During the public comments on non-agenda items, a resident of R.P.V. made comments about Measure C, the charter city ballot measure and then asked a simple question to the three 'veteran' City Council members.
She was trying to find some measure of whether having R.P.V. becoming a Charter City or not would be a good thing or a not-so-good thing. I felt her question was brilliant, but I will comment about the results after I post her question to Councilmen Wolowicz, Stern, and Mayor Long. (Mayor Long was communicating during the meeting via telephone because he is in New York.)
Her question was basically, what if any, impediments did you find during your terms because R.P.V. is not a Charter City?
First, I feel that her question should not have been answered by anyone during that portion of the meeting. The comments on non-agenda items strictly should be that, comments.
I have seen many people stand up and ask questions during that portion of the meeting that answers were not allowed to be uttered by Council members because the portion was not designed to be a question and answer period.
However, since no objection was raised, I believe Councilman Stern provided her the first, and to the question, answer.
He mentioned how he was impeded because he could not deal with cost issues revolving around city projects without the constraints of prevailing wage laws. He and Councilman Wolowicz both were very impassioned, I feel, about their not being able to lower the taxpayers' costs for contracts.
I think Councilman Stern answered her question well even though I believe Mayor Pro Tem Misetich should have stopped any answering because that is not technically part of the public comment period.
I found Councilman Wolowicz, taking two periods to respond to the question, also did a fine job at dealing with the question asked and not varying off too far from the question.
Between Councilman Wolowicz' comments we heard from Councilman Campbell.
Councilman Campbell probably should have stayed silent because he was not one of the Council members who the question was posed to, because the woman was asking only the more veteran members of the Council.
Mayor Pro Tem did what I feel was correct for him by not providing any comments or answers to the question.
Then there comes onto the speakers the voice of Mayor Long.
He spent almost the entire time of his overly long lobbying, campaigning for Yes votes on Measure C and did not offer any real answer to the woman's question about his past impediments to not governing in a charter city.
I think what Tom Long did during the time of the public City Council meeting was completely campaigning, lobbying, and supporting Measure C during a meeting in which that type of stuff should not be allowed and should have been stopped.
Mayor Long represents ALL the residents of R.P.V. even those who oppose Measure C, during the scheduled meetings of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council.
It sounded far too much like he was campaigning on behalf of the city and the City Council and while he is perfectly within his rights to speak about such matters as a resident of the city, while he is attending City Council meetings he should not lobby as he did to the public who were present at the meeting and those listening to him via the television or Internet.
What makes this problem worse is that now opponents of Measure C can (rightfully) claim that Tom was using City Council time and the costs to the city for those representing the city at the meeting to call for support of Measure C with overt campaigning language and what can only been thought of as a lobbying effort by an official on City business, for a measure.
By the way, at the meeting I heard from Council members and former Mayor Ken Dyda that now make me even more supportive of Measure C, no thanks to Tom.
Attending the meeting and listening to Tom's words was one of the most outspoken opponent of Measure C. This person, I feel, now has more talking points against Tom and against passage of Measure C, if the person plays their cards right.
I don't like it when 'our' side basically hands the other side reasons to oppose what 'we' support.
I think Long should do his business in New York, come home, and support passage of Measure C as a resident and not as Mayor of R.P.V.
I feel Tom did a disservice during the meeting, to all those who support Measure C and gave opponents something to use.
That's just my opinion.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Monday, January 17, 2011
Perhaps a Good Test Regarding Measure C
An article appearing now online at www.dailybreeze.com and probably set for publishing in tomorrow's paper states that the cost of repairing San Ramon Canyon and all that goes with supporting the switchbacks along Palos Verdes Drive East and other items could cost as much as 23.2 Million Dollars.
It appears that many folks supporting Measure C do so because of the many claims I have heard about the elimination of prevailing wage guidelines within the city, is one of the most important reasons to support Measure C.
I am an opponent of eliminating prevailing wage guidelines and 58% of the 120 charter cities in California have concluded that they will stick with the State prevailing wage guidelines, as of today.
So since we have some time before the election, how about taking the report that will be discussed during the upcoming City Council meeting and crunching the numbers using several scenarios so that voters can view what costs could be under three different scenarios.
Before I continue, the article mentioned that most of the project would be within the limits of Rancho Palos Verdes, unless the option to connect to the existing outfall piping is used.
So to crunch the numbers, I suggest that someone who knows how to crunch the numbers take a look and tell all the voters what would be the least costly to the city and still get the job done as soon as possible.
First, since the majority of charter cities still use prevailing wage guidelines, established for most cities, what might be the costs and timing to finish all the repairs should the city to continue to use what continues to exist in our city.
Second, since there are some cities that have partially exempted prevailing wage guidelines, the number crunchers would first have to decide which set of exemptions would be best, then let us know the costs and timeline for the complete repair.
Lastly, since so many of the proponents of Measure C seem to favor the elimination of our existing prevailing wage guidelines, I think it would be very important to all voters to know the possible overall costs and timeline without the city continuing to use prevailing wage guidelines.
But there is a kicker in the article. The article, by Ms. Melissa Pamer states that a temporary solution could be put in place for about 3.7 Million Dollars, if I remember correctly from the article.
I don't like the idea of another temporary fix.
The article also included mention of the sewer system that is and would be affected in the San Ramon Canyon and P.V.D. East areas.
We now know that the L.A. County Sanitation Districts want a ballot measure to raise our sewer fees in the city of Rancho Palos Verdes and they want to do that with a city-wide vote and not county-wide vote.
If the number crunchers are willing to include the added costs to property tax payers should the sewer measure pass, that would be educational, too.
Although I cannot imagine that our city's voters would approve more taxes or fees for sewer services, anything could happen.
I still continue to favor passage of Measure C, but I now would very much like to learn about the costs and timeline for repair of San Ramon Canyon, under the three scenarios, so that I and others can make the best vote possible concerning Measure C.
