"CHICAGO" At Chadwick

"CHICAGO", the hit musical is coming to Chadwick School.

The Conditional Use Permit for the school prohibits advertising theatre productions and other events on the campus, but I can provide folks just about everything they need to know to see TWO fantastic casts create an entertainment event that extends for six performances, beginning this coming WEDNESDAY.

The students at the school were so excited about the prospects of performing the famed musical that a huge number of students in grades 9-12 wanted to audition.

The incredible response necessitated not one, but TWO productions being scheduled, depending on what class students are in.

There is a production with a cast of Freshmen and Sophomores and there is a cast made up of Juniors and Seniors.

Readers may know that my brother-in-law Phil Buono and I have a scenic design and construction interest and that both of us are veterans in the entertainment industry or theater education arena.

We have been proud and honored to be asked to help Mr. Rodney Rincon on more than one production. Rodney runs the technical, staging, and theatre operations at Chadwick and is a motion picture, television, and stage actor, director, and all around great guy.

Here is the schedule for the FREE performances of "CHICAGO" inside the theatre at Chadwick:

Wednesday, March 2 at 7:30 PM, the Junior and Senior cast perform.

Thursday, March 3 at 7:30 PM, the Freshmen and Sophomore cast perform.

Friday, March 4 at 7:30 PM, the Juniors and Seniors return.

Saturday, March 5 has a Matinee beginning at 2:00 PM with the Freshmen and Sophomores performing.

Saturday, March 5, beginning at 8:00 PM, the Juniors and Seniors end their run of the show.

Sunday, March 6 features a 3:00 PM Finale with the Freshmen and Sophomore cast members entertaining the audience.

Yes, it is a free show. There are no tickets. Just make your way to Chadwick School, find a parking space, have a nice stroll down to the theatre, and enjoy a musical featuring an incredible number of extremely talented students.

One More 'Bit' of Bits and Pieces 27

I am still wondering why Jeremiah Dobruck, a journalist with The Palos Verdes Peninsula News, continues to sit on some very important and possibly explosive information.

Bits and Pieces 27

I have some things to write about, but I am also very involved with editing a video for distribution this coming Friday, so I don't have time right now to post much.

Some things I will be dealing with include:

Redondo Beach moves to municipal elections by mail, which will save the city some funds. A charter city can save taxpayer dollars by spending less on vote by mail rather than polling location voting.

A NO vote on Measure C is a support for on-campus housing at Marymount College.

If anyone tells you that Marymount's supporters don't have any 'allowances' or 'angendas' regarding Marymount College and voting down the charter, please do not believe them.

It is rather easy to connect opposition of Measure C to attempts to secure approval for Marymount College building dorms on their Palos Verdes Drive East campus.

Yes, that Palos Verdes Drive East. The one that may need upwards of 21 Million Dollars of repairs to the canyon that sits next to the the drive's switchbacks. And no, Marymount College has not offered a dime to help secure reliable passage over the switchbacks so students and others can get to the campus.

Although I wrote that Janice Hahn in Congress would probably be good for R.P.V. in the quest to secure Federal Dollars for the repair of San Ramon Canyon and the Tarrapaca landslide, I find the candidacy of Debra Bowen wonderful and also and even better, the prospects of having Marcy Winograd run for the 36th.

Why aren't R.P.V. and San Pedro residents not attending "Kiss Me Kate" at the Warner Grand Theatre, in San Pedro?

The 2-1/2 hour show features a cast of 27 very talented and hard working singers and dancers.

Where else could you see a Cole Porter musical in a theatre built in 1931 by the four Warner Brothers, while being entertained for such a low price.

www.therelevantstage.com has tickets available for this weekend's closing performances.

I was very involved with the Relevant Stage Theatre Company for just over two years before moving on to other projects. I taped the show for archival purposes and I feel that the entire Company have really done a great job.

In talking to some folks, we are embarrassed that the San Pedro community and folks living in Eastview and other parts of our city haven't taken up on the gift of the opportunity to see how a good show is put on. This production rivals and betters all other productions that are not on major stages thoughout L.A., New York, and other large cities. It is touring company quality at a very low price.

I am supporting on member of the Republican Party for a seat on our City Council, so far.

I support the candidacy of one Democratic Party member who may announce his candidacy after March 8, again so far.

