Very little has been revealed by Marymount's President Dr. Michael Brophy as to how Marymount might acquire funds to build on-campus housing and provide other income to help finance other pieces of The Marymount Plan.
Since the ballot measure has now been approved for voting on with the November 2, 2010 General Election cycle, I think it is time to consider in greater detail at least one option that the approval of the Initiative would allow Marymount to do.
I do feel all potential voters need the opportunity to learn how Marymount might fund construction of its Marymount Plan, some time before voters are asked to decide on whether to vote Yes or No on the Special Election portion of the General Election ballot.
Now, let's look at a possible scenario where a small college might seek approval to build on-campus housing and how it might find funding and other income to build such housing and possibly gain some other income to finance other projects and operations.
First, let's all go look at the following Web site, O.K.?
http://www.americancampus.com/servuces/financing/ace
Back yet? Fine, let's proceed.
I will use the example set by the University of New Mexico as a case study if you will, on how another, but much smaller college might use similar means to find financing and income from sources other than what that college's administration has not been willing to reveal.
Here is information provided via a May 11, 2010 item in what I believe is the UNM paper or newsletter:
American Campus Communities is one of the nation's largest developers, owners and managers of high-quality student housing communities. We led the industry to a new plateau in 2004 when we became the first publicly traded student housing REIT (NYSE: ACC). Since 1996, we've developed more than $2.3 billion in properties for our own account and our university clients, and we have acquired in excess of $2 billion in student housing assets. Also, we've become a national leader in third-party development and management of on-campus student housing, having been awarded the development of 53 on-campus projects (in addition to our 11 projects developed off campus). Our commitment to our college and university partners is evidenced in our strong ongoing relationships. Almost half of our on-campus developed communities (24 of 53) came from additional projects awarded to us after we had successfully completed a previous community.
A deep-rooted understanding of the industry drives the American Campus team. Seven members of our corporate staff at the level of vice president and above began their careers as resident assistants while attending college. Throughout their collective careers, our senior staff has been involved in the development, acquisition or management of more than 130 student housing properties, consisting of more than 81,000 beds at over 85 colleges and universities. This unparalleled experience guides how we analyze student markets, underwrite acquisitions, design and construct our developments, and how we market, lease and operate our communities.
The University of New Mexico Board of Regents has unanimously approved terms of a ground lease that will allow American Campus Communities (ACC) to begin construction on an 864-bed student housing community west of the Pit. This approval culminates a process that started more than two years ago with a Request for Information advertised to developers, owners and managers of student housing to determine how and where to best add new housing to meet a growing student demand.
Terms of Ground Lease
Regents approved a lease term for ACC of 40 years with three additional options of 10 years each. In the first five years of the agreement, ACC’s rent paid to UNM will grow from $333,643 to $375,518. In subsequent years, the rent will be 5.7% of gross revenues but no less than $350,000.
ACC will develop and construct the estimated $40 million project at its own cost by August 2011. The ground lease may be terminated by UNM if ACC fails to commence construction by August 1, 2010.
UNM is free to provide any residence hall housing (unlimited), or other student housing that is not similar to nor will have an adverse economic impact on ACC’s south campus project. The university may also be able to build a directly competitive project if an independent study shows demand. The university can also renovate or replace existing dorms.
Additionally, should ACC decide to sell the property within the first 10years, UNM will have first right to purchase it. UNM can also exercise its right of purchase at any time after 10 years and upon a contemplated transfer by ACC.
Echoing the comments of several regents that the housing is needed, student regent Cate Wisdom said plans for recreation and study facilities within the ACC project will make for an active living and learning center for upperclassmen who currently seek off-campus apartment or house accommodations. “Students will be able to engage in the community they live in,” said Wisdom.
Need for More Housing
The need, importance and benefits of new housing at UNM have been established for several years. An undergraduate student housing report conducted in 2006 project cost is approximately $40 million and no taxpayer or university money will be used.
"This is the first exciting step in dramatically modernizing the student residential experience at UNM," said Jason Wills, ACC senior vice president. "We are very excited about the opportunity to partner with the University of New Mexico and look forward to supporting the university in achieving its academic and student development objectives."
One of the big issues that the small college I am writing about has to deal with, compared to the University of New Mexico is that upperclassmen, and any on-campus residence hall dweller at the small college won't really have the opportunity to 'engage in the community they live in' close to the dorms because that community is dominated by single-family residential units and that most community engagement must be done using vehicular transportation to and from the residence hall to larger community activities found far lower in elevation that the small college is at.
I do think that if I were the President of the small college in the example in this post, I would be pretty darn stupid not to enter into an agreement possibly similar to the one written about because it looks like I wouldn't have to pay a dime to have the dorms constructed and maintained and a company I entered into the agreement would pay my college a fee every month that I could use on other things like soccer uniforms for my school's team and perhaps bleachers and field lighting for night soccer games.
After all, if voters approve my plan and I get to keep the new municipal code that allows me to do things I would be restricted from doing if I followed the city approved plans, I would have almost unlimited capabilities to build whatever I want, within a 15% additional amount and have all that funded through contracts I make between the dorm-management company and the facilities production company that will manage all non-academic activities and pay me a monthly fee to do so.