It appears that many folks supporting Measure C do so because of the many claims I have heard about the elimination of prevailing wage guidelines within the city, is one of the most important reasons to support Measure C.
I am an opponent of eliminating prevailing wage guidelines and 58% of the 120 charter cities in California have concluded that they will stick with the State prevailing wage guidelines, as of today.
So since we have some time before the election, how about taking the report that will be discussed during the upcoming City Council meeting and crunching the numbers using several scenarios so that voters can view what costs could be under three different scenarios.
Before I continue, the article mentioned that most of the project would be within the limits of Rancho Palos Verdes, unless the option to connect to the existing outfall piping is used.
So to crunch the numbers, I suggest that someone who knows how to crunch the numbers take a look and tell all the voters what would be the least costly to the city and still get the job done as soon as possible.
First, since the majority of charter cities still use prevailing wage guidelines, established for most cities, what might be the costs and timing to finish all the repairs should the city to continue to use what continues to exist in our city.
Second, since there are some cities that have partially exempted prevailing wage guidelines, the number crunchers would first have to decide which set of exemptions would be best, then let us know the costs and timeline for the complete repair.
Lastly, since so many of the proponents of Measure C seem to favor the elimination of our existing prevailing wage guidelines, I think it would be very important to all voters to know the possible overall costs and timeline without the city continuing to use prevailing wage guidelines.
But there is a kicker in the article. The article, by Ms. Melissa Pamer states that a temporary solution could be put in place for about 3.7 Million Dollars, if I remember correctly from the article.
I don't like the idea of another temporary fix.
The article also included mention of the sewer system that is and would be affected in the San Ramon Canyon and P.V.D. East areas.
We now know that the L.A. County Sanitation Districts want a ballot measure to raise our sewer fees in the city of Rancho Palos Verdes and they want to do that with a city-wide vote and not county-wide vote.
If the number crunchers are willing to include the added costs to property tax payers should the sewer measure pass, that would be educational, too.
Although I cannot imagine that our city's voters would approve more taxes or fees for sewer services, anything could happen.
I still continue to favor passage of Measure C, but I now would very much like to learn about the costs and timeline for repair of San Ramon Canyon, under the three scenarios, so that I and others can make the best vote possible concerning Measure C.
Some More Information Regarding Measure C
When Mayor Tom Long and Mr. John Stammreich support Measure C, everyone must be assured that this is not a left versus right or Liberal versus Conservative issue.
Both men support Measue C and they have widely differing views about politics and issues within and without Rancho Palos Verdes.
But Measure C is a political measure, one dealing with how much governance we allow our local leaders over how much our city and its residents are governed by the legislature of the State of California.
It should be noted here that our residents voted in elections for our area's Assembly member and State Senator.
Measure C seeks to bring more local control AND power to members of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council.
I feel education concerning what a Charter City is and does must be increased so that our intelligent and savvy electorate have most information available to make and informed decision.
I still remain on the side of the fence supporting the measure, but I have learned some information I did not know and I see more questions arising from my most recent education.
The Web site, RanchoPalosVerdesPatch has an article titled, Charter Initiative Election Could Revamp RPV City Government written by Mr. Bob Pickard.
I gained access to the site through my Facebook page. http://outside.in/rancho-palos-verdes-ca is another way to access the article.
ASSOCIATED BUILDERS AND CONTRACTORS CALIFORNIA COOPERATION COMMITTEE has its:
Are Charter Cities Taking Advantage of Prevailing Wage Exemptions?
2011 1st EDITION
I found one page in the booklet more interesting than I had expected, concerning Charter Cities and prevailing wage laws.
Here is the documentation about how many of the 120 Charter Cities have no, partial, or full restrictions on prevailing wage laws.
Charter Cities with No Exemption
Alameda Albany Alhambra Bakersfield Bell Berkeley Buena Park Burbank Cerritos Chico Compton Culver City Cypress Del Mar Downey Eureka Folsom Grass Valley Glendale Hayward Huntington Beach Inglewood Kingsburg Lancaster Lemoore Loma Linda Long Beach Los Alamitos Los Angeles Marina Monterey Napa Newport Beach Oakland
Petaluma Piedmont Pomona Port Hueneme Redondo Beach Redwood City Richmond Riverside Roseville Salinas Sacramento San Bernardino San Francisco San Jose San Leandro San Luis Obispo San Mateo San Rafael San Ramon Sand City Santa Ana Santa Barbara Santa Clara Santa Cruz Santa Monica Santa Rosa Seal Beach Signal Hill Stockton Torrance Vallejo Ventura Vernon Watsonville Palmdale Woodlake
Total-70
Charter Cities with Partial Exemption
Anaheim El Centro Fortuna City of Industry Fresno Irvine Mountain View Oroville Big Bear Lake San Diego Santee Sunnyvale Truckee
Total-13
Charter Cities with Full Exemption
Adelanto Arcadia Carlsbad Chula Vista Desert Hot Springs Dinuba Exeter Gilroy Indian Wells Irwindale King City La Quinta Lindsay Marysville Merced Modesto Needles Norco Oceanside Pacific Grove Palm Desert Palm Springs Palo Alto Pasadena Placentia Porterville Rancho Mirage San Marcos Santa Maria Shafter Solvang Temple City Tulare City Victorville Visalia Vista Whittier
Total-37
One of the reasons I found this particular information interesting is that many proponents for Measure C state that one very positive reason to support Measure C is to rid the city of the mandate to adhere to prevailing wage guidelines.
My first question I have after reading the numbers is; Why do 70 of the 120 cities have no exemptions regarding prevailing wage guidelines?
58.33% of our State's Charter Cities continue to use prevailing wage guidelines.
13 cities have partial exemptions from prevailing wage guidelines.
Only 37 of the 120 Charter Cities in California, just about 31%, or just less that one third of the listed cities, have full exemptions.