Even though I am very far to the left involving State, Federal, and World politics, I have found some really good folks that I could support for seats on our Council, no matter what their voter registration is.

My consideration of support deals exclusively with the issues at hand and in the future and the character of the person I choose to support. I didn't vote for Brian and Anthony, but they both know I am watching and helping to guard their backs. They have done very well for us in our city, even with the "R" associated with both of these fine gentlemen.

The current processing of the video is finished for now. It's back to editing for me!

Janice Hahn: Good for R.P.V.?

I know we can't vote for Jane Harmon's replacement in the 36Th C.D.

But as citizens we can support candidates wherever we want. We can also oppose candidates running for offices where we can't vote.

Personally, I am pleased that Debra Bowen has entered the race for the 36th, but my general politics would be more pleased having Marcy Winograd run.

Whether Bowen and Winograd would be better for our city, is something I doubt during any first or second term.

Our Congressman, Dana Rohrabacher has visited the San Ramon Canyon area. His staff has been involved with our city's need to fund and have repairs made as soon as possible.

Our five Council members have the most complete knowledge of the issues of any elected representative.

Janice Hahn would be the 6th most knowledgeable elected official, regarding San Ramon Canyon and the Tarrapaca landslide area.

As L.A.'s 15th District Councilwoman, Janice and her local staff members have been dealing with San Ramon Canyon/Tarrapaca landslide for some years.

We learned recently that it could take somewhere in the neighborhood of 21 Million Dollars to make permanent and complete repairs to the drainage issues and to create a long-lasting fix to any idea that parts of the switchbacks might fall into the canyon.

Much of the area needing work is within our city. But there are also areas needing work within the city of Los Angeles, a small amount of unincorporated L.A. County, and on some private property.

No one governmental agency should shoulder all of the costs, but since so many of us pay Federal taxes, one source that should help with funding is the Federal Government.

Not all of our residents, or even residents of L.A. use Palos Verdes Drive East, 25th Street, and Palos Verdes Drive South. There are thousands of tourists and visitors every year who use these roads for a portion of their local driving.

Several major businesses need full and unfettered access to the greatest number of visitors, to keep their businesses profitable.

I think having Janice Hahn sitting in the House and working closely with our Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, would make it easier to gain Federal Dollars to see San Ramon Canyon and the Tarrapaca lanslide fixed.

These Comments Have Helped Me Enormously!

I so wish that the person who wrote the following would contact me directly.

Please Email me directly at mrichards2@hotmail.com. I won't publish your name or let anyone know who you really are, if you don't want to be identified for any reason.

This post is subsequent to a previous posting of:

http://eastrpv.blogspot.com/2011/02/another-comment-elevated-to-post.html

"Anonymous", your comments provide reasoning I agree with. You have offered both support for and opposition to having R.P.V. becoming a charter city.

The reasons you question adoption of Measure C are better than anything I have written and I also feel they are better stated than many of the reasons provided by the No on C organization.

Your first latest comment begins with the knowledge that the California Supreme still needs to publish its decision regarding the city of Vista's prevailing wage guidelines. The Court has yet to publish whether it finds that a charter city can or cannot constitutionally create partial or full exemptions to prevailing wage guidelines on municipal projects funded using only municipal funding.

I have included your two comments as being connected because your second set of comments fit very well after the first I posted:

"We should have an answer very soon on prevailing wages, so we should not have rushed into this. It would be great to save all that money, but I put the odds of that happening at below 50% and chasing after a highly contingent financial benefit seems a poor reason to adopt a charter.

Also, I completely disagree that we need to pass a charter to protect TOT revenue. It would not be politically viable for the state to raid the treasuries of general law cities and exempt those who are fortuitously organized under charters. That was never going to happen. Indeed, if there were a serious risk of that happening there would be a heck of lot more charter initiatives pending right now.

Nevertheless, even without the purported financial benefits, a charter may be a good way to go. Gaining "home rule" on municipal affairs, in and of itself, should not be very controversial. For the most part, the rules at issue govern how a city goes about forming policies, not what the actual policies will be.

But let’s step back for a second and think about how that home rule would be exercised under the proposed charter.

For more than a hundred years California cities have had two options - (i) to organize their municipal affairs under uniform statutes crafted by the state or (ii) to go it alone and organize them as they see fit. It’s like software. You can buy the off the shelf package offered by the state or develop your own proprietary software line by painstaking line.