How great is that?
I know if I can't have dorms approved, I would have to go to supporters and seek donations and other means to build what I have been promising everyone I would do, for the last ten years. How would it look if voters didn't approve my plan and I was stuck finding funding for a project that does not contain the single most important thing I have always wanted yet could not find approval for.
I already know my school's enrollment has been declining and a good number of folks know I stated back in 2008 that I didn't think my college had enough funds to get my Plan or even the city-approved Project going.
I still need to figure out how to sell my plan to potential voters when I am not willing to offer anyone the whole truth about my plan or whether I would even begin the Project handed to me almost completely encompassing almost everything I asked for in the first place.
If I were to be headed towards being placed in a jar, that jar could only contain pickles, I fear.
With Dr. Brophy's and Dr. Soldoff's Marymount Plan, we know so very little as to how any improvements to the campus would be done if voters vote down the Initiative.
My assertion is that Marymount will not begin any expansion unless it is granted the right to build on-campus housing and if voters vote down the Initiative and short of court action in favor of Marymount's demands, there won't be enough financial support or donations to build The Project and I don't really believe Marymount has ever had that much more intent to simply construct on-campus housing and provide some of the applied for expansion that would garner it more income from non-academic uses.
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Admitting My Dirt Before Others Do
Although some have called for the debates, discussions, and comments about The Marymount Plan and its Initiative to remain clean and without mud-slinging and negative personal comments about various individuals and groups, it has been my opinion that neither some representing Marymount and I will be able to remain clear of offering some negative information and opinions about folks we dramatically disagree with.
In the vein of attempting to head off direct or indirect personal criticism or character assassination of me, I will now provide what I consider as all my 'dirty laundry' to disallow others the opportunity to be the first to air any of my 'dirty laundry' in print or in other forms of personal attacks.
I just placed into the comment section of a prior post, a comment from someone who uses "Anonymous" as their name, which is perfectly alright with me, but is likely to bring more negative comments from folks who disagree strongly with myself and that particular 'Anonymous'.
So here, before others try to offend me with personal attacks, is just about all the 'dirty laundry' about myself, my life, and my situations:
I first arrived at the home I currently live within on May 4, 1955. I was carried over the threshold by a parent because, at the age of one-day old, I did not have the physical ability or mental capacity to enter the home by myself.
The house is in the oldest planned tract of housing now within Rancho Palos Verdes.
For almost 54 years, I had been led to believe that the tract of homes I grew up in was the original "Eastview" tract of housing. It was actually named and marketed as "Western View Homes" and it remained the only tract of homes constructed 'west' of Western Avenue for a short number of years before the tract of homes directly 'south' of is was constructed, some in 1955. Mira Costa Terrace, a tract of housing more commonly known as "Upper Caddington" also followed the construction of the first two tracts.
I was born at San Pedro Community Hospital. The hospital, as well as the current hospital on 7Th Street, had and has a mailing address of "San Pedro" yet it sits on land outside of the San Pedro/Los Angeles boundaries in an area formerly referred to as "La Rambla Precinct" and now considered to be in unincorporated Los Angeles County.
Until the tract of homes I grew up is was annexed into the city of Rancho Palos Verdes, that tract, along with other tracts of housing, other types of housing, and businesses along portions of Western Avenue were situated in unincorporated portions of Los Angeles County, but had mailing addresses of "San Pedro, CA".
I attended Crestwood Street School, Dodson Junior High School, and graduated from San Pedro High School as only a Silver Seal bearer, in June, 1973.
My High School Diploma illustrates the 'highest' level of education I have. However, I do possess a certificate of satisfactory completion of the United States Air Force Technical Instructor Course, completion of a number of courses within the various phone company entities I was employed at, a General Radiotelephone Operator's License, a Doctor of Divinity from a probably-less-than-reputable entity, several letters of appreciation, other awards for voluntary service, a Honorable Discharge from the United States Air Force, a few service medals, and some other evidence of participation with various service groups, volunteer organizations, and work groups.
I attended California State University, Long Beach from September, 1974 until June, 1976 but earned no degree.
I served on active duty with the United States Air Force from 4 Oct. 1976 until 4 Oct. 1980 and was selected Squadron or Group Airman of the month, and Airman of the Quarter several times.
While I was primarily based at Norton Air Force Base in San Bernardino, California, I was selected Base Airman of the Year for 1978 and 1979, an achievement apparently not repeated by any other enlisted Air Force member at Norton Air Force Base nor any other U.S. Air Force Base, according to some members formerly with the U.S. military.
I met my first wife in 1975 and I married the former Lori Ann Meyers while on leave from a special scientific study I participated in, just after Air Force Basic Training, on December 23, 1976.
I did not live with Lori prior to our wedding.
I am the father of David William Wells, born on August 23, 1978, 20 months after my wedding to Lori. David is now 31-years old and will move to Australia in October, 2010 to marry and begin his family with Ms. Pamela Platt, an Australian citizen.