For those who consider supporting Measure C and who have the potential elimination of prevailing wage guidelines as one of several major reasons for their support of Measure C, I think we all need to continue to ask questions about what a partial or full exemption from prevailing wage guidelines truly means. Especially when less than one third of the Charter Cities have full exemptions on their books.
In an earlier post I mentioned several projects that might be allowed to be included as far as prevailing wage guidelines go. They are multi-jurisdictional in nature and they would probably fall under prevailing wage guidelines.
These projects seem to be the most important in our city, right now. From the repair of San Ramon Canyon, the sewer maintenance and replacement issues, and possibly the work on maintaining a safe roadbed in the landslide area of Palos Verdes Drive East, I feel there are important projects and issues in our city that could not fit into new laws regarding prevailing wage guidelines.
All this to me suggests that we need to learn more about prevailing wage guidelines and how, if, or why having R.P.V. as a Charter City would benefit or not benefit with the aspects of more local control of guidelines, such as prevailing wage guidelines.
Sadly, I have also recently learned there are certain individuals in our city who choose not to learn from events and there are still some out there who are uncivil to others, regarding Measure C.
Apparently there are still those who did not learn a thing about the need for greater civility and how to conduct themselves, after the horrific tragedy in Tucson. Shame on 'they know who they are'. There is no place in any discussion or debate regarding Measure C, for the rhetoric and vitriol they are spewing.
There are those on the 'left and the right' who support or oppose Measure C. Since our residents appear to be more intelligent and have more savvy than many residents in other cities, I hope we can have a better discussion period with Measure C than we did with Measure P.
I would like to hope I can find more good feelings about who would be the new members coming onto the Council this coming December. In conversations with others, they tell me I should not worry so much about who might become 'the deciders' if Measure C passes.
Right now if the current Council makeup could remain, I would be much more supportive of Measure C. But term limits sees the makeup of the City Council changing.
Even though I know full well that our residents who seek the three seats up for election are intelligent and would work to benefit the residents of R.P.V., I have not been all that favorable towards past Council members and for that reason, I wish the ballot measure would come up for a vote after we all know who will sit on our Council for at least 2012 and 2013.
Both men support Measue C and they have widely differing views about politics and issues within and without Rancho Palos Verdes.
But Measure C is a political measure, one dealing with how much governance we allow our local leaders over how much our city and its residents are governed by the legislature of the State of California.
It should be noted here that our residents voted in elections for our area's Assembly member and State Senator.
Measure C seeks to bring more local control AND power to members of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council.
I feel education concerning what a Charter City is and does must be increased so that our intelligent and savvy electorate have most information available to make and informed decision.
I still remain on the side of the fence supporting the measure, but I have learned some information I did not know and I see more questions arising from my most recent education.
The Web site, RanchoPalosVerdesPatch has an article titled, Charter Initiative Election Could Revamp RPV City Government written by Mr. Bob Pickard.
I gained access to the site through my Facebook page. http://outside.in/rancho-palos-verdes-ca is another way to access the article.
ASSOCIATED BUILDERS AND CONTRACTORS CALIFORNIA COOPERATION COMMITTEE has its:
Are Charter Cities Taking Advantage of Prevailing Wage Exemptions?
2011 1st EDITION
I found one page in the booklet more interesting than I had expected, concerning Charter Cities and prevailing wage laws.
Here is the documentation about how many of the 120 Charter Cities have no, partial, or full restrictions on prevailing wage laws.
Charter Cities with No Exemption
Alameda Albany Alhambra Bakersfield Bell Berkeley Buena Park Burbank Cerritos Chico Compton Culver City Cypress Del Mar Downey Eureka Folsom Grass Valley Glendale Hayward Huntington Beach Inglewood Kingsburg Lancaster Lemoore Loma Linda Long Beach Los Alamitos Los Angeles Marina Monterey Napa Newport Beach Oakland
Petaluma Piedmont Pomona Port Hueneme Redondo Beach Redwood City Richmond Riverside Roseville Salinas Sacramento San Bernardino San Francisco San Jose San Leandro San Luis Obispo San Mateo San Rafael San Ramon Sand City Santa Ana Santa Barbara Santa Clara Santa Cruz Santa Monica Santa Rosa Seal Beach Signal Hill Stockton Torrance Vallejo Ventura Vernon Watsonville Palmdale Woodlake
Total-70
Charter Cities with Partial Exemption
Anaheim El Centro Fortuna City of Industry Fresno Irvine Mountain View Oroville Big Bear Lake San Diego Santee Sunnyvale Truckee
Total-13
Charter Cities with Full Exemption
Adelanto Arcadia Carlsbad Chula Vista Desert Hot Springs Dinuba Exeter Gilroy Indian Wells Irwindale King City La Quinta Lindsay Marysville Merced Modesto Needles Norco Oceanside Pacific Grove Palm Desert Palm Springs Palo Alto Pasadena Placentia Porterville Rancho Mirage San Marcos Santa Maria Shafter Solvang Temple City Tulare City Victorville Visalia Vista Whittier
Total-37
One of the reasons I found this particular information interesting is that many proponents for Measure C state that one very positive reason to support Measure C is to rid the city of the mandate to adhere to prevailing wage guidelines.
My first question I have after reading the numbers is; Why do 70 of the 120 cities have no exemptions regarding prevailing wage guidelines?
58.33% of our State's Charter Cities continue to use prevailing wage guidelines.
13 cities have partial exemptions from prevailing wage guidelines.
Only 37 of the 120 Charter Cities in California, just about 31%, or just less that one third of the listed cities, have full exemptions.
For those who consider supporting Measure C and who have the potential elimination of prevailing wage guidelines as one of several major reasons for their support of Measure C, I think we all need to continue to ask questions about what a partial or full exemption from prevailing wage guidelines truly means. Especially when less than one third of the Charter Cities have full exemptions on their books.
In an earlier post I mentioned several projects that might be allowed to be included as far as prevailing wage guidelines go. They are multi-jurisdictional in nature and they would probably fall under prevailing wage guidelines.
