I learned a new term today. 'Forward Selling'. As explained to me, it is the process that allows an entity to sell, grant, lease, or convey in some manner, something of value to another entity and the seller, granter, or lease provider makes money quickly and early during a development or expansion project.
I am going to use information from the Web sites; www.useducationguides.com and www.petersons.com/collegeprofiles to offer some demographics concerning the 2009-2010 academic year for Marymount College.
None of the numbers I am using have been disputed by Marymount's President, Dr. Michael Brophy, and he offered his opinion that the numbers I provided to him Tuesday evening, are correct to the best of his knowledge.
For the 2009-2010 academic year for Marymount College, there were:
591 students with 96% of the students (567.36) attending Marymount on a Full Time Basis.
60% of the 591 students (354.6) lived in Marymount-owned and administered off-campus housing. That brought to Marymount a gross income of about $3,763,000.00.
IF the Initiative passes, it is expected that the approximately 116 students and advisers that live a the Pacific Heights off-campus site would move out and Marymount would be able to sell the entire building, something it has been claiming it would, but they have not done so, yet.
(Also, keeping the approximately 300+ beds at the college's Palos Verdes North facility, along with 250 beds on campus, that gross, based on this past year's room rates would garner something like $5,830,000.00 per year and having enough beds to offer up to 69% of its total student body the opportunity to live in campus-owned housing.)
Costs for room at the two off-campus housing sites were about $10,600 per student, with the typical board charge was $3,914.00.
UndergraduateTuition was listed at $24,052.
The combination of tuition, room, board, additional fees and, undergrad books brought the total per student costs to attend Marymount at approximately $40,529.00 for the preceding academic year.
Now let's examine some money or profits IF Marymount's initiative passes.
250 students living on-campus@ $10,600.00 for room equals $2,650,000.00 per year, assuming that the room cost is equivalent to what it was for this immediate past academic year.
IF Marymount's initiative passes, there would be no restriction or local government oversight with such things as renting out the auditorium, large field, tennis courts, swimming pool, dorms during summer, or other rooms and areas at Marymount's Palos Verdes Drive East campus.
Marymount would have the right to lease out or sell rights to an independent promoter or another company to offer concerts, sports activities, summer programs (Band Camp, Cheerleader Camp, or Soccer Camp) with attendees staying in on-campus housing and paying fees for the programs, plus room and board.
There would be no oversight in the placement of outdoor lighting and no government restriction of noise levels of concerts, even outdoor concerts on the campus.
Now please consider this. Marymount would have the right to 'forward sell' the operation and maintenance of its dorms to a entity who would provide all upfront construction costs, plus an undetermined profit to Marymount such that Marymount COULD fund their entire plan after receiving a check made from a contract with the business that would accept the forward sell.
Also, Marymount would have the right to 'forward sell' rights and opportunities to an entertainment type company to administer any to all events and activities that could be of money making types and that Marymount could enter into a contract soon after its Initiative is passed whereby the entity entering into the forward selling with Marymount would probably provide a large check upfront to also increase the coffers of Marymount College.
Some were wondering why and where Marymount gets all the money to do its outrageous, in my opinion, marketing during the petition gathering campaign and what will surely be a huge blast of marketing seeking to provide as little information as possible that would get ill-informed voters to vote "Yes" on the initiative.
I have asserted that Marymount will fail as a college if it cannot secure on-campus housing as a way of attracting more non-local students, especially foreign students which is only had 6% of its total 2009-2010 enrollment.
I think I and others can now assert that Marymount is willing to have its supporters shell out giant sums of money to get approval of its initiative so it has the opportunity to forward sell the operations of the on-campus housing AND entertainment, sports activities, and any other money making venture produced by an independent entity which purchased rights to do so from Marymount, almost immediately after the Initiative would pass.
However, I have continued to state that I feel that The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Plan, now law and able to begin with Marymount, is a very good plan and one that should be followed and supported.
I think now that many folks could realize like I have done today, that one huge reason Marymount seeks dorms and restrictions of oversight is NOT because of needed added enrollment, it is because its entire Marymount Plan could be paid for using forward selling and not using donations and other sources required with The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project.
Either way, I hope you can read and look to learn much more about the potential income Marymount could enjoy while using a lack of government oversight to provide venues to paying customers to use as Marymount and those customers see fit and not what would be in the best interests of the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Voting "No" on the initiative means Marymount would have the opportunity to accomplish a reasonable, responsible, realistic, and respectful expansion, with oversight that provides more safety for all and local responsibility with the expansion and operation.
Voting "Yes" means a high-density residential development in a low-density neighborhood, POSSIBLY controlled by a private company not beholden to the city of Rancho Palos Verdes, the local neighbors, or the rest of the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes.
A "Yes" vote could also mean a private entity paying Marymount a hefty amount up front to offer concerts, sporting events, cultural events, and other activities with a for-profit way, with little to no restrictions with noise, lighting, time of day, type of activities, parking, traffic, or responsible oversight by the city of Rancho Palos Verdes.
A "Yes" vote also demonstrates that profit may be more important to Marymount and its supporters than being a good neighbor and providing the best educational opportunities to the greatest number of residents on The Hill, I believe.
If you wish to forward sell your community to a College that has seen declining enrollment over the past several years, got itself off of the Academic Probation it was placed on, early, thank goodness, and having a President who decried your City Council's ("you tinkered") tinkering of the Project such that it now provides more safety than The Marymount Plan does, then I think you are ill-informed and I hope you would take the time to learn the facts, ALL the facts, and not the deceptive, in my opinion, ads and some statements made by Marymount Supporters and at least one in its administration.