I am the father of Daniel Richard Wells, born on September 2, 1979. Daniel is now 30 years old and on August 28, 2010 I will officiate and solemnize his marriage to Ms. Rainbow DeAngelis at the Planes of Fame Museum in Chino, California. I posses a Certificate of Ordination with a well-know, yet more thought of as dubious religious entity.
Lori was granted a divorce from me on October 8, 1991.
I met Ms. Teresa Ann Page on or about January 23, 1992.
I lived with Ms. Page prior to our marriage on July 4, 1992, in her house in Lawndale, California.
Terri and I were married by a Unitarian Universalist minister in our back yard.
There are no words good enough to describe my love for my wife of almost 18 years.
Terri and I moved back to the home I shared with my parents and sister while growing up on July 1, 1998. The house is now in trust and not owned by me. My mother, Ms. Nancy Wells holds ownership of the trust and therefore, the dwelling I reside within.
Since December, 1998, I have paid all the property tax bills for the dwelling and property as well and all of the maintenance, improvements, and other costs associated with living in what is now a 60-year old house and will continue to do so until my sister Ruth and I inherit the house.
At the time of any inheritance from my mother's trust, it is expected that I would not be able to afford to purchase my sister's interest in the house and Terri and I will most likely move to a much less expensive community.
From October 27, 1980 to October 9, 2008 I was employed by what was known in 1980 as Pacific Telephone. By my release from AT&T on October 9, I had worked for the other entities associated first with Pacific Telephone. Those companies were known as Pacific Bell and SBC.
I was released by AT&T because I was no longer able to meet the minimum standards for my particular job title with respect to the requirements of being able to climb wooden poles.
During my tenure with the various companies, I was one of only a small percentage of "Service Technicians" qualified to climb "unstepped poles" and work in and around 'manholes'.
During the early 2000's it was ultimately discovered that I had contracted avascular necrosis, and incurable disease involving blood supply to joints in the body.
The disease severely affected my right hip such that, after a first failed operation to restore my natural hip joint, on April 4, 2008, my right hip joint was replaced with an artificial joint.
According to AT&T regulations, the company determined that I was no longer able to remain with my job title and there was an attempt to find another place within AT&T where I could remain with that entity.
One of the options I was provided was to try to pass certain computer-based tests to become part of the administrative pool within AT&T.
I was able to pass the test involving computer skills quite easily. However, The Microsoft 'WORD' test AT&T used was based on 'Word 1997' and that test was given to me in 2008.
I have knowledge and skills with Word Perfect, Word 2001, 2003, 2007, and Word for Mac 2008, but sadly, I failed the Word 1997 portion of the testing.
Having enough seniority to 'retire', when AT&T released me, I qualified for unemployment benefits and was able to roll over my pension benefits in March, 2009 at what turned out to be a great time to do so, financially speaking.
Being only 53 years old when I was released from AT&T meant that I had to roll over my benefits into a type of structure that allowed for only one option to receive monthly benefits and those benefits must not change until I am 59-1/2 years old.
I decided to receive a very small monthly stipend that won't change for another approximately 4-1/2 years without severe penalties and costs associated with removing more funds prior to the age I can receive more benefits.
Currently, I am employed with the U.S. Census Bureau, Department of Commerce as a Census Enumerator. This is my fourth different assignment during the 2010 U.S. Census program.
I have also received notice of a contingency job offer and continue in the processes of becoming a Transportation Security Officer with the Transportation Security Administration, Department of Homeland Security.
I was selected as a Rancho Palos Verdes Traffic Safety Commissioner for a two-year period, but the City Council elected to change the terms of service of Commission members and I was not reselected to remain a Traffic Safety Commissioner when that Commission's membership was cut from seven members to five members.
While in the U.S.A.F. and for a period of about two years after discharge, I volunteered as a Red Cross C.P.R. Instructor teaching over 1,000 students in the practices and processes of C.P.R. with that organization.
For more than one year I have volunteered with The Relevant Stage Theatre Company, in San Pedro.
I am also volunteering with the Little Fish Theatre Company, also in San Pedro.
My I.Q. does not reach the minimum level to be considered a genius.
For more than 30 years I was considered morbidly obese.
In February, 2010 I entered into a program that could still eventually lead to Rue-en-Y gastric bypass surgery.
At one point in my life I stood 5' 7" tall and weighed in excess of 275 pounds.
I use '275 pounds' as my highest weight as I continue to go through a complete menu and life change. This morning I weighed 208.8 pounds.
Some folks have called me a 'secular humanist' for which I don't necessarily disagree with.
With most local, State, National, and International issues, I veer towards the extreme left of the political spectrum.
I have NEVER voted for a Republican candidate in a party-contested election. I have voted for whichever candidate I felt most qualified in uncontested elections, such as our city's Council elections.
I did not vote for either Councilman Campbell or Councilman Misetich in the last election cycle but I am pleased with their service to our community and have no complaints about their service or considerations.
I have been a outspoken critic of what I believe is the over development of the Ponte Vista at San Pedro site and I began the first of my many blogs in September, 2006 fighting against Bob Bisno's attempts to build at least 2,300 condominium units on the 61.53 acre site along Western Avenue.