These projects seem to be the most important in our city, right now. From the repair of San Ramon Canyon, the sewer maintenance and replacement issues, and possibly the work on maintaining a safe roadbed in the landslide area of Palos Verdes Drive East, I feel there are important projects and issues in our city that could not fit into new laws regarding prevailing wage guidelines.
All this to me suggests that we need to learn more about prevailing wage guidelines and how, if, or why having R.P.V. as a Charter City would benefit or not benefit with the aspects of more local control of guidelines, such as prevailing wage guidelines.
Sadly, I have also recently learned there are certain individuals in our city who choose not to learn from events and there are still some out there who are uncivil to others, regarding Measure C.
Apparently there are still those who did not learn a thing about the need for greater civility and how to conduct themselves, after the horrific tragedy in Tucson. Shame on 'they know who they are'. There is no place in any discussion or debate regarding Measure C, for the rhetoric and vitriol they are spewing.
There are those on the 'left and the right' who support or oppose Measure C. Since our residents appear to be more intelligent and have more savvy than many residents in other cities, I hope we can have a better discussion period with Measure C than we did with Measure P.
I would like to hope I can find more good feelings about who would be the new members coming onto the Council this coming December. In conversations with others, they tell me I should not worry so much about who might become 'the deciders' if Measure C passes.
Right now if the current Council makeup could remain, I would be much more supportive of Measure C. But term limits sees the makeup of the City Council changing.
Even though I know full well that our residents who seek the three seats up for election are intelligent and would work to benefit the residents of R.P.V., I have not been all that favorable towards past Council members and for that reason, I wish the ballot measure would come up for a vote after we all know who will sit on our Council for at least 2012 and 2013.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Measure C, Rancho Palos Verdes As A Charter City, My Thoughts
Today, the Palos Verdes Peninsula News carried a story about Measure C, the ballot measure that if approved by voters in March would more the city of Rancho Palos Verdes from a 'general law' city to a 'charter city'.
The issues of having R.P.V. becoming a charter city have been discusses in small circles for some time. What got the water boiling to have R.P.V. becoming a charter city was Marymount College's attempt to have a Special Election for its Marymount Plan that would allow for the construction of on-campus housing at Marymount's Palos Verdes Drive East campus.
Had R.P.V. been a charter city, is would have been highly unlikely that Marymount's representatives could have moved forward with a ballot measure.
As a general law city, R.P.V. was and still is faced with the possibility that special interest groups COULD mount efforts to have voters decide issues related to the business and operational interests of businesses and other entities in R.P.V.
As it turned out, the massive number of registered voters who voted in the Special Election demonstrated that any entity in the forseeable future would most likely not attempt to create a measure for its own self interests and attempt to have voters approve those special interests. More than 2/3 of the registered voters of R.P.V. voted in the Special Election where Marymount's Measure P was voted down with about a 54%-46% NO vote.
I have been and remain very concerned that Measure C seems to remain incomplete as far as the total charter city ordinances would be. It is also troubling to me that many feel the vote on the measure is coming too soon and without the educational resources voters should use to make their own decisions.
I strongly feel that having R.P.V. as a charter city COULD VERY WELL BE THE BEST THING, but my concern grows on a number of fronts, with the measure and the possible future.
It is troubling to me that there is no ballot argument opposing the adoption of Measure C. There are now two Web sites created by opponents of R.P.V. becoming a charter city, at this time.
http://www.norpvc.info/Home_Page.html
www.pvpwatch.com
There are sites representing support for Measure C, including pages linked to the city's Web site.
Another site created in support of Measure C is: www.YesOnCRPV.com
There is also a site listing some residents supporting Measure C: http://yesoncrpv.com/supporters.html
I have commented in the past and still contend that not enough education on all aspects of Measure C and how charter city operates has been created and offered to our residents by all sides of the issue.
The five sitting Council persons support the adoption of Measure C and for me, that would be great IF three of them were not going to be replaced in about 10 months.
Since everyone knowledgeable with regards to Measure C agree that ordinances created under charter city status could be approved or rejected by just three members of the City Council, many folks would like to wait to vote on charter city status until after the three new Council members are seated.
It is also troubling to some voters that the charter itself might not be completed prior to the vote on whether to accept it or not and I have not found any indication that it would be a completed document at the time of the swearing in of the three newest members of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council.
While I fully support the current makeup of the Council with regards to their active creation of a charter, I might not have that same feeling with any or all of the three newest members, in December.
The article in today's Palos Verdes Peninsula News also brought a point that is very central to having R.P.V. becoming a charter city. That issue concerns the part in which charter cities are not required to follow prevailing wage guidelines or how individuals are hired regarding the planning and design of developments on city land.
The article suggested that companies may not bid on jobs within a charter city. That suggestions suggests to me that one of the main reasons for a city becoming a charter city might be null and void from the outset.
On the League of California Cities, http://www.cacities.org/index.jsp?zone=locc&previewStory=53 we find that as of October, 2010, 481 incorporated cities, 120 California Cities are charter cities, and 369 are listed as general law cities (I didn't do the math so I don't know why the numbers are as they are stated.
Yes, Bell California is a charter city HOWEVER, I am quite sure that the electorate of Rancho Palos Verdes would not, could not, and will not allow any time if situation remotely similar to anything regarding the problems that Bell faced and faces.
I also read from the following site:
http://publicceo.com/index.php/local-governments/151-local-governments-publicceo-exclusive/1249-charter-cities-charting-their-own-paths-but-not-without-obstacles which illustrated to me that becoming a charter city may create problems that I believe are still unforeseen.
I am heading towards calling for postponement of the March election to determine whether R.P.V. becomes a charter city NOT because I think R.P.V. becoming a charter city is a bad thing.
