and Mayor of Rancho Palos Verdes, SOMEDAY, but not in the next four years.

With regards to the paragraphs Mayor Long wrote concerning the five candidates he does not endorse, I am pretty comfortable with what he has written.

I do continue to find it alarming that one of the five appears to have harsh feelings towards a certain 'wealthy' Demorcart she ran against for Congress. Does this mean this candidate deminishes 'wealth' on members of the Democratic Party while possibly celebrating 'wealth' of members of the Republican Party?

Would this same candidate, claiming to be a mediator offer an indication that several members of our current City Council engaged in a possible Brown Act Violation, worded during a Forum for candidates, recently?

I'm not a mediator, so I don't always know when it is best to 'hold my tongue'.

Mayor Long did offer that Mr. Jerry Duhovic has "good qualifications". I think in financial matters, Mr. Duhovic has some good qualifications.

I must hope his qualifications are good because taxpayers paid for his College education at the U.S. Air Force Academy.

Academy grads are top notch people, no matter which academy they received their fully taxpayer funded education at.

The point I am making about a taxpayer-funded education is that is such a recipient of such an education then turns around and begins harsh criticism of taxpayer funded projects and taxation in general, it must come as no shock to that person that they have received a education that will serve them for the rest of their lives and offered them the abilities to grow in stature, wealth, and have some greater possibilities than others who did not receive a full ride from taxpayers.

*NOTE* Jerry's service to our country is something that MUST BE HONORED!. His services to all of us as a member of the U.S. Air Force must also be commended. But that doesn't mean he can't be reminded that his education was paid for by the dimes of other people and his paychecks while serving in the Air Force were also paid by taxpayers, just like mine were when I served as a Non-Com, in the very same Air Force.

O.K. lets continue working on another 'Air Force' theme, but with a different candidate.

I am still working on confirmation about the history regarding Ms. Dora de la Rosa's tenure on the PVPUSD School Board and the attempts and 'contempts' of having the children of U.S. Air Force members, living in San Pedro, attending PVPUSD schools.

There are some in our community who still try and make that issue more 'mirky' than I feel is necessary.

I would hope, as another U.S.A.F. vet, Jerry would also wish to know whether Ms. de la Rosa campaigned against having children with special needs, who are the children of Air Force members attempting to be kept out of schools which have higher test scores but are closer to their homes than schools in El Segundo.

I would also hold out for allowing all children of current members of our military being allowed to attend PVPUSD schools, whether they have special needs or not.

I feel Mayor Long's opinion that Mayor Dyda's election to the new council would delay new leadership in our city, might also be true for the election of Ms. Brooks and/or Ms. de la Rosa, too.

"The Only Thing We Have To Fear..."

2011-10-08T18:33:00.000-07:00

Being cautious is one thing.

Being fearful is another, in my book.

If you fear those who don't look like you, speak like you, come from the same place you come from and most of all, don't believe what you claim to believe, then that is a real problem, in my book.

We have seen so much fear by too many who don't seem to like what they have seen during the past three years, even after the banks and other financial institutions ran our economy into the ground.

What to some feel might be the answer to the fear they really should not fear? Tea Party rationale or what I know to be the irrationality of so many folks who stick to corporate-sponsored 'Tea Party propaganda.

It is time to not be fearful! It is time to move forward and not back.

We see far too many candidates using fear as a weapon against others. That is really sad because I know we are better than that.

I think those candidates should know that, too.

Tonight's Forum for Candidates

2011-10-05T22:14:00.000-07:00

The Rancho Palos Verdes Council of Homeowners Association hosted a Forum for candidates in the upcoming November 8 election for three seats on our City Council.

Ms. Cynthia Smith is still listed on the ballot but that seems to be the only place where more than a handful of folks can view anything about her.

Mr. Eric Alegria did not attend tonight's Forum because he was attending an important meeting of a Statewide Commission he belongs to.

For me, tonight's debate provided more separation of philosophies between those who could be thought of as 'moderate' in my opinion; Dave Emenhiser and Jim Knight and others.

I think the audience attending at Hesse Park and those who will watch the Forum on our city's channel will be able to tell which candidates are from somewhat conservative, to very conservative, because of many of the answers and opinions expressed during the Forum.

When the opinions about our city's staff possibly becoming unionized, it provided a stark contrast in opinions, among the candidates.