If you choose to go it lone, one option is to draft a very detailed charter that, in and of itself, replaces the state's comprehensive set of laws governing the organization of municipalities. However, amending such charters is cumbersome and expensive because any minor change or tweaking has to be voted on the full electorate.

The second approach is a short form charter in which the municipality simply reserves the right to organize its municipal affairs as it sees fit. As I understand it, the existing state laws are then ultimately replaced with comparatively easy-to-pass and easy-to-amend city ordinances. Measure C proposes a type of short form charter.

What I think some people are struggling with (including me) is that, except in a few specific instances spelled out in the charter itself, we have no way of knowing how RPV’s municipal affairs will be organized going forward. And if we don’t like where things end up, the only way to reverse things would be through an expensive and cumbersome initiative process.

So I think the concern is not a charter per se, but the fact that the Council is asking us to approve a short form charter without having either directly engaged an independent committee of residents to study and draft the charter or having worked with residents to develop a comprehensive plan for organizing our municipality going forward. It’s like deleting Microsoft Word from your computer without having programmed your new word processor (or even determined all the features you want your new software to have).

The charter has been described as a constitution. That may be so in some cases, but ours is much more akin to a declaration of independence. The actual constitution, in large part, has yet to be drafted.

I know there are 100+ charter cities in California, but I’d be curious to know how many of those cities have adopted short form charters and what their experiences have been. My impression is that the use of a short form charter is much more of a recent phenomenon that has produced, at best, mixed results. Unfortunately, I haven’t had the time to properly study this aspect of the issue and I’m not sure anyone else has either."

"To explain my position a bit more, in my review of this issue it seems that some other cities have treated the charter issue with a lot more precision and respect. For example, Redding is currently considering changing to a charter city. In Redding’s case, their city council appointed an independent committee of ten diverse members of the community to conduct a comprehensive study of all aspects of a potential charter. Their process is a striking contrast to RPV’s where a short form charter was drafted by a city council member and simply discussed at a few city council meetings.

I think Redding’s city council understands that because the charter impacts the manner in which the city council itself will function going forward it was key to study and develop those procedures independent of the council. In fact, Redding’s Vice Mayor was so concerned about maintaining the “maximum independence” of the charter committee that he vowed to stay away from the charter committee’s meetings and urged the other councilmembers to do the same.

http://m.redding.com/news/2011/feb/01/council-subgroup-to-be-created/

Moreover, instead of a comprehensive and considered analysis by an independent committee, which you would expect to look something like this…

http://friendsofhomerule.org/images/Luzerne%20County%20Proposed%20Home%20Rule%20Charter_081810.pdf

…we’ve got a powerpoint from the City Attorney that looks like this:

http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/cityclerk/City-Attorneys-Community-Leaders-Breakfast-Chartering-Presentation-01-29-2011.pdf

So you can start to see what people mean when they feel this has been rushed. We haven't done our homework yet. I’d feel a lot more comfortable with this if the proposed charter were the result of a studied community-based process like Redding's."

** While I have a differing opinion about protecting the TOT, I certainly will not diagree with the good analysis I believe is important to inform everyone about.

It would not be honest of me to tell anyone that the comments have not created a swaying of my vote for passage of Measure C. These comments do confirm that I can't ask anyone else to vote Yes or No on Measure C.

I am stuck deeper in the mire of 'if not now, when? If I change my vote to No, I have no clue if this Council or any future Council makeup would look towrds Redlands for guidance.

I am still a Yes on C voter, but the totter continues to teeter more. I am troubled because I simply can't be comfortable voting either way, as much as I want to and/or should be.

I agree completely with 'Anonymous' using the word "struggling" as the person and I seemingly remain.

I guess putting my faith in the majority of voters who vote one way or the other is acceptable with me because I have mentioned my trust in the intelligence and the care folks interested enough in this matter, have.

Thank you so much, Anonymous, I would really like to know who you really are.

Astonishing! Unbelievable! Inaccurate!

I was sent a copy of a mailer delivered to many or our residents, yesterday.

First, here is a comment sent via www.ranchopalosverdespatch.com by Ms. Sharon Yarber of the No on C Campaign:

"Mr. Richards,

We have not sent out any mailer. If you are referring to a mailer sent by a union, please be advised that we had no knowledge that a mailer was being sent, had nothing whatsoever to do with its preparation and, indeed, have deliberately refused to accept any donations, whether of money or in-kind contributions, from any unions, as we refuse to be aligned with any special interest groups.