My concerns cover a growing set of reasons including but not limited to;
An incomplete charter coming up for a vote of acceptance or rejection
Too little of a debate and public discussion regarding these matters
A sense that there is now a needless rush towards a vote, after what was found to actually be true of our electorate as demonstrated this past November.
The concept that no resident/voter knows today who might be the members of the City Council during the first term after a March, 2011 election be. We have no indication whether an approved charter city status would serve the majority of residents because we don't yet know three of the five Council members who would have authority to create or change laws.
(It is not enough for me to trust the current makeup of the Council when I don't know who will make up the majority of votes on the Council, beginning in December, 2011.)
I have created some specific question that I have Emailed out seeking answers for in terms of how many cities in California have increasing deficits and which, if any of them are charter cities.
It is also a good question to find the answer to as far as which city elements, buildings, and items would fall under the terms of a charter city and what portions of R.P.V. have multi-jurisdictional structures which could preclude any benefit (if any) to the elimination of prevailing wage guidelines.
It is fully understandable to strongly run away from authorities and limitations imposed by those in Sacramento, with the adoption of charter city status over general law status. What has not yet been presented to our electorate is how charter cities are currently functioning when compared to general law cities. It would be important to see published comparisons regarding the economics of charter cities versus general law cities, in my opinion.
We are now within two months time before the scheduled vote that could become the most important vote in our city. It is only been very recently that more information about those opposed to Measure C has come forward and it is only in today's PVP News that we find an article related to the growing opposition to Measure P.
I have always contended that a full education regarding R.P.V. becoming a charter city has not taken place yet and that does not benefit our voters, I feel.
An analogy. Since R.P.V. becoming a charter city MIGHT VERY WELL BE THE BEST OUTCOME, and it being as good as a bowl of chicken noodle soup, so far we have only been given a can of something and the label is not really understandable for many of us. We might want a bowl of chicken noodle soup, but at this point, we don't know what is really in the can.
The issues of having R.P.V. becoming a charter city have been discusses in small circles for some time. What got the water boiling to have R.P.V. becoming a charter city was Marymount College's attempt to have a Special Election for its Marymount Plan that would allow for the construction of on-campus housing at Marymount's Palos Verdes Drive East campus.
Had R.P.V. been a charter city, is would have been highly unlikely that Marymount's representatives could have moved forward with a ballot measure.
As a general law city, R.P.V. was and still is faced with the possibility that special interest groups COULD mount efforts to have voters decide issues related to the business and operational interests of businesses and other entities in R.P.V.
As it turned out, the massive number of registered voters who voted in the Special Election demonstrated that any entity in the forseeable future would most likely not attempt to create a measure for its own self interests and attempt to have voters approve those special interests. More than 2/3 of the registered voters of R.P.V. voted in the Special Election where Marymount's Measure P was voted down with about a 54%-46% NO vote.
I have been and remain very concerned that Measure C seems to remain incomplete as far as the total charter city ordinances would be. It is also troubling to me that many feel the vote on the measure is coming too soon and without the educational resources voters should use to make their own decisions.
I strongly feel that having R.P.V. as a charter city COULD VERY WELL BE THE BEST THING, but my concern grows on a number of fronts, with the measure and the possible future.
It is troubling to me that there is no ballot argument opposing the adoption of Measure C. There are now two Web sites created by opponents of R.P.V. becoming a charter city, at this time.
http://www.norpvc.info/Home_Page.html
www.pvpwatch.com
There are sites representing support for Measure C, including pages linked to the city's Web site.
Another site created in support of Measure C is: www.YesOnCRPV.com
There is also a site listing some residents supporting Measure C: http://yesoncrpv.com/supporters.html
I have commented in the past and still contend that not enough education on all aspects of Measure C and how charter city operates has been created and offered to our residents by all sides of the issue.
The five sitting Council persons support the adoption of Measure C and for me, that would be great IF three of them were not going to be replaced in about 10 months.
Since everyone knowledgeable with regards to Measure C agree that ordinances created under charter city status could be approved or rejected by just three members of the City Council, many folks would like to wait to vote on charter city status until after the three new Council members are seated.
It is also troubling to some voters that the charter itself might not be completed prior to the vote on whether to accept it or not and I have not found any indication that it would be a completed document at the time of the swearing in of the three newest members of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council.
While I fully support the current makeup of the Council with regards to their active creation of a charter, I might not have that same feeling with any or all of the three newest members, in December.
The article in today's Palos Verdes Peninsula News also brought a point that is very central to having R.P.V. becoming a charter city. That issue concerns the part in which charter cities are not required to follow prevailing wage guidelines or how individuals are hired regarding the planning and design of developments on city land.
The article suggested that companies may not bid on jobs within a charter city. That suggestions suggests to me that one of the main reasons for a city becoming a charter city might be null and void from the outset.
On the League of California Cities, http://www.cacities.org/index.jsp?zone=locc&previewStory=53 we find that as of October, 2010, 481 incorporated cities, 120 California Cities are charter cities, and 369 are listed as general law cities (I didn't do the math so I don't know why the numbers are as they are stated.
Yes, Bell California is a charter city HOWEVER, I am quite sure that the electorate of Rancho Palos Verdes would not, could not, and will not allow any time if situation remotely similar to anything regarding the problems that Bell faced and faces.
I also read from the following site:
http://publicceo.com/index.php/local-governments/151-local-governments-publicceo-exclusive/1249-charter-cities-charting-their-own-paths-but-not-without-obstacles which illustrated to me that becoming a charter city may create problems that I believe are still unforeseen.
I am heading towards calling for postponement of the March election to determine whether R.P.V. becomes a charter city NOT because I think R.P.V. becoming a charter city is a bad thing.
My concerns cover a growing set of reasons including but not limited to;
An incomplete charter coming up for a vote of acceptance or rejection
Too little of a debate and public discussion regarding these matters
A sense that there is now a needless rush towards a vote, after what was found to actually be true of our electorate as demonstrated this past November.