Jim Knight basically did not touch that with a ten foot pole. I don't feel he is all that objective to workers organizing into unions or having a union come in to represent staff members.

Dave Emenhiser sounded a bit objectionable to staff members becoming unionized but his remarks were more humorous in that he seemed to say he didn't feel it would come to that.

Dora de la Rosa says she has to deal with two unions as President of the School Board. I didn't get a resounding approval of unions from her.

As totally expected, Ken Dyda, Susan Brooks and Jerry Duhovic oppose staff members becoming unionized. This is not remarkable at all when folks consider that any of them being elected to the new Council would probably mean more work by staff members in becoming unionized.

I feel there is a fear factor coming from some city staff members after what they have seen and heard from Brian Campbell, Anthony Misetich and the three candidates I have mentioned.

I don't blame those staff members, one bit.

For the vast majority of questions and answers at tonight's Forum, there could have been a repeating parrot during most of the evening, concerning some of the issues.

But there are also differences coming out between the candidates on some issues and that is a very good think in deciding which candidate to support.

Stadium lighting at PenHi was such an issue. While most objected to the permanent placement of lighting on the field, various reasons were stated by some of the candidates.

Some candidates stated that, even though the lighting would be located in Rolling Hills Estates, that lighting would be in opposition to our city General Plan.

Dora de la Rosa stated she could not technically comment about lighting, due to litigation, she offered that she felt that as a 'community issue' lighting went against the wishes of the R.P.V. community members living near the school.

Jerry Duhovic, a former H.S. and A.F. Academy football player, opined that he would like to find a way for non-permanent lighting. His focus seemed to be more towards football events.

Dave Emenhiser or Jim Knight opined that since there are mandates on lighting for sports other than male-football, there might be other requirements to light the field, which can not be ignored.

None of the candidates were pleased with the outcome of the latest staff salary and pension decisions, for one reason or another.

I found that Susan and Jerry's opinions on this suggest they follow what Brian and Anthony supported, including Mayor Pro Tem Anthony Misetich's attempts with what he brought forth.

I think the candidates and I all agree that the entire matter was done poorly, for one reason or many reasons. This might also be one reason that some on city staff are looking favorable at unionizing, I believe.

The Skate Park issues also seemed to be a place where the more conservative candidates held views that are different than some candidates who are closer to the middle of the road or to the left.

While all stated some sympathy, NIMBY came more from those I feel are more conservative and others.

The question posed about whether the candidates were running to eventually run for 'higher office' seemed fairly even on the surface, it did bring a though to me I have to share.

All of the candidates in attendance stated they would not run for 'higher office'. But Dora had a different answer which begged in me a question I am still wondering about.

Dora de la Rosa that since she spent four of her eight years on the School Board as its President, she seemed to admit that being an R.P.V. City Council member might be regarded as a 'step down' by some, perhaps.

And that got me thinking. Aren't there lots and lots of Californians who object strongly to politicians 'office hopping' as in members of the State Assembly turning to the State Senate until their they are termed out, or vice versa?

While I am sure Ms. de la Rosa has wonderful intentions in her quest for a seat on our Council, she also admitted some lack of knowledge in what is currently going on in our city and that she sometimes participates in our city's municipal activities by watching it on T.V. or on the Internet, rather than actually participating.

Maybe that is also a reason I have opined that I don't think any former elected person should sit on this new Council.

I also had a strong objection to the former Mayor who offered something about 'on the job training' during her closing remarks.

Ms. Brooks, I don't agree with Brian and Anthony all the time, but they both have earned more than a few stripes and a whole heck of a lot of on the job training during these last two years. Neither of them need anyone showing them the ropes because they have been climbing on them, pulling them and working with three other Council members at securing the ropes in our city, quite well!

I found the question about our city's relationship with Donald Trump to be quite interesting, again in a split political way.

When Jerry Duhovic commented that he lives directly accross the street from Trump National and that he feels The Donald was treated bad by our city, Jim Knight stated that at the very first meeting with The Donald, in R.P.V. that he attended, Donald Trump "lambasted neighbors across the street".

Dave Emenhiser pointed out that he believes there is a read difference between the Trump Organization at Trump National and Donald Trump, himself. I felt Ken Dyda agreed with that.

Susan Brooks' opinion included her thought that there may have been "too much testosterone".