I have never been arrested or charged with any infractions other than vehicular traffic infractions during the tenure of having my driver's license.
I did, in fact, complete a journey along Palos Verdes Drive East from about Crest Road to Palos Verdes Drive South in a Volkswagen Station Wagon, without placing my foot on the brake pedal.
I did, in fact, speed up and down the switchbacks at various time in my youth, both in a motor vehicle and on a bicycle.
I have hiked, biked, skateboarded, ridden as a passenger, drove as a driver, or navigated by other means, around and along a giant portion of The Hill, during my lifetime.
I oppose the construction of residential halls on the campus of Marymount College because of safety concerns I am not willing to alter and I continue to challenge anyone to debate me about the potential safety risks and possible damages associated with placing college students into a high-density environment in a low-density community that has roadways suited for low-density residential areas.
I also have great opposition to the manner, form, comments, marketing, probable misstatements of facts from representatives of Marymount College including its President, Dr. Michael Brophy.
I also volunteer my services at the Miraleste Intermediate School Library, at the beginning and ending of each school year and in the Library of that school, assisting my wife Terri and her co-worker, Melanie.
During my volunteer work I met Master Sullivan Brophy, the son of Dr. and Ms. Brophy and found 'Sully' to be a wonderful student and a very interesting fellow. Sullivan is now a high school student and I think he is doing well and now enjoying a summer vacation.
I also consider The Marymount Plan to be flawed in fact and features.
I have not heard one word from Dr. Brophy that he and his supporters will go forward with the approved Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project if the Initiative fails to be approved of, by voters.
It is my assertion that the College's administration and supporters will not proceed under the Project's guidelines and approvals until any an all measures to achieve the right to build on-campus housing have been exhausted.
It is also my assertion that Marymount College will have a decline in enrollment and donations, should on-campus housing not be allowed such that the college will ultimately close down and end physical operation.
I am also beginning to believe that there are certain reasons why I an others can believe that there are what can be considered by some as ulterior motives by Marymount in their quest to have the Initiative approved of by voters and that those motives may be associated with achieving what some may term as a windfall of income should the Initiative's sections about lack of governmental oversight be approved.
It is also my current belief that Dr. Brophy or others will not offer substantial, factual, or believable responses to the differences between what the City Council has approved and what is included in The Marymount Plan's documents and Initiative.
I hold little respect that associates of Marymount are willing to accurately and objectively offer reasonable, realistic, responsible, and respectful responses to the questions asked by Councilman Stern during the last Council meeting where responses to those questions were provided by City Staff or the City Attorney.
I despise hypocrisy and I try my best to never be considered as one who is a hypocrite.
I am left-handed.
I am also a non-insulin dependent Type II diabetic.
I was born with exotropia of the ocular sinister of greater than 55 prism diopters and I had two surgeries on each set of eye muscles of both eyes to visibly correct that situation.
I have no fusion. My blood is Type A Negative
I can easily hide in plain sight and I am a happy person who enjoys being considered as an artisan of clowning.
I have a mild form of Asperger's syndrome that actually benefits me in some ways.
My 'stage name' used in various theatre and video productions is M Richards.
I have never cheated on my wives, nor would I ever.
As part of my divorce settlement, I paid the entire Capital Gains tax on the house Lori and I sold using a payment plan with the I.R.S.
I hold a balance on one Mastercard and my Chevron card. I owe less than $2,300.00 on my Element and I paid off our Saturn early.
I keep secrets and I have a substantial network of very informed associates with the various interests I have who I keep their identity confidential and who are also trustworthy, intelligent, and well-informed.
I prefer assertions over rumors. I detested the marketing of the petition-gathering phase of The Marymount Plan Initiative.
Dr. Michael Brophy has personally claimed to me that he has found no statement purported by me as fact, to be anything less than factual.
I do not nor will not claim objectivity in considerations about Marymount College but I do and will provide factual arguments and claims from all sides of the issues, on this blog.
I welcome all comments, negative or positive and I have always published every comment other than those provided via a written foreign language I do not understand.
I reserve the right and the responsibility to place highly defamatory and outrageous, in my opinion, comments onto another one of my blogs that I try to keep its URL hidden from regular access.
I have been verbally attacked and have had very bad comments written about me on more than one of my blogs and I have a thick skin and I understand that if I am willing to dish it out, I had better be able to take it.
I try my very best to not step over the line as far a libel or slander go and I freely use rights granted in the U.S. Constitution I helped defend as a member of the Air Force and as I continue to do as a good citizen of the United States and the World.
So there you have it. If you can find something else to smear me with, good luck, happy surfing, don't waste your time, I'm not that important, and why bother.
If you need to resort to more character assassination than I have offered, then your arguments supporting whatever you support become moot and hypocritical by stating more negative things about me than I have already done, myself.
I will address the identities and careers of at least some of the members of the Board of Trustees of Marymount College as I find necessary.
I will not attack their character but I reserve the right to question their motives and affiliations with Marymount College.
I am ready, willing, and able to march into battle against The Marymount Plan and I will march honorably in support of The Marymont College Facilities Expansion Project.
Thank you.