The concept that no resident/voter knows today who might be the members of the City Council during the first term after a March, 2011 election be. We have no indication whether an approved charter city status would serve the majority of residents because we don't yet know three of the five Council members who would have authority to create or change laws.
(It is not enough for me to trust the current makeup of the Council when I don't know who will make up the majority of votes on the Council, beginning in December, 2011.)
I have created some specific question that I have Emailed out seeking answers for in terms of how many cities in California have increasing deficits and which, if any of them are charter cities.
It is also a good question to find the answer to as far as which city elements, buildings, and items would fall under the terms of a charter city and what portions of R.P.V. have multi-jurisdictional structures which could preclude any benefit (if any) to the elimination of prevailing wage guidelines.
It is fully understandable to strongly run away from authorities and limitations imposed by those in Sacramento, with the adoption of charter city status over general law status. What has not yet been presented to our electorate is how charter cities are currently functioning when compared to general law cities. It would be important to see published comparisons regarding the economics of charter cities versus general law cities, in my opinion.
We are now within two months time before the scheduled vote that could become the most important vote in our city. It is only been very recently that more information about those opposed to Measure C has come forward and it is only in today's PVP News that we find an article related to the growing opposition to Measure P.
I have always contended that a full education regarding R.P.V. becoming a charter city has not taken place yet and that does not benefit our voters, I feel.
An analogy. Since R.P.V. becoming a charter city MIGHT VERY WELL BE THE BEST OUTCOME, and it being as good as a bowl of chicken noodle soup, so far we have only been given a can of something and the label is not really understandable for many of us. We might want a bowl of chicken noodle soup, but at this point, we don't know what is really in the can.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
A Long Dry Spell Must End For Me
This post is written for several of my blogs because I have taken an extended absence from writing on any of my blogs for quite some time.
So much has happened in our extended communities since I stopped writing on the blogs and I want to get back to pondering, questioning, commenting, arguing, and dealing with many issues common to the communities I live in and events and conditions in and around the communities most of my readers live in.
Nothing is more common in all of the communities we all deal with than John and Muriel Olguin. Right now, nothing is more important for all of us in those communities.
Most of us know that a great gentleman, very long into life and even longer in adventures would pass from us, far too soon.
We all knew the day would come that we would make us sad and drive our memories into overdrive.
We all knew none of us can and could measure up to the personhood we all now honor with the passing of John Olguin.
Muriel was and always will be the 'winner' of my writings about our community members who were closer to being "more like John Olguin" than the rest of us. She is in our hearts as she and the rest of us remember John.
Starting 2011 with the new adventure of working on ways to honor John's memory and try to be more like him in the acts of kindness and teachings he showed us, is a task we need to do. It is the first task of what is going to be one heck of a year for all of us.
As we move forward, please include in your visions and dreams the smiles your remember beaming from John's face as he taught you something you didn't know or how he was so happy when you understood how he regaled in your learning.
Let's work towards a public memorial that includes contributions of whatever you can provide to those in need and a clear demonstration that we all 'got' the fascination, wonder, and joy John offered, all supported by Muriel, a true inspiration, artist, and gift to all of us as she was to John.
One way to honor John and all those who volunteered for us is to volunteer to work on issues and projects that interest you in ways that promote those things that benefit 'community'
Not only are your acts, deeds, thoughts, comments, and wishes important, your means of demonstrating those things are also important on many issues you might want to concern yourself with.
Here is just a partial list of things that I am pondering about and I hope your list is at least as long as mine:
John's public memorial, the U.S.S. Iowa, Charter City status and vote in Rancho Palos Verdes, Ponte Vista, SRHS #15, downtown San Pedro, protecting our environment, Western Avenue, community goals, park lands, politics, arts in communities, good citizenship, the local economy, working for those less fortunate, San Ramon Canyon, Marymount's Expansion Project, educating everyone, recession recovery, working for peace, celebrating, family, neighbors and friends, contentious issues, common goals, fun, faith, play, and experiencing a full and productive life. Grandchildren, perhaps someday.
I hope to get back to writing on a much more regular basis on several of these blogs.
I know Ponte Vista is important and should see posts and comments from others throughout the year.
I live on the eastern side of Rancho Palos Verdes. San Pedro in heart, Rancho Palos Verdes in thought. I feel strongly that residents of Rancho Palos Verdes need to be better informed and more able to deal with and comment on their government and city.
There are "Issues to Ponder" regarding San Pedro. It may have a continuing set of problems in its downtown area but it has a growing vibrant aspect in its arts and entertainment and there will be new things popping up in the future throughout the community.
I know that "R Neighborhoods Are 1" and there is more to be considered in our community, for our community, and with our community.
As I am still a caveman, my 'dairy' needs to be updated with stories and learning this caveman has encountered over the last couple of years.
Whether I can manage to work harder to be more like John is something that I don't yet know, but I really need to try.
I hope readers will learn or argue or agree or disagree or ponder or rant or rave or just read. But with all blogs, it is truly more for the writer to write than the reader to read. If that was not the case, there would be no blogs and just look how many there are now compared to when I first wrote, in September, 2006.
Thank you and please return from time to time.
Mark Wells
aka M Richards
mrichards2@hotmail.com
So much has happened in our extended communities since I stopped writing on the blogs and I want to get back to pondering, questioning, commenting, arguing, and dealing with many issues common to the communities I live in and events and conditions in and around the communities most of my readers live in.
Nothing is more common in all of the communities we all deal with than John and Muriel Olguin. Right now, nothing is more important for all of us in those communities.
Most of us know that a great gentleman, very long into life and even longer in adventures would pass from us, far too soon.
We all knew the day would come that we would make us sad and drive our memories into overdrive.
We all knew none of us can and could measure up to the personhood we all now honor with the passing of John Olguin.
Muriel was and always will be the 'winner' of my writings about our community members who were closer to being "more like John Olguin" than the rest of us. She is in our hearts as she and the rest of us remember John.