I also challenge Marymount to offer their opinion on each and every one of the approximately 62 differences Marymount wants from what has already been approved of by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council. My challenge involves honesty, openness, and forthrightness from Marymount, without continuing to state that The Marymount Plan would be built "at no taxpayer expense" and in only "36 months" construction time.
Marymount has used its mighty dollars attempting to provide ONLY the most basic information that its marketing folks feel would garner approval of its plans. Marymount has not been willing to reveal that it would only pay its "fair share" of traffic mitigation and that taxes would be used for the remainder of the mitigation and that if Marymount gets its "Yes" on the initiative, it won't matter about the "36 months" because it literally would have the ability to allow permits to run out and then get granted again to make the total construction time for the project being not 36 months, not even 8 years. Marymount would have basically, an unlimited amount of months and years to work on its project.
It also would be a fact that IF the initiative is passed, Marymount would have the right to build its on-campus housing and nothing else. The Marymount Plan could see no new gym, library, swimming pool, better parking, or other neighborhood mitigation measures accomplished because with passage, Marymount could do as little or as much as it wanted OR as little or as much as it could possibly profit from.
The city of Rancho Palos Verdes will provide, on its Web site, a detailed and completely objective list of the similarities and differences between what the City Council approved and what Marymount seeks in its Initiative.
I will certainly provide a link to sites where truthful information, written objectively, can be viewed by any and all.
Please don't be fooled to believe that a great number of Marymount's supporters will read or not object to what is written, even though it is mandated to be objective and truthful.
Dr. Michael "you tinkered" Brophy fired the first salvo when he used those careless words dealing with added safety to Councilman Campbell and I will provide as many salvos and battles as I feel are necessary to defeat the Initiative, using truth, as much objectivity as I can muster, and some hyperbole, not unlike what we have heard or read from Marymount.
Dr. Brophy, my armor is polished. My information and facts you haven't been able to deny or dispute. My challenge to debate concerning safety continues, any time, anywhere. My cause is NOT NIMBY as I live 3 miles from Marymount's entrance.
I am independent of CCC/ME, SOCIII, and every government entity in Rancho Palos Verdes.
I arrived in the house I live currently live in 55 years, one month, and 13 days ago, so I think I have more seniority in this area than more than 95% of the other residents.
I await any and all challenges and as I have already done for many, many months now, I haven't been proven incorrect by anyone associated with Marymount College, including its President.
I support the Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project and recognize that Marymount probably cannot profit financially with it, but it could provide an excellent education for up to 793 students, if it only chooses to.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Where To Look For The Truth, The Whole Truth
With The Marymount Plan, I intend to keep this blog as truthful as Dr. Brophy, Marymount's President asserted to me it is.
During the coming weeks and months leading to the November 2, 2010 General Election where voters will also find the Special Election for the Initiative offered in support of The Marymount Plan, I will publish all responses by Marymount to the (approximately) 62 differences between what is already approved with The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project and what is contained in the Specific Plan Zone or The Marymount Plan's Initiative.
I will demonstrate objectively and truthfully that statements made by Dr. Michael Brophy and others representing Marymount College have been, in my opinion, deceptive, misleading, and less that fully truthful.
I will continue to offer to Marymount representatives the opportunity to produce responsible rebuttals to each and every point in the (approximately) 62 differences and provide those rebuttal issues on this blog.
When Dr. Brophy and others representing Marymount claim that The Marymount Plan can be constructed with "no taxpayer expense" that is a misstatement of fact and Dr. Brophy knows that.
He knows that because, in part, he is now offering to have Marymount funds, rather than taxpayer funds, pay the approximately $78,000 of costs for the Special Election on November 2, but he has not yet agreed to pay more than the college's "fair share" for the traffic mitigation stipulated in The Marymount Plan. After Marymount pays its "fair share" Dr. Brophy won't admit publicly that the remainder of the costs must be borne by the General Fund of Rancho Palos Verdes, a taxpayer-based fund.
Dr. Brophy has also not stated that the "36 month" construction timeline The Marymount Plan's advertisements have documented, would not only last 8 years with The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, but it could be an indefinite period of years, using wording in The Marymount Plan's 51-page Initiative.
Dr. Brophy and others have the opportunity to have their 'facts' posted on this blog including the fact that Marymount seeks to eliminate the voter-elected representative oversight and review of work being done at the College's Palos Verdes Drive East campus.
I expect to see fancy, colorful, yet not very informative mailers, ads, and commercials supporting a "Yes" vote on the Initiative, without much of the objective wording that illustrate the differences in The Marymount Plan from what has already been approved to build, by the City Council.
I feel our residents deserve more and better from an entity that claims to be part of a religious organization. I think our residents deserve the whole truth from Marymount College.
Unfortunately by looking at the mailers I received during the petition process, I doubt we will find more reasonable explanations from Marymount why it feels it must have ALL that it wants and nothing less than everything.....all without government review or oversight.
The real truth you probably won't ever hear or read from Marymount is that Marymount must have on-campus housing to remain open according to my assertion. Nothing short of that would allow Marymount attracting more wealthy parents of students who would send their kids off to school in a non-local, out of State, or out of Country institution.
During the coming weeks and months leading to the November 2, 2010 General Election where voters will also find the Special Election for the Initiative offered in support of The Marymount Plan, I will publish all responses by Marymount to the (approximately) 62 differences between what is already approved with The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project and what is contained in the Specific Plan Zone or The Marymount Plan's Initiative.