I didn't quite get Susan's reference to the American Flag The Donald illegally raised. I hope I can find clarification in her remarks. I hope she understands that people still need to follow the laws of our city, no matter what they hang on their land.

With the question that was posed about what did each candidate disagree with, in what the current Council has decided, it also was along more political lines.

Ken, Dora, Jerry and Susan all held disagreement with the Council's recent decisions regarding the pension reforms.

I got that Ken and Dora also objected to the 'quickness' of the decision-making and Jerry wanted to see more discussion and possibly approval of Anthony Misetich's motion.

Susan, in her disagreement with the pension reform decisions also stated displeasure with what she may believe was a 'gang-up' by three Council members at Tuesday's Council Meeting.

And then she did it. She states something we have heard from others who have had disagreements with three of the current members of our City Council.

What she stated is now recorded and I wrote it down. She mentioned the possibility that there may have been a "violation of the Brown Act".

When I hear those words coming from someone who has political differences with three current members of our City Council, I am reminded of events that happened not all that long ago which sent our city into a very dark and troubling place.

If Ms. Brooks has proof, then she needs to state it up front, demand an investigation, immediately or simply put it to rest. We don't need another Freedom of Information Act and collecting of documents order in our city, again. This is no way for anyone claiming to be a mediator should say, in my opinion.

Both Dave and Jerry objected to the way our Council acted concerning the Ladera Linda property and the pre-school, formerly there.

I don't have a real clue as to how that could have been solved. it was a private business that didn't have the funds to make the necessary repairs it needed to contribute to, to stay in the city's building. I know that is tough but why should our taxpayers subsidize private businesses, just to keep them operating for the few who would use them?

I would have loved to see the preschool stay, but our taxpayers should not fund a private business if folks are really truly concerned about municipal spending.

Even though I have stated that I cannot endorse a former elected official gaining a seat on the new Council, I continue to feel that if folks vote Dave Emenhiser, Jim Knight and Ken Dyda into office, I think we will see city staff lean away from becoming unionized and I think our city infrastructure would get the very best oversight and management with these three gentlemen joining Anthony Misetich and Brian Campbell on our Council.

I do continue to feel that Ms. Susan Brooks might be the top vote-receiver and if that is the case, I hope she joins Dave and Jim as the three 'new' Council members.

I know Jerry is a great fellow and he has great feelings towards our city and its people. He remains far too conservative for me to wish him great success at getting elected on our Council.

I continue to learn more misgivings about Ms. de la Rosa and that new wonderment about 'office hopping' now concerns me.

As I have written about Eric Alegria, I hope to vote for him onto our Council in at least 6-8 years and I do think he will make a remarkably wonderful servant to our residents and business owners, down the road.

The ONE question that was truly asked is the ONE question EVERY candidate MUST answer, either on Oct. 12 or before and certainly by or during the October 13 Forum at Marymount College.

It's a simple question, really: What is your opinion on Marymount College's request to increase the time frame for The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project to 20 years AND do you favor Marymount's request to increase the student population at the Palos Verdes Drive East campus to 1,200 students?

Unionize? Unionize!

2011-10-05T21:43:00.000-07:00

Tonight turned out to be a pretty informative Forum by six of the eight candidates for the three seats becoming open.

Mr. Eric Alegria did not attend this Forum because he was attending to his duties in a Statewide Commission, he still works with.

Ms. Cynthia Smith remains MIA, it appears.

An Email was recently sent out that commented on the prospect that members of our city's staff may seek to unionize.

I am a great supporter of unions and having more workers seeking benefits associated with becoming unionized, but learning of this before the election puts union-supporting staff members in a bad light for me and others.

It was bad enough that Marymount College officials placed into consideration, during this election season their "20-1,200" plan, in my opinion. That could pose problems for all of the candidates for the three Council seats. Now they may need to answer voters' questions as to their support or opposition to Marymount's new plans.

Now our own city staff comes along, again during the election season, bring forth comments that may have been placed to sway the election one way or another.

And it might, good, bad or ugly.

There are going to be lots of far 'wrong' conservatives madder than heck at some staff members trying to sway this election by even mentioning unionization.

I wish they would have waited and I write this acknowledging that I am basically on their side, but they put a 'Marymount affect' into the process, which I find ugly.