In the vein of attempting to head off direct or indirect personal criticism or character assassination of me, I will now provide what I consider as all my 'dirty laundry' to disallow others the opportunity to be the first to air any of my 'dirty laundry' in print or in other forms of personal attacks.
I just placed into the comment section of a prior post, a comment from someone who uses "Anonymous" as their name, which is perfectly alright with me, but is likely to bring more negative comments from folks who disagree strongly with myself and that particular 'Anonymous'.
So here, before others try to offend me with personal attacks, is just about all the 'dirty laundry' about myself, my life, and my situations:
I first arrived at the home I currently live within on May 4, 1955. I was carried over the threshold by a parent because, at the age of one-day old, I did not have the physical ability or mental capacity to enter the home by myself.
The house is in the oldest planned tract of housing now within Rancho Palos Verdes.
For almost 54 years, I had been led to believe that the tract of homes I grew up in was the original "Eastview" tract of housing. It was actually named and marketed as "Western View Homes" and it remained the only tract of homes constructed 'west' of Western Avenue for a short number of years before the tract of homes directly 'south' of is was constructed, some in 1955. Mira Costa Terrace, a tract of housing more commonly known as "Upper Caddington" also followed the construction of the first two tracts.
I was born at San Pedro Community Hospital. The hospital, as well as the current hospital on 7Th Street, had and has a mailing address of "San Pedro" yet it sits on land outside of the San Pedro/Los Angeles boundaries in an area formerly referred to as "La Rambla Precinct" and now considered to be in unincorporated Los Angeles County.
Until the tract of homes I grew up is was annexed into the city of Rancho Palos Verdes, that tract, along with other tracts of housing, other types of housing, and businesses along portions of Western Avenue were situated in unincorporated portions of Los Angeles County, but had mailing addresses of "San Pedro, CA".
I attended Crestwood Street School, Dodson Junior High School, and graduated from San Pedro High School as only a Silver Seal bearer, in June, 1973.
My High School Diploma illustrates the 'highest' level of education I have. However, I do possess a certificate of satisfactory completion of the United States Air Force Technical Instructor Course, completion of a number of courses within the various phone company entities I was employed at, a General Radiotelephone Operator's License, a Doctor of Divinity from a probably-less-than-reputable entity, several letters of appreciation, other awards for voluntary service, a Honorable Discharge from the United States Air Force, a few service medals, and some other evidence of participation with various service groups, volunteer organizations, and work groups.
I attended California State University, Long Beach from September, 1974 until June, 1976 but earned no degree.
I served on active duty with the United States Air Force from 4 Oct. 1976 until 4 Oct. 1980 and was selected Squadron or Group Airman of the month, and Airman of the Quarter several times.
While I was primarily based at Norton Air Force Base in San Bernardino, California, I was selected Base Airman of the Year for 1978 and 1979, an achievement apparently not repeated by any other enlisted Air Force member at Norton Air Force Base nor any other U.S. Air Force Base, according to some members formerly with the U.S. military.
I met my first wife in 1975 and I married the former Lori Ann Meyers while on leave from a special scientific study I participated in, just after Air Force Basic Training, on December 23, 1976.
I did not live with Lori prior to our wedding.
I am the father of David William Wells, born on August 23, 1978, 20 months after my wedding to Lori. David is now 31-years old and will move to Australia in October, 2010 to marry and begin his family with Ms. Pamela Platt, an Australian citizen.
I am the father of Daniel Richard Wells, born on September 2, 1979. Daniel is now 30 years old and on August 28, 2010 I will officiate and solemnize his marriage to Ms. Rainbow DeAngelis at the Planes of Fame Museum in Chino, California. I posses a Certificate of Ordination with a well-know, yet more thought of as dubious religious entity.
Lori was granted a divorce from me on October 8, 1991.
I met Ms. Teresa Ann Page on or about January 23, 1992.
I lived with Ms. Page prior to our marriage on July 4, 1992, in her house in Lawndale, California.
Terri and I were married by a Unitarian Universalist minister in our back yard.
There are no words good enough to describe my love for my wife of almost 18 years.
Terri and I moved back to the home I shared with my parents and sister while growing up on July 1, 1998. The house is now in trust and not owned by me. My mother, Ms. Nancy Wells holds ownership of the trust and therefore, the dwelling I reside within.
Since December, 1998, I have paid all the property tax bills for the dwelling and property as well and all of the maintenance, improvements, and other costs associated with living in what is now a 60-year old house and will continue to do so until my sister Ruth and I inherit the house.
At the time of any inheritance from my mother's trust, it is expected that I would not be able to afford to purchase my sister's interest in the house and Terri and I will most likely move to a much less expensive community.
From October 27, 1980 to October 9, 2008 I was employed by what was known in 1980 as Pacific Telephone. By my release from AT&T on October 9, I had worked for the other entities associated first with Pacific Telephone. Those companies were known as Pacific Bell and SBC.
I was released by AT&T because I was no longer able to meet the minimum standards for my particular job title with respect to the requirements of being able to climb wooden poles.