I will demonstrate objectively and truthfully that statements made by Dr. Michael Brophy and others representing Marymount College have been, in my opinion, deceptive, misleading, and less that fully truthful.
I will continue to offer to Marymount representatives the opportunity to produce responsible rebuttals to each and every point in the (approximately) 62 differences and provide those rebuttal issues on this blog.
When Dr. Brophy and others representing Marymount claim that The Marymount Plan can be constructed with "no taxpayer expense" that is a misstatement of fact and Dr. Brophy knows that.
He knows that because, in part, he is now offering to have Marymount funds, rather than taxpayer funds, pay the approximately $78,000 of costs for the Special Election on November 2, but he has not yet agreed to pay more than the college's "fair share" for the traffic mitigation stipulated in The Marymount Plan. After Marymount pays its "fair share" Dr. Brophy won't admit publicly that the remainder of the costs must be borne by the General Fund of Rancho Palos Verdes, a taxpayer-based fund.
Dr. Brophy has also not stated that the "36 month" construction timeline The Marymount Plan's advertisements have documented, would not only last 8 years with The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, but it could be an indefinite period of years, using wording in The Marymount Plan's 51-page Initiative.
Dr. Brophy and others have the opportunity to have their 'facts' posted on this blog including the fact that Marymount seeks to eliminate the voter-elected representative oversight and review of work being done at the College's Palos Verdes Drive East campus.
I expect to see fancy, colorful, yet not very informative mailers, ads, and commercials supporting a "Yes" vote on the Initiative, without much of the objective wording that illustrate the differences in The Marymount Plan from what has already been approved to build, by the City Council.
I feel our residents deserve more and better from an entity that claims to be part of a religious organization. I think our residents deserve the whole truth from Marymount College.
Unfortunately by looking at the mailers I received during the petition process, I doubt we will find more reasonable explanations from Marymount why it feels it must have ALL that it wants and nothing less than everything.....all without government review or oversight.
The real truth you probably won't ever hear or read from Marymount is that Marymount must have on-campus housing to remain open according to my assertion. Nothing short of that would allow Marymount attracting more wealthy parents of students who would send their kids off to school in a non-local, out of State, or out of Country institution.
Our Representatives Have Spoken
Rancho Palos Verdes residents went to the polls in 2009 and 2007 to elect or reelect the current City Council members who sit to represent them in matters residents used their initiative to cast their votes for the representation they expect and want.
Marymount wants to take that away from the residents, and allow themselves to represent the residents without any responsibility to the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes.
The Marymount Plan's Initiative takes the right of the people who tasked their representatives to represent them and gives it to Marymount representatives who were not voted for and are not beholden or responsible to the voters of the city.
By unanimous vote, the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council formerly voted to oppose The Marymount Plan's Initiative and Specific Zone Plan. The members also created the means for drafting a Resolution stating their concerns about The Marymount Plan and why they feel, as a body, the Marymount Plan's issues must be voted down on November 2, 2010.
The two major issues that City Council members voiced their opposition to were the placement of high-density population housing (resident halls) in a low-density neighborhood AND the elimination of oversight and responsible representation by the Council in lieu of almost total control of all aspects of The Marymount Plan being turned over to College representatives.
I think we have seen something of a similarity in recent weeks when a non-government entity attempts to rest control over and issue instead of allowing elected representatives the rights and responsibilities voters challenged those representatives with by their election to office.
It only took days before BP called for government representative intervention into its Ocean Horizon disaster after it ultimately lost control over its own oversight, of its project it sought to stay in control of.
With issues like the failure of Executive Live, many banks and financial institutions, and the near collapse of our economic structure do to private control over representative oversight, I hope we all have learned our lesson that, with The Marymount Plan, we must not allow the fox to guard the hen house as Marymount supporters wish.
When our elected representatives and those they appointed to be on the Planning Commission have offered reasonable, responsible, realistic, and respectful means by which Marymount College could have a successful facilities expansion project, yet Marymount seeks to have its own control and oversight, it demonstrates to all of us what are Marymount's real intentions are and those intentions are to do just as they want, with no one looking over their shoulders or keeping the residents of Rancho Palos Verds from interfering with what Marymount ultimately demands.
Marymount wants to take that away from the residents, and allow themselves to represent the residents without any responsibility to the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes.
The Marymount Plan's Initiative takes the right of the people who tasked their representatives to represent them and gives it to Marymount representatives who were not voted for and are not beholden or responsible to the voters of the city.
By unanimous vote, the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council formerly voted to oppose The Marymount Plan's Initiative and Specific Zone Plan. The members also created the means for drafting a Resolution stating their concerns about The Marymount Plan and why they feel, as a body, the Marymount Plan's issues must be voted down on November 2, 2010.
The two major issues that City Council members voiced their opposition to were the placement of high-density population housing (resident halls) in a low-density neighborhood AND the elimination of oversight and responsible representation by the Council in lieu of almost total control of all aspects of The Marymount Plan being turned over to College representatives.
I think we have seen something of a similarity in recent weeks when a non-government entity attempts to rest control over and issue instead of allowing elected representatives the rights and responsibilities voters challenged those representatives with by their election to office.
It only took days before BP called for government representative intervention into its Ocean Horizon disaster after it ultimately lost control over its own oversight, of its project it sought to stay in control of.
With issues like the failure of Executive Live, many banks and financial institutions, and the near collapse of our economic structure do to private control over representative oversight, I hope we all have learned our lesson that, with The Marymount Plan, we must not allow the fox to guard the hen house as Marymount supporters wish.
