During the June 15, 2010 Rancho Palos Verdes City Council meeting, Councilman Douglas Stern asked for clarification between the approximately 62 differences between The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project passed by the Council and The Marymount Plan, the Specific Zone plan that would have to be approved by voters this coming November 2 to allow Marymount College the right to build according to its plan and not the one approved by the City Council.
Also during the same meeting, Dr. Michael Brophy, Marymount's President confided to the Council and the public that The Marymount Plan was the same plan approved by the Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission, with only on-campus housing being the only difference.
In reality, there are probably more like 7-10 differences between what the Council approved as The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project and what the Planning Commission approved and sent to the Council for consideration and 'tinkering'.
Those differences involve lowering the height of the roof of the gym and adding some movement of the large field, two tennis courts, and a concrete center median on Palos Verdes Drive East, with the changes reflecting the Council's concern for the safety of everyone.
When Dr. Brophy stated that he objected to the 'tinkering' between what he was accepting by the Planning Commission and what was approved by the Council, he failed to mention that what is part of both the issues before the Planning Commission and then passed by the Council is different than what is in The Marymount Plan and is NOT what he stated was in The Project approved and sent forward by the Planning Commission.
This is yet, in my opinion, another deceptive piece Dr. Brophy is attempting to enter into the debate over whether to vote "Yes" or "No" on The Marymount Plan's Initiative.
Dr. Brophy is fundamentally incorrect to assert that what the Planning Commission approved is what is in The Marymount Plan, and he knows it.
Nowhere in the approval by the Planning Commission does it allow Marymount to forgo oversight by the City Council, periodic review by the city of Rancho Palos Verdes, and elimination of many of the conditional uses permitted by the Planning Commission and the Council that Marymount seeks to override.
The Planning Commission set levels and limits for noise, usage of facilities, whether Marymount could use its campus for commercial purposed, and many other items that Marymount now considers should be allowed with no city oversight or review or control.
Most of the 62 differences pointed out by Councilman Douglas Stern and verified by City Staff and the City Attorney involve Marymount's desire to have itself as the regulator and not representatives of the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes.
I hope that all potential voters who cast their vote for or against The Marymount Plan's Initiative take the time to read every single point of difference between the already approved Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project and The Marymount Plan. If voters are truly objective and are allowed to read the truth, the complete truth, they will easily find that Dr. Brophy and his supporters are attempting to grab power and control of a portion of our city that should be the responsibility and the authority of our City Council and other representatives of the voters in our city who elected the Council Members to represent them and not Dr. Brophy and folks at Marymount who are demanding rights far in excess of what our residents currently receive.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
"You Tinkered"
"You tinkered" was the response by Dr. Michael Brophy, the President of Marymount College, to a question posed by a member of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council dealing with his opinion as to why he was opposed to the Council's approval of The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project.
Specifically, Councilman Campbell asked Dr. Brophy why Dr. Brophy did not like how the Council moved the large athletic field sixty feet to the east and thus placing it farther from the long curve of Palos Verdes Drive East.
Dr. Brophy stated that there had been years of study and "$600,000.00' of costs incurred by the College in having the large field much closer to the curve than the Council ultimately approved of.
When Councilman Campbell challenged Dr. Brophy to state whether placing the field farther from the roadway for safety reasons was superior to where Marymount wanted it, Dr. Brophy stated he would not give a yes or no answer.
To me this smacked of Marymount's Land Use Attorney, Mr. Don Davis, when he got up and stated matter of factly that Marymount would not build a new large field on the east side of the campus, near where the existing field currently sits.
Mr. Davis stated that when the Council originally voted to have the field on the east side, it didn't matter because they weren't going to build a new field on the east side so the Council should simply deny the field.
That little outburst by Mr. Davis was cured when the Council voted to have the field on the west side of the campus, where Marymount wanted it in the first place.
Dr. Brophy's "you tinkered" also may have been reflected of his feelings about hearing so much negativity dealing with The Marymount Plan's initiative and how just about everyone in the Council Chambers opposed The Marymount Plan and its initiative.
So now it seems Rancho Palos Verdes resident, Ms. Linda "Bob Bisno is going to save San Pedro" D'Ambrosi has somewhat of a new soulmate with Dr. Michael "you tinkered" Brophy.