The union's mailer, like so many political pieces (including those sent out by the City in its "informational" materials, recent newletter and by the Yes PAC flier recently mailed) contains both accurate and inaccurate information. The NO campaign does not condone misleading or inaccurate statements and insists on scrupulously honest facts in our materials.

Thank you for your continuing investigation of the merits of Measure C. It is important for all of our residents to become well informed. Involvement in the political process is vital to remaining a free society. Apathy is our society's worst enemy."

I will offer comments about that mailer when I do some review and restore my skull to its former form, after peeling it off the ceiling because it exploded.

If you don't know that for approximately 27 years I was a proud member of the Communications Workers of America, now you do. I also was a 'casual' with the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, IATSE, the union represented on credits for just about every T.V. show and movie you have seen shot in the United States.

To suggest or imply that I don't support unions and greater union membership and collective bargaining rights would be misleading, it would be a lie.

It is more conceivable to me that the opponents of Measure C I am considering in this post, would like nothing better than to use non-union labor for all municipal and business projects within our city, whenever possible.

Strange bedfellows is what we have here.

A Field Representative of the Construction Industry Force Account Council attended the last Charter City Committee meeting and I think I saw the same individual at a City Council meeting.

Folk, I have well established my very positive outlook on the need to have unions representing the workers in our country. I can always check off reasons why union organization built an America during the Industrial Revolution, that allow us to debate Measure C.

I have found the mailer to be far more misleading than anything written in our city's Spring, 2011 newsletter.

This is the United States of America in 2011 and if ANYONE uses fear and scare tactics against our voters they are misrepresenting what it is to be an honest citizen of OUR country.

They are doing the same thing foreign aggressors attempt to use against our Nation. Using fear and scare tactics is a form of domestic terrorism WE MUST NOW ALLOW!

I can make very good arguments to support and oppose Measure C, as you may have read. There is no fear or scare tactics used in my post considering why some might want to vote NO on C. But the No on C organization has demonstrated they would rather use fear as a weapon and scare voters to vote the way they want them to.

It is dishonorable to our city's citizens to have any organization stooping to the lowest levels possible to achieve their agenda of having the charter voted down. It has never been necessary and I have documented that repeatedly.

While I do not like this charter very much, I have offered my reasoning for voting Yes on it and I have done so without trying to scare anyone towards a Yes vote.

Rather than using real and true facts without demonstrating that our electorate is a pretty intelligent group of citizens, they are offering what can only be thought of by me as a 'doomsday' approach in order to get "No" votes from people.

I am not afraid of what might happen whether Measure C passes or not. I am not afraid of what I term 'back room bullies' trying to force our residents into having to live by means other than what might be best for all of our residents.

Again it may be repetitive, this blog carries an open and honest account of my life and if anyone can identify any hidden agenda they think I have, good luck, go ahead and try, and know there is no investigation currently underway by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's office or the Los Angeles County District Attorney.

Somebody somewhere, is communication with the group that paid for the ad. It is also true that somebody somewhere contacted Ms. Pence about the committee meeting. I highly doubt that anyone supportive of Measure C contacted Ms. Pence and the Trades Council.

If Ms. Yarber and the No on C campain thinks about it, they may wish to fund a mailer that offers condemnation of the recent mailer and contains open, honest, and truthful facts that support their group's opinion.

The TOT And Possibilities

"The TOT" is the Transitory Occupancy Tax- TOT revenues collected from two business within Rancho Palos Verdes and the TOT currently being collected from Terranea has been slated to be used for capital improvements.

Let's stop for a few minutes. What is the entity other than Terranea that provided TOT revenues for our city? Good question, easy answer for somebody living on the east side of R.P.V.

It's the Value Inn. Sure at about $45.00 per day, we don't collect much from the Value Inn. It is of course, directly behind one of the priciest stand alone restaurants in our city, Think Prime.

A few months before Terranea was scheduled to open, it's developer working with some of our Council members attempted to create a TOT rebate program where the actual rate of the TOT would be increased slightly and then some of the revenues would be rebated back to Terranea.

At the beginning of the process, the TOT was 10% of the 'rack rate' for a room scheduled for Terranea and in place at the Value Inn.