When our elected representatives and those they appointed to be on the Planning Commission have offered reasonable, responsible, realistic, and respectful means by which Marymount College could have a successful facilities expansion project, yet Marymount seeks to have its own control and oversight, it demonstrates to all of us what are Marymount's real intentions are and those intentions are to do just as they want, with no one looking over their shoulders or keeping the residents of Rancho Palos Verds from interfering with what Marymount ultimately demands.
When 62 Equals Zero
During the June 15, 2010 Rancho Palos Verdes City Council meeting, Councilman Douglas Stern asked for clarification between the approximately 62 differences between The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project passed by the Council and The Marymount Plan, the Specific Zone plan that would have to be approved by voters this coming November 2 to allow Marymount College the right to build according to its plan and not the one approved by the City Council.
Also during the same meeting, Dr. Michael Brophy, Marymount's President confided to the Council and the public that The Marymount Plan was the same plan approved by the Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission, with only on-campus housing being the only difference.
In reality, there are probably more like 7-10 differences between what the Council approved as The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project and what the Planning Commission approved and sent to the Council for consideration and 'tinkering'.
Those differences involve lowering the height of the roof of the gym and adding some movement of the large field, two tennis courts, and a concrete center median on Palos Verdes Drive East, with the changes reflecting the Council's concern for the safety of everyone.
When Dr. Brophy stated that he objected to the 'tinkering' between what he was accepting by the Planning Commission and what was approved by the Council, he failed to mention that what is part of both the issues before the Planning Commission and then passed by the Council is different than what is in The Marymount Plan and is NOT what he stated was in The Project approved and sent forward by the Planning Commission.
This is yet, in my opinion, another deceptive piece Dr. Brophy is attempting to enter into the debate over whether to vote "Yes" or "No" on The Marymount Plan's Initiative.
Dr. Brophy is fundamentally incorrect to assert that what the Planning Commission approved is what is in The Marymount Plan, and he knows it.
Nowhere in the approval by the Planning Commission does it allow Marymount to forgo oversight by the City Council, periodic review by the city of Rancho Palos Verdes, and elimination of many of the conditional uses permitted by the Planning Commission and the Council that Marymount seeks to override.
The Planning Commission set levels and limits for noise, usage of facilities, whether Marymount could use its campus for commercial purposed, and many other items that Marymount now considers should be allowed with no city oversight or review or control.
Most of the 62 differences pointed out by Councilman Douglas Stern and verified by City Staff and the City Attorney involve Marymount's desire to have itself as the regulator and not representatives of the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes.
I hope that all potential voters who cast their vote for or against The Marymount Plan's Initiative take the time to read every single point of difference between the already approved Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project and The Marymount Plan. If voters are truly objective and are allowed to read the truth, the complete truth, they will easily find that Dr. Brophy and his supporters are attempting to grab power and control of a portion of our city that should be the responsibility and the authority of our City Council and other representatives of the voters in our city who elected the Council Members to represent them and not Dr. Brophy and folks at Marymount who are demanding rights far in excess of what our residents currently receive.
Also during the same meeting, Dr. Michael Brophy, Marymount's President confided to the Council and the public that The Marymount Plan was the same plan approved by the Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission, with only on-campus housing being the only difference.
In reality, there are probably more like 7-10 differences between what the Council approved as The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project and what the Planning Commission approved and sent to the Council for consideration and 'tinkering'.
Those differences involve lowering the height of the roof of the gym and adding some movement of the large field, two tennis courts, and a concrete center median on Palos Verdes Drive East, with the changes reflecting the Council's concern for the safety of everyone.
When Dr. Brophy stated that he objected to the 'tinkering' between what he was accepting by the Planning Commission and what was approved by the Council, he failed to mention that what is part of both the issues before the Planning Commission and then passed by the Council is different than what is in The Marymount Plan and is NOT what he stated was in The Project approved and sent forward by the Planning Commission.
This is yet, in my opinion, another deceptive piece Dr. Brophy is attempting to enter into the debate over whether to vote "Yes" or "No" on The Marymount Plan's Initiative.
Dr. Brophy is fundamentally incorrect to assert that what the Planning Commission approved is what is in The Marymount Plan, and he knows it.
Nowhere in the approval by the Planning Commission does it allow Marymount to forgo oversight by the City Council, periodic review by the city of Rancho Palos Verdes, and elimination of many of the conditional uses permitted by the Planning Commission and the Council that Marymount seeks to override.
The Planning Commission set levels and limits for noise, usage of facilities, whether Marymount could use its campus for commercial purposed, and many other items that Marymount now considers should be allowed with no city oversight or review or control.
Most of the 62 differences pointed out by Councilman Douglas Stern and verified by City Staff and the City Attorney involve Marymount's desire to have itself as the regulator and not representatives of the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes.
I hope that all potential voters who cast their vote for or against The Marymount Plan's Initiative take the time to read every single point of difference between the already approved Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project and The Marymount Plan. If voters are truly objective and are allowed to read the truth, the complete truth, they will easily find that Dr. Brophy and his supporters are attempting to grab power and control of a portion of our city that should be the responsibility and the authority of our City Council and other representatives of the voters in our city who elected the Council Members to represent them and not Dr. Brophy and folks at Marymount who are demanding rights far in excess of what our residents currently receive.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
"You Tinkered"
"You tinkered" was the response by Dr. Michael Brophy, the President of Marymount College, to a question posed by a member of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council dealing with his opinion as to why he was opposed to the Council's approval of The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project.