Specifically, Councilman Campbell asked Dr. Brophy why Dr. Brophy did not like how the Council moved the large athletic field sixty feet to the east and thus placing it farther from the long curve of Palos Verdes Drive East.
Dr. Brophy stated that there had been years of study and "$600,000.00' of costs incurred by the College in having the large field much closer to the curve than the Council ultimately approved of.
When Councilman Campbell challenged Dr. Brophy to state whether placing the field farther from the roadway for safety reasons was superior to where Marymount wanted it, Dr. Brophy stated he would not give a yes or no answer.
To me this smacked of Marymount's Land Use Attorney, Mr. Don Davis, when he got up and stated matter of factly that Marymount would not build a new large field on the east side of the campus, near where the existing field currently sits.
Mr. Davis stated that when the Council originally voted to have the field on the east side, it didn't matter because they weren't going to build a new field on the east side so the Council should simply deny the field.
That little outburst by Mr. Davis was cured when the Council voted to have the field on the west side of the campus, where Marymount wanted it in the first place.
Dr. Brophy's "you tinkered" also may have been reflected of his feelings about hearing so much negativity dealing with The Marymount Plan's initiative and how just about everyone in the Council Chambers opposed The Marymount Plan and its initiative.
So now it seems Rancho Palos Verdes resident, Ms. Linda "Bob Bisno is going to save San Pedro" D'Ambrosi has somewhat of a new soulmate with Dr. Michael "you tinkered" Brophy.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Signatures Varified
Yesterday, the City Clerk of Rancho Palos Verdes made notifications that the number of valid signatures to potentially place The Marymount Plan's initiative on the November 2, ballot has been approved.
During the June 15 Rancho Palos Verdes City Council meeting, that body MUST vote to do one of just two options, now mandated by law.
The Council has the right to simply adopt ALL aspects currently within the wording of The Marymount Plan's initiative, or they must call for a 'Special Election' which can be conducted in association with the November 2, 2010 General Election.
Having the initiative voted on by registered voters of Rancho Palos Verdes is considered as being a 'Special Election' because the city normally has elections of Council Members in odd-numbered years AND the initiative is the only city-wide matter that is only for Rancho Palos Verdes residents.
All of this was absolutely and completely expected by most folks who have dealt with The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project because of Marymount's removal of considerations dealing with on-campus student housing when THEY pulled those issues off the table before formal votes were taken by the Planning Commission of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Since The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project has met formal approval by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council, voters will be asked to approve ONLY three different aspects between the now-approved Expansion Project and The Marymount Plan;
On-campus residential housing for up to 250 students and up to five advisors.
The potentially restrictive municipal ordinance that could restrict city government oversight on matters relating to the enacting of The Marymount Plan.
Currently, the elimination of the now approved concrete center median barrier along the long curve of Palos Verdes Drive East as it bends around the Marymount Campus.
Are you willing to allow Marymount those THREE changes? I hope not and urge all of you to vote to oppose the ballot measure.
During the voting dealing with The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project by members of the Planning Commission and the City Council, two groups have been repeatedly heard from and their documents read from.
The two groups represented the Administration and supporters of Marymount College and the largest opposition group to that Project, Concerned Citizens Coalition/Marymount Expansion.
It seems that time and time again, the other residents of the city have provided just one voice and far too few documents to illustrate their feelings about the many issues; me.
That will all CHANGE on June 15 when I am joined by many many more voices opposing the initiative on different grounds and by some very familiar names, in our city.
Marymount will now be able to learn more from Save Our City III, a group that does not offer an opinion about the elements of The Marymount Plan, but they do completely object to the way Marymount is trying to use the ballot box over OUR RESIDENTS' representatives WE VOTED FOR to represent us in city matters.
Marymount wants to take our votes away from us and tell us we don't matter. How is that being a 'good neighbor' as Marymount's Administration claims they are?
Marymount wants to have less local residents dictate what will happen to residents of our city who live closer to the Marymount campus than I do or most others do.
Marymount wants to provide a precedent setting vote that could bring many more private business initiatives to our voters to take away the representation we voted for when we elected our City Council members.
Marymount wants to add a brand new municipal code that benefits only that institution and could disallow some critical oversight our city is mandated to do with other projects, residents, and businesses in the city.