The idea was to raise the TOT to 12% and then rebate a portion back to Terranea to conceivably assist it with its opening and for a few years until it became a successful operation.

Had lien holders of notes on Terranea not concluded that a TOT rebate was not allowed, our city governors would have provided Terranea with taxpayer funds in the form of a partial rebate of Terranea's TOT.

Since the plan never went though, the established TOT of 10% still exists and those who believe the TOT is 12% are incorrect.

It has been noted that TOT revenues from Terranea were in the neighborhood of 2 Million Dollars for 2010 and are suspected to be in the 3 Million Dollar range for 2011.

*NOTE. For the record, I was one of the loudest and staunchest opponents of providing Terranea any rebate or taxpayer revenues. I may have been the only one in R.P.V. opposed to the rebate.

Now let's move forward to today. OUR representatives in Sacramento have stated outright that they are going after every dollar nailed down or not, from cities.

For 2010 the TOT collected from Terranea represents about 10% of our city's current budget.

I want the TOT to stay in R.P.V. We need the TOT to stay in R.P.V. We must find every conceivable way to keep all revenues currently set for city uses to remain for use in our city. This also includes any utility tax revenues our city collects.

Could becoming a charter city insure that our fund are protected? That is a good question and an important one. Sadly the answer is no. There is no guarantee that some TOT or other revenues can be held for city use, if Sacramento or the Federal Government come raid our accounts.

But and however, becoming a charter city MIGHT HELP attempt to keep monies from flowing out of R.P.V. and into Sacramento.

It is true that our residents are residents of the State of California and there are State requirements that must be met. We are citizens of California and R.P.V. and we voted folks into offices at both levels who are supposed to represent us above others.

The question of protecting city revenues from raids by Sacramento is a genuine question for debate regarding Measure C.

Opponents may tell you that there is no way to protect any funds and it is of no matter whether becoming a charter city does anything towards keeping or losing revenues.

This is one of my biggest points of debate with those opposed to Measure C and I stand firmly on the side of supporting any attempt to legally help to try and keep R.P.V. monies for R.P.V. use. I do feel that R.P.V. becoming a charter city will help assist efforts to stop or hinder any raids on city funds.

We may not be able to protect all the dollars but if becoming a charter city protects a good portion of dollars otherwise seized by Sacramento from us as a general law city, I stand in support of Measure C.

Now here is something that you may not know or want to know.

There is talk among those with more response from authorities than I have that there may be a push beginning after the March election to raise sewer fees and possibly some parcel tax increases via a vote of the people.

I am sure you all already know that Governor Brown want a vote on extending the tax increases levied some years ago via a vote scheduled for this coming June.

It is not unbelievable that the June vote could see a increase of sewer fees vote along with Brown's tax extension. Also there could be a measure regarding an increase in parcel taxes within our city, perhaps as early as June.

Supporters and opponents of Measure C are looking very closely at that measure and may not be focused on what just might happen three months after the March 8 vote.

But I am concerned. It is another reason I feel so strongly about taking proactive steps to gain stronger footing on possibly keeping dollars within our city.

If we can't save TOT and other fees AND voters vote to extend or increases taxes and fees, our city will be in deep trouble not far down the road.

San Ramon Canyon must be fixed. No question. No debate whether it must be fixed or not. Too much time has exhausted more talk and long study of the problem. It must be fixed.

I think we may get a new friend in Washington to help find Federal funding pieces, but I will write about that in the near future.

So, San Ramon Canyon must be fixed and the price tag is currently set around 21 Million Dollars.

How long have our residents talked about a new civic center/City Hall? My son who lives in Australia may have been in elementary school when talks about replacing the structures began.

A new City Hall will take municipal dollars that we do not have right now.

Losing even a portion of our TOT and utility users tax revenues would be very harmful for both San Ramon Canyon and consideration over a new City Hall.

I just mentioned two of the major projects requiring taxpayer dollars we don't have.

We must never lose sight of something that may be minor as far as budgets go, but is something we constantly deal with that no other city has to deal with in the Western Hemisphere. .8 miles of Palos Verdes Drive South.

We have parks needing improvement. we have infrastructure threats that continue to plague a city built on bentonite and not having all that much level land in the first place.

We need to find ways to protect our city revenues. One possibility that I support is having R.P.V. becoming a charter city.