Specifically, Councilman Campbell asked Dr. Brophy why Dr. Brophy did not like how the Council moved the large athletic field sixty feet to the east and thus placing it farther from the long curve of Palos Verdes Drive East.
Dr. Brophy stated that there had been years of study and "$600,000.00' of costs incurred by the College in having the large field much closer to the curve than the Council ultimately approved of.
When Councilman Campbell challenged Dr. Brophy to state whether placing the field farther from the roadway for safety reasons was superior to where Marymount wanted it, Dr. Brophy stated he would not give a yes or no answer.
To me this smacked of Marymount's Land Use Attorney, Mr. Don Davis, when he got up and stated matter of factly that Marymount would not build a new large field on the east side of the campus, near where the existing field currently sits.
Mr. Davis stated that when the Council originally voted to have the field on the east side, it didn't matter because they weren't going to build a new field on the east side so the Council should simply deny the field.
That little outburst by Mr. Davis was cured when the Council voted to have the field on the west side of the campus, where Marymount wanted it in the first place.
Dr. Brophy's "you tinkered" also may have been reflected of his feelings about hearing so much negativity dealing with The Marymount Plan's initiative and how just about everyone in the Council Chambers opposed The Marymount Plan and its initiative.
So now it seems Rancho Palos Verdes resident, Ms. Linda "Bob Bisno is going to save San Pedro" D'Ambrosi has somewhat of a new soulmate with Dr. Michael "you tinkered" Brophy.
Specifically, Councilman Campbell asked Dr. Brophy why Dr. Brophy did not like how the Council moved the large athletic field sixty feet to the east and thus placing it farther from the long curve of Palos Verdes Drive East.
Dr. Brophy stated that there had been years of study and "$600,000.00' of costs incurred by the College in having the large field much closer to the curve than the Council ultimately approved of.
When Councilman Campbell challenged Dr. Brophy to state whether placing the field farther from the roadway for safety reasons was superior to where Marymount wanted it, Dr. Brophy stated he would not give a yes or no answer.
To me this smacked of Marymount's Land Use Attorney, Mr. Don Davis, when he got up and stated matter of factly that Marymount would not build a new large field on the east side of the campus, near where the existing field currently sits.
Mr. Davis stated that when the Council originally voted to have the field on the east side, it didn't matter because they weren't going to build a new field on the east side so the Council should simply deny the field.
That little outburst by Mr. Davis was cured when the Council voted to have the field on the west side of the campus, where Marymount wanted it in the first place.
Dr. Brophy's "you tinkered" also may have been reflected of his feelings about hearing so much negativity dealing with The Marymount Plan's initiative and how just about everyone in the Council Chambers opposed The Marymount Plan and its initiative.
So now it seems Rancho Palos Verdes resident, Ms. Linda "Bob Bisno is going to save San Pedro" D'Ambrosi has somewhat of a new soulmate with Dr. Michael "you tinkered" Brophy.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Signatures Varified
Yesterday, the City Clerk of Rancho Palos Verdes made notifications that the number of valid signatures to potentially place The Marymount Plan's initiative on the November 2, ballot has been approved.
During the June 15 Rancho Palos Verdes City Council meeting, that body MUST vote to do one of just two options, now mandated by law.
The Council has the right to simply adopt ALL aspects currently within the wording of The Marymount Plan's initiative, or they must call for a 'Special Election' which can be conducted in association with the November 2, 2010 General Election.
Having the initiative voted on by registered voters of Rancho Palos Verdes is considered as being a 'Special Election' because the city normally has elections of Council Members in odd-numbered years AND the initiative is the only city-wide matter that is only for Rancho Palos Verdes residents.
All of this was absolutely and completely expected by most folks who have dealt with The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project because of Marymount's removal of considerations dealing with on-campus student housing when THEY pulled those issues off the table before formal votes were taken by the Planning Commission of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Since The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project has met formal approval by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council, voters will be asked to approve ONLY three different aspects between the now-approved Expansion Project and The Marymount Plan;
On-campus residential housing for up to 250 students and up to five advisors.
The potentially restrictive municipal ordinance that could restrict city government oversight on matters relating to the enacting of The Marymount Plan.
Currently, the elimination of the now approved concrete center median barrier along the long curve of Palos Verdes Drive East as it bends around the Marymount Campus.
Are you willing to allow Marymount those THREE changes? I hope not and urge all of you to vote to oppose the ballot measure.
During the voting dealing with The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project by members of the Planning Commission and the City Council, two groups have been repeatedly heard from and their documents read from.
The two groups represented the Administration and supporters of Marymount College and the largest opposition group to that Project, Concerned Citizens Coalition/Marymount Expansion.
It seems that time and time again, the other residents of the city have provided just one voice and far too few documents to illustrate their feelings about the many issues; me.
That will all CHANGE on June 15 when I am joined by many many more voices opposing the initiative on different grounds and by some very familiar names, in our city.
Marymount will now be able to learn more from Save Our City III, a group that does not offer an opinion about the elements of The Marymount Plan, but they do completely object to the way Marymount is trying to use the ballot box over OUR RESIDENTS' representatives WE VOTED FOR to represent us in city matters.
Marymount wants to take our votes away from us and tell us we don't matter. How is that being a 'good neighbor' as Marymount's Administration claims they are?
Marymount wants to have less local residents dictate what will happen to residents of our city who live closer to the Marymount campus than I do or most others do.
Marymount wants to provide a precedent setting vote that could bring many more private business initiatives to our voters to take away the representation we voted for when we elected our City Council members.