Marymount now claims that the taxpayers' costs for the Special Election will now be borne by the College and its supporters but has not offered to cover other taxpayer-funded costs associated with traffic mitigation they only want to pay their 'fair share' of.
Get ready for an onslaught of mailers, DVDs T.V. adds and possibly door-to-door visits by students or other supporters of Marymount College's initiative.
You will be able to return to this blog when I offer the true facts Marymount does not wish to reveal and so far, Dr. Michael Brophy, Marymount's President continues to confirm that this blog offers true facts and has not found one error of fact on this blog, according to statements he made personally to me.
So, if Dr. Brophy doesn't find any misstatement of fact in this blog and I have found numerous misstatements of fact with The Marymount Plan that Dr. Brophy also does not deny, I think this blog has offered more responsible and truer fact-base opinions, assertions, and reading than Marymount has offered.
My challenges to debate still continue. Now in fact, they grow stronger with the real potential that the initiative will appear on the November 2 ballot.
It has been estimated that Marymount will now cover, the approximately, $80,000.00 of taxpayer-funded costs that would have had to come from the city's General Fund to pay for the Special Election. Marymount once claimed that The Marymount Plan would be completed at "no expense" to taxpayers. Until Marymount moved to cover those costs, that statement was untrue.
The statement remains untrue regarding the traffic mitigation and the now-approved concrete center median barrier on Palos Verdes Drive East.
Marymount has offered to pay up to $200,000.00 of the over $285,000.00 potential costs for the median barrier.
Marymount has offered to pay their "fair share" for three other traffic mitigation efforts in both The Project and The Plan, but has so far refused to pay the remainder of the costs that would have to come from the taxpayer-funded General Fund the city keeps.
So, who are you going to trust for real facts and assertions? I must admit, Marymount's trustworthy records are not up to par with mine and I doubt they are up to the records of CCC/ME and now Save Our City III.
Our armor is polished. Our swords of truth are sharp. Our steeds are well fed and have lots of energy. Our associates are informed and eager to wage war. Our cause is just. Our fight is right.
During the June 15 Rancho Palos Verdes City Council meeting, that body MUST vote to do one of just two options, now mandated by law.
The Council has the right to simply adopt ALL aspects currently within the wording of The Marymount Plan's initiative, or they must call for a 'Special Election' which can be conducted in association with the November 2, 2010 General Election.
Having the initiative voted on by registered voters of Rancho Palos Verdes is considered as being a 'Special Election' because the city normally has elections of Council Members in odd-numbered years AND the initiative is the only city-wide matter that is only for Rancho Palos Verdes residents.
All of this was absolutely and completely expected by most folks who have dealt with The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project because of Marymount's removal of considerations dealing with on-campus student housing when THEY pulled those issues off the table before formal votes were taken by the Planning Commission of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Since The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project has met formal approval by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council, voters will be asked to approve ONLY three different aspects between the now-approved Expansion Project and The Marymount Plan;
On-campus residential housing for up to 250 students and up to five advisors.
The potentially restrictive municipal ordinance that could restrict city government oversight on matters relating to the enacting of The Marymount Plan.
Currently, the elimination of the now approved concrete center median barrier along the long curve of Palos Verdes Drive East as it bends around the Marymount Campus.
Are you willing to allow Marymount those THREE changes? I hope not and urge all of you to vote to oppose the ballot measure.
During the voting dealing with The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project by members of the Planning Commission and the City Council, two groups have been repeatedly heard from and their documents read from.
The two groups represented the Administration and supporters of Marymount College and the largest opposition group to that Project, Concerned Citizens Coalition/Marymount Expansion.
It seems that time and time again, the other residents of the city have provided just one voice and far too few documents to illustrate their feelings about the many issues; me.
That will all CHANGE on June 15 when I am joined by many many more voices opposing the initiative on different grounds and by some very familiar names, in our city.
Marymount will now be able to learn more from Save Our City III, a group that does not offer an opinion about the elements of The Marymount Plan, but they do completely object to the way Marymount is trying to use the ballot box over OUR RESIDENTS' representatives WE VOTED FOR to represent us in city matters.
Marymount wants to take our votes away from us and tell us we don't matter. How is that being a 'good neighbor' as Marymount's Administration claims they are?