During my tenure with the various companies, I was one of only a small percentage of "Service Technicians" qualified to climb "unstepped poles" and work in and around 'manholes'.
During the early 2000's it was ultimately discovered that I had contracted avascular necrosis, and incurable disease involving blood supply to joints in the body.
The disease severely affected my right hip such that, after a first failed operation to restore my natural hip joint, on April 4, 2008, my right hip joint was replaced with an artificial joint.
According to AT&T regulations, the company determined that I was no longer able to remain with my job title and there was an attempt to find another place within AT&T where I could remain with that entity.
One of the options I was provided was to try to pass certain computer-based tests to become part of the administrative pool within AT&T.
I was able to pass the test involving computer skills quite easily. However, The Microsoft 'WORD' test AT&T used was based on 'Word 1997' and that test was given to me in 2008.
I have knowledge and skills with Word Perfect, Word 2001, 2003, 2007, and Word for Mac 2008, but sadly, I failed the Word 1997 portion of the testing.
Having enough seniority to 'retire', when AT&T released me, I qualified for unemployment benefits and was able to roll over my pension benefits in March, 2009 at what turned out to be a great time to do so, financially speaking.
Being only 53 years old when I was released from AT&T meant that I had to roll over my benefits into a type of structure that allowed for only one option to receive monthly benefits and those benefits must not change until I am 59-1/2 years old.
I decided to receive a very small monthly stipend that won't change for another approximately 4-1/2 years without severe penalties and costs associated with removing more funds prior to the age I can receive more benefits.
Currently, I am employed with the U.S. Census Bureau, Department of Commerce as a Census Enumerator. This is my fourth different assignment during the 2010 U.S. Census program.
I have also received notice of a contingency job offer and continue in the processes of becoming a Transportation Security Officer with the Transportation Security Administration, Department of Homeland Security.
I was selected as a Rancho Palos Verdes Traffic Safety Commissioner for a two-year period, but the City Council elected to change the terms of service of Commission members and I was not reselected to remain a Traffic Safety Commissioner when that Commission's membership was cut from seven members to five members.
While in the U.S.A.F. and for a period of about two years after discharge, I volunteered as a Red Cross C.P.R. Instructor teaching over 1,000 students in the practices and processes of C.P.R. with that organization.
For more than one year I have volunteered with The Relevant Stage Theatre Company, in San Pedro.
I am also volunteering with the Little Fish Theatre Company, also in San Pedro.
My I.Q. does not reach the minimum level to be considered a genius.
For more than 30 years I was considered morbidly obese.
In February, 2010 I entered into a program that could still eventually lead to Rue-en-Y gastric bypass surgery.
At one point in my life I stood 5' 7" tall and weighed in excess of 275 pounds.
I use '275 pounds' as my highest weight as I continue to go through a complete menu and life change. This morning I weighed 208.8 pounds.
Some folks have called me a 'secular humanist' for which I don't necessarily disagree with.
With most local, State, National, and International issues, I veer towards the extreme left of the political spectrum.
I have NEVER voted for a Republican candidate in a party-contested election. I have voted for whichever candidate I felt most qualified in uncontested elections, such as our city's Council elections.
I did not vote for either Councilman Campbell or Councilman Misetich in the last election cycle but I am pleased with their service to our community and have no complaints about their service or considerations.
I have been a outspoken critic of what I believe is the over development of the Ponte Vista at San Pedro site and I began the first of my many blogs in September, 2006 fighting against Bob Bisno's attempts to build at least 2,300 condominium units on the 61.53 acre site along Western Avenue.
I have never been arrested or charged with any infractions other than vehicular traffic infractions during the tenure of having my driver's license.
I did, in fact, complete a journey along Palos Verdes Drive East from about Crest Road to Palos Verdes Drive South in a Volkswagen Station Wagon, without placing my foot on the brake pedal.
I did, in fact, speed up and down the switchbacks at various time in my youth, both in a motor vehicle and on a bicycle.
I have hiked, biked, skateboarded, ridden as a passenger, drove as a driver, or navigated by other means, around and along a giant portion of The Hill, during my lifetime.
I oppose the construction of residential halls on the campus of Marymount College because of safety concerns I am not willing to alter and I continue to challenge anyone to debate me about the potential safety risks and possible damages associated with placing college students into a high-density environment in a low-density community that has roadways suited for low-density residential areas.
I also have great opposition to the manner, form, comments, marketing, probable misstatements of facts from representatives of Marymount College including its President, Dr. Michael Brophy.
I also volunteer my services at the Miraleste Intermediate School Library, at the beginning and ending of each school year and in the Library of that school, assisting my wife Terri and her co-worker, Melanie.
During my volunteer work I met Master Sullivan Brophy, the son of Dr. and Ms. Brophy and found 'Sully' to be a wonderful student and a very interesting fellow. Sullivan is now a high school student and I think he is doing well and now enjoying a summer vacation.
I also consider The Marymount Plan to be flawed in fact and features.
I have not heard one word from Dr. Brophy that he and his supporters will go forward with the approved Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project if the Initiative fails to be approved of, by voters.
It is my assertion that the College's administration and supporters will not proceed under the Project's guidelines and approvals until any an all measures to achieve the right to build on-campus housing have been exhausted.