Marymount wants to add a brand new municipal code that benefits only that institution and could disallow some critical oversight our city is mandated to do with other projects, residents, and businesses in the city.
Marymount now claims that the taxpayers' costs for the Special Election will now be borne by the College and its supporters but has not offered to cover other taxpayer-funded costs associated with traffic mitigation they only want to pay their 'fair share' of.
Get ready for an onslaught of mailers, DVDs T.V. adds and possibly door-to-door visits by students or other supporters of Marymount College's initiative.
You will be able to return to this blog when I offer the true facts Marymount does not wish to reveal and so far, Dr. Michael Brophy, Marymount's President continues to confirm that this blog offers true facts and has not found one error of fact on this blog, according to statements he made personally to me.
So, if Dr. Brophy doesn't find any misstatement of fact in this blog and I have found numerous misstatements of fact with The Marymount Plan that Dr. Brophy also does not deny, I think this blog has offered more responsible and truer fact-base opinions, assertions, and reading than Marymount has offered.
My challenges to debate still continue. Now in fact, they grow stronger with the real potential that the initiative will appear on the November 2 ballot.
It has been estimated that Marymount will now cover, the approximately, $80,000.00 of taxpayer-funded costs that would have had to come from the city's General Fund to pay for the Special Election. Marymount once claimed that The Marymount Plan would be completed at "no expense" to taxpayers. Until Marymount moved to cover those costs, that statement was untrue.
The statement remains untrue regarding the traffic mitigation and the now-approved concrete center median barrier on Palos Verdes Drive East.
Marymount has offered to pay up to $200,000.00 of the over $285,000.00 potential costs for the median barrier.
Marymount has offered to pay their "fair share" for three other traffic mitigation efforts in both The Project and The Plan, but has so far refused to pay the remainder of the costs that would have to come from the taxpayer-funded General Fund the city keeps.
So, who are you going to trust for real facts and assertions? I must admit, Marymount's trustworthy records are not up to par with mine and I doubt they are up to the records of CCC/ME and now Save Our City III.
Our armor is polished. Our swords of truth are sharp. Our steeds are well fed and have lots of energy. Our associates are informed and eager to wage war. Our cause is just. Our fight is right.
During the June 15 Rancho Palos Verdes City Council meeting, that body MUST vote to do one of just two options, now mandated by law.
The Council has the right to simply adopt ALL aspects currently within the wording of The Marymount Plan's initiative, or they must call for a 'Special Election' which can be conducted in association with the November 2, 2010 General Election.
Having the initiative voted on by registered voters of Rancho Palos Verdes is considered as being a 'Special Election' because the city normally has elections of Council Members in odd-numbered years AND the initiative is the only city-wide matter that is only for Rancho Palos Verdes residents.
All of this was absolutely and completely expected by most folks who have dealt with The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project because of Marymount's removal of considerations dealing with on-campus student housing when THEY pulled those issues off the table before formal votes were taken by the Planning Commission of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Since The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project has met formal approval by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council, voters will be asked to approve ONLY three different aspects between the now-approved Expansion Project and The Marymount Plan;
On-campus residential housing for up to 250 students and up to five advisors.
The potentially restrictive municipal ordinance that could restrict city government oversight on matters relating to the enacting of The Marymount Plan.
Currently, the elimination of the now approved concrete center median barrier along the long curve of Palos Verdes Drive East as it bends around the Marymount Campus.
Are you willing to allow Marymount those THREE changes? I hope not and urge all of you to vote to oppose the ballot measure.
During the voting dealing with The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project by members of the Planning Commission and the City Council, two groups have been repeatedly heard from and their documents read from.
The two groups represented the Administration and supporters of Marymount College and the largest opposition group to that Project, Concerned Citizens Coalition/Marymount Expansion.
It seems that time and time again, the other residents of the city have provided just one voice and far too few documents to illustrate their feelings about the many issues; me.
That will all CHANGE on June 15 when I am joined by many many more voices opposing the initiative on different grounds and by some very familiar names, in our city.
Marymount will now be able to learn more from Save Our City III, a group that does not offer an opinion about the elements of The Marymount Plan, but they do completely object to the way Marymount is trying to use the ballot box over OUR RESIDENTS' representatives WE VOTED FOR to represent us in city matters.
Marymount wants to take our votes away from us and tell us we don't matter. How is that being a 'good neighbor' as Marymount's Administration claims they are?
Marymount wants to have less local residents dictate what will happen to residents of our city who live closer to the Marymount campus than I do or most others do.
Marymount wants to provide a precedent setting vote that could bring many more private business initiatives to our voters to take away the representation we voted for when we elected our City Council members.
Marymount wants to add a brand new municipal code that benefits only that institution and could disallow some critical oversight our city is mandated to do with other projects, residents, and businesses in the city.
Marymount now claims that the taxpayers' costs for the Special Election will now be borne by the College and its supporters but has not offered to cover other taxpayer-funded costs associated with traffic mitigation they only want to pay their 'fair share' of.
Get ready for an onslaught of mailers, DVDs T.V. adds and possibly door-to-door visits by students or other supporters of Marymount College's initiative.
You will be able to return to this blog when I offer the true facts Marymount does not wish to reveal and so far, Dr. Michael Brophy, Marymount's President continues to confirm that this blog offers true facts and has not found one error of fact on this blog, according to statements he made personally to me.