Marymount wants to have less local residents dictate what will happen to residents of our city who live closer to the Marymount campus than I do or most others do.
Marymount wants to provide a precedent setting vote that could bring many more private business initiatives to our voters to take away the representation we voted for when we elected our City Council members.
Marymount wants to add a brand new municipal code that benefits only that institution and could disallow some critical oversight our city is mandated to do with other projects, residents, and businesses in the city.
Marymount now claims that the taxpayers' costs for the Special Election will now be borne by the College and its supporters but has not offered to cover other taxpayer-funded costs associated with traffic mitigation they only want to pay their 'fair share' of.
Get ready for an onslaught of mailers, DVDs T.V. adds and possibly door-to-door visits by students or other supporters of Marymount College's initiative.
You will be able to return to this blog when I offer the true facts Marymount does not wish to reveal and so far, Dr. Michael Brophy, Marymount's President continues to confirm that this blog offers true facts and has not found one error of fact on this blog, according to statements he made personally to me.
So, if Dr. Brophy doesn't find any misstatement of fact in this blog and I have found numerous misstatements of fact with The Marymount Plan that Dr. Brophy also does not deny, I think this blog has offered more responsible and truer fact-base opinions, assertions, and reading than Marymount has offered.
My challenges to debate still continue. Now in fact, they grow stronger with the real potential that the initiative will appear on the November 2 ballot.
It has been estimated that Marymount will now cover, the approximately, $80,000.00 of taxpayer-funded costs that would have had to come from the city's General Fund to pay for the Special Election. Marymount once claimed that The Marymount Plan would be completed at "no expense" to taxpayers. Until Marymount moved to cover those costs, that statement was untrue.
The statement remains untrue regarding the traffic mitigation and the now-approved concrete center median barrier on Palos Verdes Drive East.
Marymount has offered to pay up to $200,000.00 of the over $285,000.00 potential costs for the median barrier.
Marymount has offered to pay their "fair share" for three other traffic mitigation efforts in both The Project and The Plan, but has so far refused to pay the remainder of the costs that would have to come from the taxpayer-funded General Fund the city keeps.
So, who are you going to trust for real facts and assertions? I must admit, Marymount's trustworthy records are not up to par with mine and I doubt they are up to the records of CCC/ME and now Save Our City III.
Our armor is polished. Our swords of truth are sharp. Our steeds are well fed and have lots of energy. Our associates are informed and eager to wage war. Our cause is just. Our fight is right.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
The Resolutions Just Passed!
At about 9:37 PM in Tuesday June 1, 2010, the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council voted unanimously to adopt the two Resolutions necessary to allow Marymount College to go forward with permits to begin The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, which will be termed "The Project" throughout the remainder of this post and well into the future.
Naturally, Mr. Don Davis, the Planning and Land Use Attorney for Marymount College angered Council members, CCC/ME, myself and many other residents by pointing out that there is a "flaw" in our city's government and he would not address whether Marymount will go forward with their initiative and now is different that what is now law by the question of residence halls on campus and a prospective municipal code that could restrict city oversight of whatever Marymount now decides to do with The Marymount Plan.
This was the only City Council meeting on the issues relating to Marymount's redevelopment that I did not attend. I watched item number 13 on CATV's Rancho Palos Verdes television channel.
The ten-year period of getting The Project through the necessary planning and study stages is now over. Marymount will soon be able to pull permits to begin demolishing old buildings and begin changing the configuration of its parking lot, but don't expect any of that to begin before November.
On November 2, Marymount wants registered voters to become Planning Commission members, City Council Members, and Rancho Palos Verdes city Staff members by approving The Marymount Plan, which will be referred to as "The Plan" in this post and for the unforseeable future, I am sorry to write.
Mr. Davis called the ten-year process 'flawed' in his opinion and he also took a swipe at Concerned Citizens Coaligion/Marymount Expansion (CCC/ME) in his remarks before the Council.
Councilman Stern made a wonderful series of comments rebuking Mr. Davis and Marymount's initiative process and how Marymount is now looking for voters to approve dorms on campus because just about everything else is now part of a new municipal code.
Councilman Brian Campbell, Mayor Pro Tem Tom Long, and Mayor Stefan Wolwicz echoed Councilman Stern's comments and added a few of their own.