It is also my assertion that Marymount College will have a decline in enrollment and donations, should on-campus housing not be allowed such that the college will ultimately close down and end physical operation.
I am also beginning to believe that there are certain reasons why I an others can believe that there are what can be considered by some as ulterior motives by Marymount in their quest to have the Initiative approved of by voters and that those motives may be associated with achieving what some may term as a windfall of income should the Initiative's sections about lack of governmental oversight be approved.
It is also my current belief that Dr. Brophy or others will not offer substantial, factual, or believable responses to the differences between what the City Council has approved and what is included in The Marymount Plan's documents and Initiative.
I hold little respect that associates of Marymount are willing to accurately and objectively offer reasonable, realistic, responsible, and respectful responses to the questions asked by Councilman Stern during the last Council meeting where responses to those questions were provided by City Staff or the City Attorney.
I despise hypocrisy and I try my best to never be considered as one who is a hypocrite.
I am left-handed.
I am also a non-insulin dependent Type II diabetic.
I was born with exotropia of the ocular sinister of greater than 55 prism diopters and I had two surgeries on each set of eye muscles of both eyes to visibly correct that situation.
I have no fusion. My blood is Type A Negative
I can easily hide in plain sight and I am a happy person who enjoys being considered as an artisan of clowning.
I have a mild form of Asperger's syndrome that actually benefits me in some ways.
My 'stage name' used in various theatre and video productions is M Richards.
I have never cheated on my wives, nor would I ever.
As part of my divorce settlement, I paid the entire Capital Gains tax on the house Lori and I sold using a payment plan with the I.R.S.
I hold a balance on one Mastercard and my Chevron card. I owe less than $2,300.00 on my Element and I paid off our Saturn early.
I keep secrets and I have a substantial network of very informed associates with the various interests I have who I keep their identity confidential and who are also trustworthy, intelligent, and well-informed.
I prefer assertions over rumors. I detested the marketing of the petition-gathering phase of The Marymount Plan Initiative.
Dr. Michael Brophy has personally claimed to me that he has found no statement purported by me as fact, to be anything less than factual.
I do not nor will not claim objectivity in considerations about Marymount College but I do and will provide factual arguments and claims from all sides of the issues, on this blog.
I welcome all comments, negative or positive and I have always published every comment other than those provided via a written foreign language I do not understand.
I reserve the right and the responsibility to place highly defamatory and outrageous, in my opinion, comments onto another one of my blogs that I try to keep its URL hidden from regular access.
I have been verbally attacked and have had very bad comments written about me on more than one of my blogs and I have a thick skin and I understand that if I am willing to dish it out, I had better be able to take it.
I try my very best to not step over the line as far a libel or slander go and I freely use rights granted in the U.S. Constitution I helped defend as a member of the Air Force and as I continue to do as a good citizen of the United States and the World.
So there you have it. If you can find something else to smear me with, good luck, happy surfing, don't waste your time, I'm not that important, and why bother.
If you need to resort to more character assassination than I have offered, then your arguments supporting whatever you support become moot and hypocritical by stating more negative things about me than I have already done, myself.
I will address the identities and careers of at least some of the members of the Board of Trustees of Marymount College as I find necessary.
I will not attack their character but I reserve the right to question their motives and affiliations with Marymount College.
I am ready, willing, and able to march into battle against The Marymount Plan and I will march honorably in support of The Marymont College Facilities Expansion Project.
Thank you.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Some actual verbage from The Marymount Plan's Initiative Language
Attachment F of The Marymount Plan Initiative contains 171 General Conditions of the Campus Requirements.
Each item states what is to be done during all construction phases and what can be done at the College after the full Marymount Plan is completed.
However, according to the Campus Specific Plan's municipal code being sought for approval along with the rest of the initiative, is this written statement:
17.38.100.040
"Development within the Specific Plan area shall be subject to the Campus Requirements listed in Attachment F, which include provisions relating to restrictions and limitations upon development and operations within the Specific Plan. The Campus Requirements are on file in the office of the director. The city shall have available to it for enforcing the Campus Requirements the same enforcement mechanisms as it would have for conditions of approval of other development projects, except that the city shall not have the power to revoke, repeal, amend or stay the Specific Plan or any of all of its components. The city may also substitute equivalent measures, without the need for a vote of the people, subject to the consent of the Campus owner."
So in essence, no matter what Marymount contends it must do with the General Conditions of the Campus Requirements portion of the Campus Specific Plan Zone, it has the authority to change just about anything it wishes, if I am reading the documents correctly.
With approval of the Initiative by voters also comes the following Technical Amendments to Title 17 of the Municipal Code
"Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC) is hereby amended to create and include Sections 17.96.1202 as follows:
17.96.1202 - Campus Specific Plan
"Campus Specific Plan" means the development standards, regulations, and conditions governing Specific Plan Zone V, which apply to the property described herein, and which plan is more particularly set forth in the Campus Specific Plan adopted by the people of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes at an election called for the purpose of enacting this measure, that is on file in the office of the director.