So, if Dr. Brophy doesn't find any misstatement of fact in this blog and I have found numerous misstatements of fact with The Marymount Plan that Dr. Brophy also does not deny, I think this blog has offered more responsible and truer fact-base opinions, assertions, and reading than Marymount has offered.
My challenges to debate still continue. Now in fact, they grow stronger with the real potential that the initiative will appear on the November 2 ballot.
It has been estimated that Marymount will now cover, the approximately, $80,000.00 of taxpayer-funded costs that would have had to come from the city's General Fund to pay for the Special Election. Marymount once claimed that The Marymount Plan would be completed at "no expense" to taxpayers. Until Marymount moved to cover those costs, that statement was untrue.
The statement remains untrue regarding the traffic mitigation and the now-approved concrete center median barrier on Palos Verdes Drive East.
Marymount has offered to pay up to $200,000.00 of the over $285,000.00 potential costs for the median barrier.
Marymount has offered to pay their "fair share" for three other traffic mitigation efforts in both The Project and The Plan, but has so far refused to pay the remainder of the costs that would have to come from the taxpayer-funded General Fund the city keeps.
So, who are you going to trust for real facts and assertions? I must admit, Marymount's trustworthy records are not up to par with mine and I doubt they are up to the records of CCC/ME and now Save Our City III.
Our armor is polished. Our swords of truth are sharp. Our steeds are well fed and have lots of energy. Our associates are informed and eager to wage war. Our cause is just. Our fight is right.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
The Resolutions Just Passed!
At about 9:37 PM in Tuesday June 1, 2010, the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council voted unanimously to adopt the two Resolutions necessary to allow Marymount College to go forward with permits to begin The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, which will be termed "The Project" throughout the remainder of this post and well into the future.
Naturally, Mr. Don Davis, the Planning and Land Use Attorney for Marymount College angered Council members, CCC/ME, myself and many other residents by pointing out that there is a "flaw" in our city's government and he would not address whether Marymount will go forward with their initiative and now is different that what is now law by the question of residence halls on campus and a prospective municipal code that could restrict city oversight of whatever Marymount now decides to do with The Marymount Plan.
This was the only City Council meeting on the issues relating to Marymount's redevelopment that I did not attend. I watched item number 13 on CATV's Rancho Palos Verdes television channel.
The ten-year period of getting The Project through the necessary planning and study stages is now over. Marymount will soon be able to pull permits to begin demolishing old buildings and begin changing the configuration of its parking lot, but don't expect any of that to begin before November.
On November 2, Marymount wants registered voters to become Planning Commission members, City Council Members, and Rancho Palos Verdes city Staff members by approving The Marymount Plan, which will be referred to as "The Plan" in this post and for the unforseeable future, I am sorry to write.
Mr. Davis called the ten-year process 'flawed' in his opinion and he also took a swipe at Concerned Citizens Coaligion/Marymount Expansion (CCC/ME) in his remarks before the Council.
Councilman Stern made a wonderful series of comments rebuking Mr. Davis and Marymount's initiative process and how Marymount is now looking for voters to approve dorms on campus because just about everything else is now part of a new municipal code.
Councilman Brian Campbell, Mayor Pro Tem Tom Long, and Mayor Stefan Wolwicz echoed Councilman Stern's comments and added a few of their own.
Mayor Wolowicz was quite emotional, it looked like to me, as he chastised Mr. Davis and Marymount over things he felt were unfair and out of character. The Mayor stated to Mr. Davis and others that it wrong to attack municipal processes, especially the processes that have been dealt with by so many residents and staff of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Mayor Pro Tem commented that he and other members of the Council feel none of them got all that they wanted when they voted on the various parts and pieces of The Project, but because there were disagreements among Council members, he and others felt that The Project was provided with the best results possible.
I actually have commented before and I continue to feel strongly that The Project is just about all that I wanted and I am quite pleased with the provisions of The Project Marymount will, most likely, not build, even if their initiative passes.
How many more pieces of evidence do you need to finally realize that it has always been about on campus student housing for Marymount?
Even Mr. Davis would not offer whether Marymount would take the initiative off the ballot if The Project passed because he, Dr. Brophy, Marymount's President, all the members of the City Council, CCC/ME, SOC III, and a good portion of Rancho Palos Verdes residents know perfectly well that Marymount won't pull their initiative, and they telegraphed that just last week.
Marymount has now offered to pick up the tab for the Special Election on November 2. You know, it's the one where I have asserted that tax payers' dollars would have been needed for The Marymount Plan, even though the slick ads and Marymount-speak contended that The Plan would be completed at no expense to the taxpayer.
Well, Marymount blinked so they are picking up one part of what taxpayers will have to fund for either The Project or The Marymount Plan.
There is still the issues of traffic mitigation and whether Marymount will add the concrete center median to The Plan, or not.
Yes, Marymount has offered to pay up to $200,000.00 to help finance the construction of the barrier, but they still are not willing to admit that the at least $85,000.00 required to complete that mitigation must come from the city's General Fund, funded with taxpayer money, or perhaps sell ad space on the barriers, which nobody will do.
The ten-year battle is over and the war is now beginning.
It will be interesting to see what Marymount says and markets next.
Will they continue to state that the city is flawed in some way?
Will they ever admit that whatever the redevelopment is called, it has always been and will always be about on campus student housing?
Will they finally acknowledge that taxpayer funds are required if voters pass The Marymount Plan's initiative or will they continue to state they will fund the election, the traffic mitigation, and even the barrier which is not part of The Plan yet?