Mayor Wolowicz was quite emotional, it looked like to me, as he chastised Mr. Davis and Marymount over things he felt were unfair and out of character. The Mayor stated to Mr. Davis and others that it wrong to attack municipal processes, especially the processes that have been dealt with by so many residents and staff of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Mayor Pro Tem commented that he and other members of the Council feel none of them got all that they wanted when they voted on the various parts and pieces of The Project, but because there were disagreements among Council members, he and others felt that The Project was provided with the best results possible.
I actually have commented before and I continue to feel strongly that The Project is just about all that I wanted and I am quite pleased with the provisions of The Project Marymount will, most likely, not build, even if their initiative passes.
How many more pieces of evidence do you need to finally realize that it has always been about on campus student housing for Marymount?
Even Mr. Davis would not offer whether Marymount would take the initiative off the ballot if The Project passed because he, Dr. Brophy, Marymount's President, all the members of the City Council, CCC/ME, SOC III, and a good portion of Rancho Palos Verdes residents know perfectly well that Marymount won't pull their initiative, and they telegraphed that just last week.
Marymount has now offered to pick up the tab for the Special Election on November 2. You know, it's the one where I have asserted that tax payers' dollars would have been needed for The Marymount Plan, even though the slick ads and Marymount-speak contended that The Plan would be completed at no expense to the taxpayer.
Well, Marymount blinked so they are picking up one part of what taxpayers will have to fund for either The Project or The Marymount Plan.
There is still the issues of traffic mitigation and whether Marymount will add the concrete center median to The Plan, or not.
Yes, Marymount has offered to pay up to $200,000.00 to help finance the construction of the barrier, but they still are not willing to admit that the at least $85,000.00 required to complete that mitigation must come from the city's General Fund, funded with taxpayer money, or perhaps sell ad space on the barriers, which nobody will do.
The ten-year battle is over and the war is now beginning.
It will be interesting to see what Marymount says and markets next.
Will they continue to state that the city is flawed in some way?
Will they ever admit that whatever the redevelopment is called, it has always been and will always be about on campus student housing?
Will they finally acknowledge that taxpayer funds are required if voters pass The Marymount Plan's initiative or will they continue to state they will fund the election, the traffic mitigation, and even the barrier which is not part of The Plan yet?
Our city's Staff, the various members of the Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission, and the various members of The Rancho Palos Verdes City Council have been dealing with The Project for a decade. We have only had to deal with The Plan for a number of months. How, after all they time and effort by paid employees, consultants and a pretty large number of Rancho Palos Verdes residents/volunteers, does Don Davis, speaking just in front of Dr. Brophy, have the you-know-whats to chastise our City and the neighborhoods organization that has been working so hard to serve and protect all of our residents?
I guess the "Attorney at Law" part of his identity speaks volumes and that should displease many fine residents in our good city.
I know I have taken off the gloves already, but I think I need to let folks know that I was wearing more than one pair. So I guess it is time to go bare knuckles word-wise against the initiative and Marymount's outrageous ideas about what they really think about their neighbors and the rest of the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Perhaps there are more foul 'good neighbors' in other areas, but Marymount is one "good neighbor" I think we should be very cautious about.
Naturally, Mr. Don Davis, the Planning and Land Use Attorney for Marymount College angered Council members, CCC/ME, myself and many other residents by pointing out that there is a "flaw" in our city's government and he would not address whether Marymount will go forward with their initiative and now is different that what is now law by the question of residence halls on campus and a prospective municipal code that could restrict city oversight of whatever Marymount now decides to do with The Marymount Plan.
This was the only City Council meeting on the issues relating to Marymount's redevelopment that I did not attend. I watched item number 13 on CATV's Rancho Palos Verdes television channel.
The ten-year period of getting The Project through the necessary planning and study stages is now over. Marymount will soon be able to pull permits to begin demolishing old buildings and begin changing the configuration of its parking lot, but don't expect any of that to begin before November.
On November 2, Marymount wants registered voters to become Planning Commission members, City Council Members, and Rancho Palos Verdes city Staff members by approving The Marymount Plan, which will be referred to as "The Plan" in this post and for the unforseeable future, I am sorry to write.
Mr. Davis called the ten-year process 'flawed' in his opinion and he also took a swipe at Concerned Citizens Coaligion/Marymount Expansion (CCC/ME) in his remarks before the Council.