Starting 2011 with the new adventure of working on ways to honor John's memory and try to be more like him in the acts of kindness and teachings he showed us, is a task we need to do. It is the first task of what is going to be one heck of a year for all of us.
As we move forward, please include in your visions and dreams the smiles your remember beaming from John's face as he taught you something you didn't know or how he was so happy when you understood how he regaled in your learning.
Let's work towards a public memorial that includes contributions of whatever you can provide to those in need and a clear demonstration that we all 'got' the fascination, wonder, and joy John offered, all supported by Muriel, a true inspiration, artist, and gift to all of us as she was to John.
One way to honor John and all those who volunteered for us is to volunteer to work on issues and projects that interest you in ways that promote those things that benefit 'community'
Not only are your acts, deeds, thoughts, comments, and wishes important, your means of demonstrating those things are also important on many issues you might want to concern yourself with.
Here is just a partial list of things that I am pondering about and I hope your list is at least as long as mine:
John's public memorial, the U.S.S. Iowa, Charter City status and vote in Rancho Palos Verdes, Ponte Vista, SRHS #15, downtown San Pedro, protecting our environment, Western Avenue, community goals, park lands, politics, arts in communities, good citizenship, the local economy, working for those less fortunate, San Ramon Canyon, Marymount's Expansion Project, educating everyone, recession recovery, working for peace, celebrating, family, neighbors and friends, contentious issues, common goals, fun, faith, play, and experiencing a full and productive life. Grandchildren, perhaps someday.
I hope to get back to writing on a much more regular basis on several of these blogs.
I know Ponte Vista is important and should see posts and comments from others throughout the year.
I live on the eastern side of Rancho Palos Verdes. San Pedro in heart, Rancho Palos Verdes in thought. I feel strongly that residents of Rancho Palos Verdes need to be better informed and more able to deal with and comment on their government and city.
There are "Issues to Ponder" regarding San Pedro. It may have a continuing set of problems in its downtown area but it has a growing vibrant aspect in its arts and entertainment and there will be new things popping up in the future throughout the community.
I know that "R Neighborhoods Are 1" and there is more to be considered in our community, for our community, and with our community.
As I am still a caveman, my 'dairy' needs to be updated with stories and learning this caveman has encountered over the last couple of years.
Whether I can manage to work harder to be more like John is something that I don't yet know, but I really need to try.
I hope readers will learn or argue or agree or disagree or ponder or rant or rave or just read. But with all blogs, it is truly more for the writer to write than the reader to read. If that was not the case, there would be no blogs and just look how many there are now compared to when I first wrote, in September, 2006.
Thank you and please return from time to time.
Mark Wells
aka M Richards
mrichards2@hotmail.com
Monday, December 6, 2010
Bits And Pieces 25-Continued
Little Fish Theatre is dark on Mondays through Wednesdays and I am now free to continue to post items back on a regular basis, for the time being.
The first Saturday performance of "And To All A Good Night" was more than a sellout and several folks had to be turned away.
The show runs on Thursdays through Saturdays, for the next two weeks, beginning at 8:00 pm.
This coming Sunday there will be two performances: one at 2:30 pm and one at 7:00 pm.
The show closes on Saturday December 18 with an 8:00 PM performance.
I am no longer associated with The Relevant Stage Theatre Company.
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
Abalone Cove
Lower Point Vicente Reservation
Hess Park
Marymount College
San Ramon Canyon
Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy-operated open spaces
Grandview Park
What we seem to have in our city is not a lack of open spaces and park lands, but continuing arguments about how to use the incredible benefits provided to us and other issues that continue to divide us.
We are all not 'NIMBYS" but lately it seems that too many of us are looking like those others tend to oppose.
It also seems to appear that those who have are objecting more to those that want.
The balance also appears to be bending towards the more conservative among us and away from those who progressively want to move forward for the sake of everyone.
I am one of those progressives.
I think there needs to be some beneficial upgrades to features at Abalone Cove Park and Beach along with a good deal of what is being offered by the Annenberg Foundation in the Point Vicente area.
Our city has been gifted with many resources that should be utilized by anyone and everyone and not held hostage by those living closest to any of the locations I listed above.
The student housing issues at Marymount College was not and is not a NIMBY issue as proven by the November 2 vote.
Again to overly repeat, when MORE THAN 50% of the registered voters elect to participate in any election and when those folks voted "No" on Measure P by just over 55%, it cannot be contended that there was anything NIMBY about it and supporters of Measure P need to understand that there has probably never been such a vote anywhere in the local area that needs to be remembered for what it truly was.
I am also concerned about the power some folks representing the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy fancy themselves having.
Those individuals need to learn that the group they are affiliated with must not control what is best for Rancho Palos Verdes and that Rancho Palos Verdes is only one of the communities PVPLC is involved in.
I think opposition to more consideration and progress towards finding the best solutions in the Point Vicente area is wrong and those who are trying to overpower things, while associated with PVPLC should strike out into the other communities that group is involved in.
We the people own the open spaces and PVPLC must not be master or mistress of anyone.
The Annenberg Foundation wants to help provide an educational center that would directly benefit Rancho Palos Verdes in terms of stature, visitation, importance, and tourism. It also wants to help create a beautiful space that really does not take up that much open space in the Point Vicente area.
It is my personal wish that the K-9 education center be placed withing the area of Upper Point Vicente Reservation and that some type of pedestrian route between the lower and upper portions be considered.
We must not close down opportunities that are offered that benefit our community.
___________________________________________
Here is a photo of two of my thumb drives.
One contains files dealing with scenic design and theatre productions I have recently been involved with.
The other contains files dealing with Marymount College, Measure P/The Marymount Plan, and The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project.
Can you guess which one of the drives carries files dealing with Marymount?
I may take it to the City Council meeting where the subject of Dr. Brophy's promise to pay for the election will continue to be discussed.