With the falderal concerning pay and pension benefits that have been swirling around staff and elected officials recently, I think union-supportive staff members have a very good reason to create an outlook that suggest they will try to unionize.

As we have witnessed recently in our city's politics and even in National politics, unions and their members have been under attack and now it appears our little city might be a new cornerstone of workers turning back anti-union and anti-worker rights by having our staff becoming unionized.

I don't blame them for doing this one bit and I personally view it as a way of defending themselves against the prospect of a far too conservative Rancho Palos Verdes City Council being seated on the first Tuesday in December.

Especially over the last 3-4 years we have seen workers get trounced by big business and conservative governments who seek to lower the way of life for the middle class by using workers' rights and pay as weapons.

I think that some members of our city's staff have looked down the road and have considered their best defense against what they may feel as a loss of pay, benefits and retirement options by too conservative members of decision-making bodies is the more natural reaction we see today.

If the writing on the wall looks to see Susan Brooks, Jerry Duhovic, and/or Ken Dyda join Anthony Misetich and Brian Campbell on our Council, some staff members would not be very willing to work with that setup of Council membership, as far as union organizing goes.

We heard some leanings by candidates at tonight's Forum that strongly suggest they are totally against workers organizing into a union, especially folks who work on our city's staff.

It is just my opinion, but I feel the best way to create the best atmosphere where staff members consider not joining a union is to have Dave Emenhiser and Jim Knight joining Brian and Anthony, along with probably Ken Dyda as the fifth Council member.

I think that 3-2 more conservative split is the best alignment to dissuade city staff members form more actively seeking unionization.

If folks like Jerry Duhovic, Susan Brooks join Anthony and Brian and Dave or Jim on the Council, staff members supportive of unionization will work much stronger and longer to become unionized...and I'll stand with them in that.

Should Brian and Anthony be joined by others on the Council, not including Dave and Jim, not only will the staff members work even harder to become unionized, that effort may bring more news making to our city and more 'outside' influences into our politics...for many reasons.

I have no intention of supporting groups of conservatives or progressives coming into this city to fight for or against our staff members unionizing because that all takes away from some very important work we ALL must do. This is one reason I truly believe Dave and Jim can work with Brian, Anthony and one other new member to keep all this to a minimum.

So in the end for me, shame on Marymount and some staff members, for bringing up issues when they should have been left until after the election. But I do think that, because of some current issues surrounding staff these days, efforts to become unionized may be in their best interests, no matter how much it costs all of us.

Bits and Pieces 44

2011-10-02T20:46:00.001-07:00

One of the best sources for information about Ponte Vista at San Pedro and the Rancho Holdings Butane Tanks (LPG) tanks is the Web site for The Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council:

http://www.nwsanpedro.org/index.asp

In truth and fact, a piece of Rancho Palos Verdes is located EAST of Western Avenue and 'our' residents living there are true stakeholders in one of L.A.'s strongest Neighborhood Councils.

It is always best to keep residents and business owners on the East side of R.P.V. connected with the great residents and volunteers that make up the Board of Governors at Northwest.

We have a pretty good chunk of residents of our city living in the Eastview area and what happens 'here' also happens to the good people who are stakeholders in Northwest San Pedro, eastern R.H.E. and parts of Harbor City and Lomita.

Joining forces, I think our residents, working with residents living in Los Angeles/San Pedro can move mountains as we helped to demonstrate to Robert H. (Bob) Bisno.

Knowledge is power and sharing information and work creates a more powerful base for the betterment of everyone, living in these great areas.

Really? Really! did you read about what are some new plans for Marymount College in today's South Bay Daily Breeze?

Along with some previously announced plans for the four-year liberal arts college is a distant campus, possibly just about an hour NORTH of San Francisco. Really! Really?

For the record, I find wonderful enjoyment doing 'volunteer' work at a Catholic university in Southern California.

I have calendared another three projects to help students work on various projects based out of the Communications Arts building on the campus of Loyola Marymount University.

I work as a background/extra/bit part player in student produced projects and it is something I very much enjoy doing.

ALL of the students I am working with are great 'kids' and they all treat everyone else with class, dignity and in a style the faculty, staff and administration of LMU can only be proud of.

I do hope that if and when opportunities for me helping film and T.V. school students at Marymount College become available, I will be able to help them in their studies and productions as much or more than I do at LMU and other student productions at the other teaching institutions I volunteer at.