Councilman Stern made a wonderful series of comments rebuking Mr. Davis and Marymount's initiative process and how Marymount is now looking for voters to approve dorms on campus because just about everything else is now part of a new municipal code.
Councilman Brian Campbell, Mayor Pro Tem Tom Long, and Mayor Stefan Wolwicz echoed Councilman Stern's comments and added a few of their own.
Mayor Wolowicz was quite emotional, it looked like to me, as he chastised Mr. Davis and Marymount over things he felt were unfair and out of character. The Mayor stated to Mr. Davis and others that it wrong to attack municipal processes, especially the processes that have been dealt with by so many residents and staff of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Mayor Pro Tem commented that he and other members of the Council feel none of them got all that they wanted when they voted on the various parts and pieces of The Project, but because there were disagreements among Council members, he and others felt that The Project was provided with the best results possible.
I actually have commented before and I continue to feel strongly that The Project is just about all that I wanted and I am quite pleased with the provisions of The Project Marymount will, most likely, not build, even if their initiative passes.
How many more pieces of evidence do you need to finally realize that it has always been about on campus student housing for Marymount?
Even Mr. Davis would not offer whether Marymount would take the initiative off the ballot if The Project passed because he, Dr. Brophy, Marymount's President, all the members of the City Council, CCC/ME, SOC III, and a good portion of Rancho Palos Verdes residents know perfectly well that Marymount won't pull their initiative, and they telegraphed that just last week.
Marymount has now offered to pick up the tab for the Special Election on November 2. You know, it's the one where I have asserted that tax payers' dollars would have been needed for The Marymount Plan, even though the slick ads and Marymount-speak contended that The Plan would be completed at no expense to the taxpayer.
Well, Marymount blinked so they are picking up one part of what taxpayers will have to fund for either The Project or The Marymount Plan.
There is still the issues of traffic mitigation and whether Marymount will add the concrete center median to The Plan, or not.
Yes, Marymount has offered to pay up to $200,000.00 to help finance the construction of the barrier, but they still are not willing to admit that the at least $85,000.00 required to complete that mitigation must come from the city's General Fund, funded with taxpayer money, or perhaps sell ad space on the barriers, which nobody will do.
The ten-year battle is over and the war is now beginning.
It will be interesting to see what Marymount says and markets next.
Will they continue to state that the city is flawed in some way?
Will they ever admit that whatever the redevelopment is called, it has always been and will always be about on campus student housing?
Will they finally acknowledge that taxpayer funds are required if voters pass The Marymount Plan's initiative or will they continue to state they will fund the election, the traffic mitigation, and even the barrier which is not part of The Plan yet?
Our city's Staff, the various members of the Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission, and the various members of The Rancho Palos Verdes City Council have been dealing with The Project for a decade. We have only had to deal with The Plan for a number of months. How, after all they time and effort by paid employees, consultants and a pretty large number of Rancho Palos Verdes residents/volunteers, does Don Davis, speaking just in front of Dr. Brophy, have the you-know-whats to chastise our City and the neighborhoods organization that has been working so hard to serve and protect all of our residents?
I guess the "Attorney at Law" part of his identity speaks volumes and that should displease many fine residents in our good city.
I know I have taken off the gloves already, but I think I need to let folks know that I was wearing more than one pair. So I guess it is time to go bare knuckles word-wise against the initiative and Marymount's outrageous ideas about what they really think about their neighbors and the rest of the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Perhaps there are more foul 'good neighbors' in other areas, but Marymount is one "good neighbor" I think we should be very cautious about.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
More Affirmation Of My Assertions
Did you open up The Palos Verdes Peninsula News to view a full page copy of the letter Dr. Michael Brophy sent to the Mayor and the other members of the City Council Rancho Palos Verdes?
More costs to Marymount attempting to do basically two things; have residence halls approved and potentially restrict government oversight on some aspects of The Marymount Plan.
But you already know it has always been about having up to 250 college age students live overlooking the long curve of Palos Verdes Drive East heading towards the switchbacks and other reasons Marymount will tell you and what they won't tell you.