Files are held by many individuals which contain Dr. Brophy's letter announcing that the college will pay for the election.
If Dr. Brophy's college gets away with not paying the promised costs, the taxpayers of Rancho Palos Verdes will continue to be stuck with the approximately $78,000 tab for the election.
That is $78,000 worth of funds that Marymount supporters claimed would not be borne by taxpayers of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes, they would have to pay.
I don't care what excuse Dr. Brophy uses and what he claims is the truth, but the facts are facts and here is one that needs to be repeated to Dr. Brophy and the members of the Board of Trustees of Marymount College.
Upon leaving a May, 2010 meeting of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council, an encounter between Dr. Micheal Brophy, Mr. Don Davis, and myself occurred near the entrance to the Hesse Park Community Center.
During my questioning of both Dr. Brophy and Mr. Davis, I stated that any Special Election carried out on behalf of Marymount College's "Marymount Plan" happen, it would be the city's taxpayers that would have to pay for the election unless other revenue sources were provided.
Dr. Brophy challenged me on my statement but offered absolutely no answer to where election funds would come from, at that time.
Remembering that Dr. Brophy and other representatives of Marymount College stated over and over again that The Marymount Plan would be accomplished at "no taxpayer expense", I again challenged Dr. Brophy on the factual validity of that statement.
Again he had to reputable response to indicate that taxpayers would not have to pay for at least a portion of The Marymount Plan.
The discussion also included the concepts that the traffic mitigation documented in both The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project and The Marymount Plan would require city taxpayer participation with funding, something that Dr. Brophy could not and did not deny.
Now Dr. Brophy seems to be claiming that the college is not responsible for the promised costs of the election because the city governors did not appear to accept the donation.
Ridiculous! Shameful! Disgusting! Snake-like, in my opinion.
Dr. Brophy promised and he should simply have the business office at Marymount College cut a check to the city for the costs of the election.
I also need to contend that I will hole everyone named in ads as supporters of Measure P at least somewhat responsible for Marymount not paying for the election like the supporters' representative, Dr. Michael Brophy promised.
I also will contend that those named in advertisements, wishing to run for a seat on the City Council will be reminded that their representative did not live up to his word, bond, obligation, and donation offered to all of the taxpayers of Rancho Palos Verdes.
If Dr. Brophy really cares about Rancho Palos Verdes as his college continues to advertise it does, then he needs to find some way to live up to his word for the sake and benefit of the college, the Board of Trustees, and potential candidates for City Council that were also supporters of Measure P, I strongly feel.
Saturday, December 4, 2010
Bits and Pieces 24 AND 25
"Dixie Swim Club", Dirty Rotten Scoundrels", "Seven Brides For Seven Brothers", and "To All A Good Night" have kept me so busy, along with a certain Special Election campaign and vote are some pretty poor reasons for not updating this blog in a more timely manner.
I am not getting any younger and I don't have the ability to fight off exhaustion as well as I tried to do when I was 'youthier'.
"To All A Good Night" has opened at Little Fish Theatre and I urge all of you to take in a performance between now and December 18 of this wonderful show.
Now to the fulfillment of another one of my assertions.
_____________________________________________
In an article published online on December 3, 2010 and expected to run in Saturday's South Bay Daily Breeze, we all learn more about Dr. Michael Brophy's attempt to recind his committment he made in the letter below:
I am not getting any younger and I don't have the ability to fight off exhaustion as well as I tried to do when I was 'youthier'.
"To All A Good Night" has opened at Little Fish Theatre and I urge all of you to take in a performance between now and December 18 of this wonderful show.
Now to the fulfillment of another one of my assertions.
_____________________________________________
In an article published online on December 3, 2010 and expected to run in Saturday's South Bay Daily Breeze, we all learn more about Dr. Michael Brophy's attempt to recind his committment he made in the letter below:
Please click on image to enlarge.
If you read the second to last paragraph of the letter signed by Marymount's President, Dr. Michael Brophy, you should be able to view the promise he made to the community he and his college claim to support.
In assisting Dr. Brophy's committment to following up on his promise was the letter sent to him, as documented below:
Please click on image to enlarge it.
The article published online states that Dr. Brophy has sent a voicemail stating that he has no record of the City Council accepting his offer.
There goes what little 'good faith' Marymount possesses with Rancho Palos Verdes, I guess.
It has been an assertion of mine that Marymount would never pay the costs of the election because I feel that the only reason Dr. Brophy stated his comment was to avoid further proof that The Marymount Plan would actually cost taxpayers funds, so many supporters claimed over and over again that The Marymount Plan would be done at "no taxpayer expense".
It certainly didn't help Marymount's 'good faith' proposal when over half of the registered voters of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes voted in the Special Election and that Measure P lost by just over 9 points.
I still contend that Marymount won't pay a dime Dr. Brophy promised to pay and that everyone should contact members of Marymount's Board of Trustees and ask them why we should trust any of them and especially Dr. Michael Brophy when it now appears that there never was any real intention of 'supporting' R.P.V. taxpayers and providing 'good faith' to the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes.
_________________________________________
Why is Dr. Brophy still at the helm of Marymount?
This is now his second college he has not been able to secure authorization to build on-campus housing, out of the last two colleges he represented.
Since the other recent article in The Daily Breeze suggested that Dr. Brophy was stating that having his you-know-what handed to him on a 9-sided silver platter could be something positive, there is really no reason to believe anything coming from Dr. Brophy's lips or typing and that of the members of Marymount's Board of Trustees, it seems.
I think somebody should remind Dr. Brophy that voters in Rancho Palos Verdes, by over a nine-point margin of more than 51% of registered voters stated to him and other supporters of Measure P that we should not have our intelligence questioned like Dr. Brophy, Congressman Kuykendall, Dr. Sue Soldoff, and too many others attempted to do.
Saturday's article is yet another shameful piece of evidence that there is something rotten along Palos Verdes Drive East, far from Denmark.
________________________________________
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)