You know, the downtown San Pedro area, its waterfront and all along the coast have all had a very long history in movie and T.V. productions. It is only natural that Marymount College students would want to produce entertainment in our local areas so they could have greater opportunities in furthering any career plans in the larger area known for the legendary movies and television that has been created in the greater L.A. basin, since about 1902.

Administrators from Marymount travel all over the world seeking parents of students sending their kids to Southern California to learn and sometimes establish 'homes' in the L.A. basin.

The William H. Hannon Library looks like a wonderful library for students and others to use for its educational opportunities and it has been doing so, quite well, for decades.

It might be possible for the William H. Hannon Library to become a hub for information sharing, with its great number of volumes and its vast amount of information that could be digitized, stored, and offered for sharing to students at other institutions.

Folks, when you read that Marymount College ("Palos Verdes") may spend millions of dollars building the William H. Hannon Library, might you not wonder whether that is all that physically necessary when the William H. Hannon Library is sitting quite pretty, about 30 miles away?

That's right! Marymount College ("Palos Verdes") has plans to build The William H. Hannon Library about 30 miles, or less, from The William H. Hannon Library.

Since the administration of Marymount College hasn't gone out for permits to begin phase one of The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, while they are now publishing news about possibly having a distant campus in Northern California, while seeking to elongate The Project out about 2-1/2 times the approved timetable, why don't they just rethink plans for what would amount to just a secondary William H. Hannon Library to The William H. Hannon Library?

Are you watching L.A. City Department of Transportation dollars, that could be used on 25Th Street near San Ramon Canyon being spent on the new sinkhole and fractures along Paseo Del Mary?

Yes, it is horrible that Paseo Del Mar has not really been closed in the area near the White Point Nature Preserve. It is going to take time and a whole lot of money to try and stop the holes and fractures from growing and to find a permanent repair to such a scenic and peaceful drive along the San Pedro coast.

And yes, this should be another reason why The Clearwater Project folks need to look away from placing any Outfall Access hole either at Royal Palms or Angel's Gate.

After all, there is a real cliff and a very big ocean closer to the sinkhole/fractures than there is in San Ramon Canyon.

But that should not matter, in my opinion. a true distress is if 'we' (governors and government) fail to understand the importance of both projects and partially go blind to the requirements in San Ramon Canyon just to find permanent fixes along Paseo Del Mar.

Right now, one project is far more urgent than the other project, but both are urgent.

Rains are coming. Forecasters tonight stated that some 'real' rain might fall as early as Wednesday. I am sure it won't cause too much more damage in San Ramon Canyon. I don't think anyone can say what the effects along Paseo Del Mar might be.

Heck, I don't think the 'authorities' in San Pedro are willing to reveal WHY the first sinkhole/fracture occurred, this past March or what they think can be done to prevent further damage.

My guess is that the irrigation added to White Point Nature Preserve after decades of no irrigation in that area, may be a factor to consider.

I know I promise to include as little to nothing about a certain event occurring on Nov. 8 on this blog, so I guess I'll just hint.

Something is happening on Wednesday, October 5 at the big building at Hesse Park, beginning at 7:00 P.M.

Many V.I.P.s from our city will be there to listen and learn. I am sure they want everyone in R.P.V. to listen well and learn as much as possible. I hope it is carried on our city's T.V. station and left on our city's Web site.

My mug has begun appearing more on the Internet and will soon be viewed by a whole bunch of people, in the coming months.

Some of my 'work' will be seen when the latest batch of LMU student productions premiere in late October. No, I won't walk any red carpet and I hope and expect that nobody will 'see' me because as a background/extra, we only add seasoning to any dish and should not be given any more importance than that.

There will be probably too much of my mug available for viewing in an episode of a T.V. series, but I really am contractually bound not to disclose more until that show premieres, late in November.

I may be able to update folks when I learn which 'episode' I am featured in. Oh, what fun.

Jerry and the Curmudgeon

2011-09-28T13:07:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Palos Verdes Peninsula Watch" Isn't!

2011-09-28T08:48:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bits and Pieces 43

2011-09-27T17:04:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Items In Three Pieces Of My Mail

2011-09-23T14:59:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spam Comments

2011-09-23T11:07:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

Mark Wells

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

2011-09-22T23:00:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Name)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quick Quiz For The Candidates

2011-09-22T02:39:00.000-07:00

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

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

What is directly south of Peninsula Verde?