My assertion about dorms on campus being the most important aspect of The Marymount Plan is affirmed when I read the full page ad, the mailer similar to it, and all the rest of the marketing, knowing full well that the Rancho Palos Verdes will (hopefully, but you need to know that the latest Staff Report wasn't 258 pages long like the last Council's meeting dealt with....it is 493 pages long!) vote to approve two Resolutions that pretty much make up what Marymount College has been seeking for the last ten years......except dorms and potential restrictions on government oversight.
What more proof does one need? I have asked Dr. Brophy, Marymount's President, to fully explain using truth, honesty, and clearness of statement, why he feels Marymount must have on campus housing for students. So far, what you have read or heard or seen is nothing like real openness, in my opinion. Also so far, we haven't publicly heard how important having parents and others of up to 250 college students, pay in the neighborhood of $39,000.00 per year to have their child live on the campus of what was a Junior College.
Now I know perfectly well that Marymount has been approved to offer three four-year degrees and it will be interesting to see how many of the graduating Junior College students continue on with the four-year program or whether any new students attend Marymount seeking the four-year degree that may be offered for study to them.
I think this August will be interesting IF Marymount actually begins offering classes towards the four-year degrees or they seek to wait until voters have a chance to approve or oppose the college's attempts to have voters act as the representative THEY ELECTED to serve them with these types of decisions.
My assertion about what might happen to Marymount College if approval of on campus student housing is not approved within the next year or two still holds firm with no reason to rethink it.
My assertion is that if Marymount College cannot obtain approval to build residence halls on its campus, they will end operation at the Palos Verdes Drive East campus with classes for students and they MAY offer online classes, credits, and degrees while regrouping or the college may fail again and be relegated to history and become the stuff of over development legend.
Since The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project is so very similar to The Marymount Plan and the Project has just one more City Council meeting, perhaps, before the Resolutions allowing construction to begin being passed, what other reasons could there possibly be for voters to approve The Marymount Plan during the November 2, election?
Marymount College's officials and its supporters seem to have been given a set of talking points that shy away from real reasons why Marymount College officials and supporters want on-campus housing.
What is also very interesting is that these same folks either tell you they now nothing or very little about the ordinance in the initiative that would provide Marymount College rights over its Plan that preclude city government from enforcing or providing variances to items within The Plan. I guess they don't want you to know about that subject.....or they have no clue themselves.
By June 9, 2010 we should all know whether we need to put on our battle armor and begin to watch Marymount's wealthy supporters deluge us with marketing items seeking to have less knowledgeable voters approve the initiative.
It is a real opportunity for students to live on campuses during their college years, but this must not be the case at Marymount College, in my opinion.
While I sympathize with the parents of potential dorm residents of Marymount, I also sympathize with the parents of the underage-almost having enough credits to graduate,but didn't-Marymount student who had a blood alcohol level of between 0.14 and 0.18, according to a Sheriff's Deputy assigned to Ranch Palos Verdes, who lost control of the car he was driving while drunk and ended his life and placed his passenger's life in peril.
I also sympathize with the local resident who was severely injured in a traffic collision cause by a Marymount Student in the same area where Marymount officials have now offered to help pay for a concrete barrier because of several conditions, one being the "hazardous" potential condition stated in the Environmental Impact Report.
For me again, I cannot get beyond my personal conclusions that having college students living on the Marymount campus is a safety risk and I will not support dorms on campus because of my support for students, faculty, staff, visitors, local area residents, vehicle operators on Palos Verdes Drive East, and everyone else who travels by or near the Marymount Campus, having the safest environment possible.
As I have for months, I continue to offer to discuss and even debate anyone about safety issues related to having students live on the Marymount campus.
I would, of course, have data from the California Highway Patrol, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Office, the Harbor Division of the Los Angeles Police Department, the Los Angeles County Fire Department, Marymount College, various Web sites offering statements from former Marymount Students, various Web sites dealing with on-campus housing of students, my over 39 year history of driving a motor vehicle along Palos Verdes Drive East-South-West-North, my over 44 year history of riding bicycles and walking on those same roads, and my greater-than 55 year history of being a passenger in motor vehicles on those same roads.
Since I still haven't heard or read from anyone having a personal history in what is now Rancho Palos Verdes ever offering opinions or facts dealing with The Marymount Plan, I will be fascinated when Dr. Brophy produces a person who could attempt to refute my claims and assertions and having the history of living in this area as long as mine.