Our city's Staff, the various members of the Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission, and the various members of The Rancho Palos Verdes City Council have been dealing with The Project for a decade. We have only had to deal with The Plan for a number of months. How, after all they time and effort by paid employees, consultants and a pretty large number of Rancho Palos Verdes residents/volunteers, does Don Davis, speaking just in front of Dr. Brophy, have the you-know-whats to chastise our City and the neighborhoods organization that has been working so hard to serve and protect all of our residents?
I guess the "Attorney at Law" part of his identity speaks volumes and that should displease many fine residents in our good city.
I know I have taken off the gloves already, but I think I need to let folks know that I was wearing more than one pair. So I guess it is time to go bare knuckles word-wise against the initiative and Marymount's outrageous ideas about what they really think about their neighbors and the rest of the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Perhaps there are more foul 'good neighbors' in other areas, but Marymount is one "good neighbor" I think we should be very cautious about.
Naturally, Mr. Don Davis, the Planning and Land Use Attorney for Marymount College angered Council members, CCC/ME, myself and many other residents by pointing out that there is a "flaw" in our city's government and he would not address whether Marymount will go forward with their initiative and now is different that what is now law by the question of residence halls on campus and a prospective municipal code that could restrict city oversight of whatever Marymount now decides to do with The Marymount Plan.
This was the only City Council meeting on the issues relating to Marymount's redevelopment that I did not attend. I watched item number 13 on CATV's Rancho Palos Verdes television channel.
The ten-year period of getting The Project through the necessary planning and study stages is now over. Marymount will soon be able to pull permits to begin demolishing old buildings and begin changing the configuration of its parking lot, but don't expect any of that to begin before November.
On November 2, Marymount wants registered voters to become Planning Commission members, City Council Members, and Rancho Palos Verdes city Staff members by approving The Marymount Plan, which will be referred to as "The Plan" in this post and for the unforseeable future, I am sorry to write.
Mr. Davis called the ten-year process 'flawed' in his opinion and he also took a swipe at Concerned Citizens Coaligion/Marymount Expansion (CCC/ME) in his remarks before the Council.
Councilman Stern made a wonderful series of comments rebuking Mr. Davis and Marymount's initiative process and how Marymount is now looking for voters to approve dorms on campus because just about everything else is now part of a new municipal code.
Councilman Brian Campbell, Mayor Pro Tem Tom Long, and Mayor Stefan Wolwicz echoed Councilman Stern's comments and added a few of their own.
Mayor Wolowicz was quite emotional, it looked like to me, as he chastised Mr. Davis and Marymount over things he felt were unfair and out of character. The Mayor stated to Mr. Davis and others that it wrong to attack municipal processes, especially the processes that have been dealt with by so many residents and staff of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Mayor Pro Tem commented that he and other members of the Council feel none of them got all that they wanted when they voted on the various parts and pieces of The Project, but because there were disagreements among Council members, he and others felt that The Project was provided with the best results possible.
I actually have commented before and I continue to feel strongly that The Project is just about all that I wanted and I am quite pleased with the provisions of The Project Marymount will, most likely, not build, even if their initiative passes.
How many more pieces of evidence do you need to finally realize that it has always been about on campus student housing for Marymount?
Even Mr. Davis would not offer whether Marymount would take the initiative off the ballot if The Project passed because he, Dr. Brophy, Marymount's President, all the members of the City Council, CCC/ME, SOC III, and a good portion of Rancho Palos Verdes residents know perfectly well that Marymount won't pull their initiative, and they telegraphed that just last week.
Marymount has now offered to pick up the tab for the Special Election on November 2. You know, it's the one where I have asserted that tax payers' dollars would have been needed for The Marymount Plan, even though the slick ads and Marymount-speak contended that The Plan would be completed at no expense to the taxpayer.
Well, Marymount blinked so they are picking up one part of what taxpayers will have to fund for either The Project or The Marymount Plan.
There is still the issues of traffic mitigation and whether Marymount will add the concrete center median to The Plan, or not.
Yes, Marymount has offered to pay up to $200,000.00 to help finance the construction of the barrier, but they still are not willing to admit that the at least $85,000.00 required to complete that mitigation must come from the city's General Fund, funded with taxpayer money, or perhaps sell ad space on the barriers, which nobody will do.
The ten-year battle is over and the war is now beginning.
It will be interesting to see what Marymount says and markets next.
Will they continue to state that the city is flawed in some way?
Will they ever admit that whatever the redevelopment is called, it has always been and will always be about on campus student housing?
Will they finally acknowledge that taxpayer funds are required if voters pass The Marymount Plan's initiative or will they continue to state they will fund the election, the traffic mitigation, and even the barrier which is not part of The Plan yet?
Our city's Staff, the various members of the Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission, and the various members of The Rancho Palos Verdes City Council have been dealing with The Project for a decade. We have only had to deal with The Plan for a number of months. How, after all they time and effort by paid employees, consultants and a pretty large number of Rancho Palos Verdes residents/volunteers, does Don Davis, speaking just in front of Dr. Brophy, have the you-know-whats to chastise our City and the neighborhoods organization that has been working so hard to serve and protect all of our residents?
I guess the "Attorney at Law" part of his identity speaks volumes and that should displease many fine residents in our good city.
I know I have taken off the gloves already, but I think I need to let folks know that I was wearing more than one pair. So I guess it is time to go bare knuckles word-wise against the initiative and Marymount's outrageous ideas about what they really think about their neighbors and the rest of the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Perhaps there are more foul 'good neighbors' in other areas, but Marymount is one "good neighbor" I think we should be very cautious about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)