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

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

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

In what city is Green Hills Cemetary located?

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

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

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

My Opinions About Mr. Jerry Duhovic

2011-09-20T23:50:00.000-07:00

*NOTE*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also added on September 24 is this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Only In "Eastview"

2011-09-20T12:10:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

Me: Your not going to vote in November?

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

Me: Wait just a minute. I gotcha!

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

Her: Oh, that's right.

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

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

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

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

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

Her: You're right, again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Contribution of a Post

2011-09-19T22:41:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2011-09-16T16:20:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bob's gone. When will Michael go?

Bits and Pieces 42

2011-09-16T01:03:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Third Vote Goes To/More Pondering About Three Candidates

2011-09-12T18:31:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Plague On All That NONSENSE!

2011-09-09T23:35:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gees! What was Mr. Rojas thinking?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A new physical library building for Marymount? NONSENSE!

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

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

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

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

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

Bits and Pieces 41

2011-09-09T19:38:00.000-07:00

Ms. Jeanne LaCombe of the Rolling Hills Riviera HOA has been asking when the Environmental Impact Report for the Ponte Vista at San Pedro development will be published.

While I believe she was given one of those; "In ten days" stock answers, I do think it will be coming out soon and I have begun a daily watch on the City of L. A.'s Planning Department Web site, for the publication of the new EIR.

One of the links in the 'Environmental' portion of the sidebar lists "Draft EIR". I suspect that when the EIR is published, it will appear under that bullet, of the link.

It now has been about 6 years since the Western Avenue Task Force published their work which included many studies, findings, observations, and suggestions.

It is a fair representation the Task Force made when the calculations for the number of daily vehicle trips along Western Avenue, somewhere between Palos Verdes Drive North and 25th Street was established to be approximately 37,500 trips per weekday.

It is also a fair calculation that was offered that, without considerations of traffic from any new housing project at the Ponte Vista site or more students living at Marymount College's Palos Verdes North housing facility, the normal and expected increase in vehicle counts by approximately 1% per year, is a relevant number to consider.

Here is some vehicle counts approximated to be found between 2010 and 2015, along some portions of Western Avenue:

2010-39,414

2011-39,808

2012-40,206

2013-40,608

2014-41,014

2015-41,424

Please remember that those possible daily trip generation numbers do not include the expanded population at Marymount's Palos Verdes North facility nor do they include any new daily trips generated from whatever is built at Ponte Vista.

The Western Avenue Task Force's job was completed before both the first E.I.R. for Ponte Vista was studied and before the E.I.R. for The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project (including calculations for on-campus housing) was completed.

All of this information is nothing any of you who regularly drive along Western Avenue during the morning 'rush' hours or the all-afternoon drive times really need to know, because you already knew more about the congestion that you would like to know.

Is it going to take a 'Freedom of Information Act' order to have transparency in our city's functioning and public information records?

If I had won the Lottery, I think I know who I would hire to represent me in any and all actions to garner the public transparency that has not been shown by Staff members and Management leaders on the Staff/City Manager.

I have no interest in learning the names of who makes what as far as pay and benefits go. All that must be redacted, anyway.

But I strongly feel that the residents of our city have the right to learn about what our taxes and fees are going for, all in the open and not kept secret.

The City Manager is not the boss of me and as a tax payer who pays the property taxes, fees and other costs related to the house I live in, I have a right to know how public funds are spent and managed.

I love the idea that a worker for our city decides that working instead of taking a vacation will allow that person to perhaps buy a new car or major appliance. I don't care to know what type of car or what appliance they purchase, but I think our residents need to be made aware of where their funds are going, whether they like how the funds are being spent, or not.

Since I don't receive any public funds for work I am doing or have done, my personal answer at this time is zero dollars and zero cents. I am also not eligible for Social Security and Medicare.

If our taxes go to pay contracts, fees, other taxes, pay, benefits, and any other costs that should be made public, make them public, but without the names of personnel.

I'm still processing and pondering the 'One Hour Rule' established by our City Council, several years ago. I will take and need more time to address my thoughts on that whole fiasco and why changes of some types must be made, ASAP.