C. Amendment to Maps
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes Zoning Map and all related zoning maps also are amended to change the zone for the Campus from the current Institutional (I) District to Specific Plan District V and are amended to substitute the diagram in Attachment C for the area of such maps that depicts the Campus, and to included the notation "Specific Plan District V is subject only to provisions of section 17.38.100 of this Code and the Campus Specific Plan."
D. Zoning Code; Conflicts with Specific Plan
Except as may be otherwise expressly set forth in the Specific Plan, the standards and definitions of the Specific Plan shall govern in lieu of any provisions of the City or Ranchos (sp) Palos Verdes Municipal Code and all related zoning regulations and definitions that conflict with any provision of the Specific Plan."
What "D. Zoning Codes; Conflicts with Specific Plan" reads to me is that Marymounts Campus Specific Plan Zone and its Specific Plan District restrict oversight by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and awards almost unlimited abilities to alter plans for the campus, based only on the desires of Marymount administrators, supporters, donors, and any other entity Marymount chooses to represent interests at the campus of Marymount College.
I believe I am correct in my opinion, but I would like a far greater brain to help me confirm that what is written in the measure is what I assert would happen if voters approve the forthcoming ballot measure.
Each item states what is to be done during all construction phases and what can be done at the College after the full Marymount Plan is completed.
However, according to the Campus Specific Plan's municipal code being sought for approval along with the rest of the initiative, is this written statement:
17.38.100.040
"Development within the Specific Plan area shall be subject to the Campus Requirements listed in Attachment F, which include provisions relating to restrictions and limitations upon development and operations within the Specific Plan. The Campus Requirements are on file in the office of the director. The city shall have available to it for enforcing the Campus Requirements the same enforcement mechanisms as it would have for conditions of approval of other development projects, except that the city shall not have the power to revoke, repeal, amend or stay the Specific Plan or any of all of its components. The city may also substitute equivalent measures, without the need for a vote of the people, subject to the consent of the Campus owner."
So in essence, no matter what Marymount contends it must do with the General Conditions of the Campus Requirements portion of the Campus Specific Plan Zone, it has the authority to change just about anything it wishes, if I am reading the documents correctly.
With approval of the Initiative by voters also comes the following Technical Amendments to Title 17 of the Municipal Code
"Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC) is hereby amended to create and include Sections 17.96.1202 as follows:
17.96.1202 - Campus Specific Plan
"Campus Specific Plan" means the development standards, regulations, and conditions governing Specific Plan Zone V, which apply to the property described herein, and which plan is more particularly set forth in the Campus Specific Plan adopted by the people of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes at an election called for the purpose of enacting this measure, that is on file in the office of the director.
C. Amendment to Maps
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes Zoning Map and all related zoning maps also are amended to change the zone for the Campus from the current Institutional (I) District to Specific Plan District V and are amended to substitute the diagram in Attachment C for the area of such maps that depicts the Campus, and to included the notation "Specific Plan District V is subject only to provisions of section 17.38.100 of this Code and the Campus Specific Plan."
D. Zoning Code; Conflicts with Specific Plan
Except as may be otherwise expressly set forth in the Specific Plan, the standards and definitions of the Specific Plan shall govern in lieu of any provisions of the City or Ranchos (sp) Palos Verdes Municipal Code and all related zoning regulations and definitions that conflict with any provision of the Specific Plan."
What "D. Zoning Codes; Conflicts with Specific Plan" reads to me is that Marymounts Campus Specific Plan Zone and its Specific Plan District restrict oversight by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and awards almost unlimited abilities to alter plans for the campus, based only on the desires of Marymount administrators, supporters, donors, and any other entity Marymount chooses to represent interests at the campus of Marymount College.
I believe I am correct in my opinion, but I would like a far greater brain to help me confirm that what is written in the measure is what I assert would happen if voters approve the forthcoming ballot measure.
What A Wonderful Sign
Hold on to your car keys, walking shoes, sweet tooth, and aroma senses, Amalfitano Bakery is not open yet.Terri and I drove past Western Plaza shopping center and gazed upon the brand new sign of the bakery we are waiting the opening of.
Mr. Anthony Amalfitano is the owner of this new bakery which could be considered the 'daughter' of the famous but late San Pedro landmark, Ramona's Bakery.
The new Bakery is located near the corner of Western Avenue and Trudie Drive and when it opens it will certainly contain many of the treats so famous that many of us enjoyed while Ramona's Bakery was open.
I don't know the opening date of the Bakery. The display counters are still covered with plastic and the kitchen area is not quite finished.
The plastic has been removed from the windows and it looks like work is progressing faster than it has been in the previous months.
I haven't decided yet which treat will be the first one I enjoy at Amalfitano Bakers. I think I will leave that decision until I find out if their Chocolate Chip Cookies contain nuts. (REAL CHOCOLATE CHIP COOKIES NEVER CONTAIN NUTS).
Terri and I wish Mr. Anthony Amalfitano, his family, and all the employees of Amalfitano Bakery a wonderful, joyous, and profitable opening and a very long stay at its new location in Rancho Palos Verdes.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Maybe It Is All About Making Money?
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)