It's been over two years now, so waiting for me is no problem at all.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Confirmation? Perhaps.
You can click on the image to enlarge it, if you wish.I wonder how many Rancho Palos Verdes residents it took for Dr. Brophy to come up with this latest wrinkle?
I must write that I appreciate Dr. Brophy announcing that the will pay all the costs incurred for their Marymount Plan initiative being on the November 2 ballot.
But it certainly looks to me that Dr. Brophy just confirmed my assertion that taxpayers' funds would have been used to have the initiative on the ballot while all the assertions by Marymount that The Marymount Plan would be accomplished at "no taxpayer expense" now can only come true when Dr. Brophy announced the college would pay all the costs.
That's a start, Dr. Brophy. But there are more costs to taxpayers' funds that you might want to pick up so your assertions could be as true as mine seemingly are being confirmed by you.
I know you said Marymount would pay its "fair share" on the mitigation of traffic at three intersections in Rancho Palos Verdes.
It would now be nice, to keep taxpayer funds from being spent on those intersections' mitigation, to follow up on your assertion that The Marymount Plan would be completed "without taxpayer expense, if you would completely fund the three approved projects.
But wait! You did repeatedly tell me that you believe there would be no signals placed at the intersection of Miraleste Drive at Palos Verdes Drive East. I hope you are correct.
But with The Marymount Plan and the recently approved Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, both of them have the signalization as part of the mitigation required to complete either issue.
So, when we all find out the projected costs associated with the signalization, you and your supporters create an Escrow account and you can either put your 'fair share' into that account or better yet, put all the costs, including projected costs to taxpayers' General Fund, into that same account?
And you thought we were done?
The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project has a fourth traffic mitigation compliment and you know what it is.
For those who don't, it is the construction and maintenance of a center median concrete barrier of about 1,000 feet in length, being placed between the opposing lanes of Palos Verdes Drive East as that roadway goes around much of the Marymount campus site.
Dr. Brophy, no matter what your published reasoning was for offering to donate up to $200,000.00 towards that mitigation, I thank you for the offer.
Now since the projected costs for the concrete median might be about $285,000.00, how about you kicking in the 85 grand so you can continue to assert that The Marymount Plan will be accomplished with "no taxpayer expense".
Are you folks going to add that fourth mitigation to The Marymount Plan? If you do, then I expect that you might have to be seen with a red face as you try to tell potential supporters that taxpayer funds would be required to have the median constructed. That would blow your assertion about no taxpayer expense a bit out of believability, wouldn't it?
Now lets opine about the real differences between The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project and The Marymount Plan.
Dr. Brophy asserts that Marymount would become a greater educational opportunity for students and I agree with that, to a point.
You all must realize or learn that the two issues are almost identical except for two major differences and a minor difference or two.
Everything that is in The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project has been approved and the necessary Resolutions should be passed, and I hope passed unanimously, by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council, this coming Tuesday evening.
Everything that is in The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project except on campus housing for students and some staffers.
Everything that is in The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project except Marymount's wish to have a new municipal code passed by voters that would restrict government oversight in The Marymount Plan should it garner more than 50% of the votes cast relating to that ballot measure.
Everything that is in The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project except currently, the fourth traffic mitigation issue relating to the construction and placement of a concrete center median barrier.
So what might that confirm from my assertions about Marymount that Marymount asserts for itself?
I think I can now truly believe that the entire ten year journey has always and only been about having on campus housing.
This apparent affirmation of a confirmation comes straight from Dr. Brophy's letter, even without Dr. Brophy publicly admitting it.
Since The Project, approved by the City Coucil, just doesn't involve on campus housing and the potential restriction of government oversight, it seems to me that Dr. Brophy's letter and charging forward to try and get the ballot measure passed by voters is all the real confirmation any of us need.
Why would Marymount spend all that money on advertising and seeking support for The Marymount Plan if it really was about everything other than dorms and the lesser or greater, potential restrictions of government oversight.
It's really quite simple to see through the complete haze Marymount is attempting to push over every one's head .
Dr. Brophy and other seem to assert that a large soccer field on the west side of the Marymount campus would not cause much harm to drivers or in the surrounding housing areas.
That assertion should be questioned when one learns that Marymount will require all incoming residence hall occupants, to have instructions in safe driving techniques be required of all incoming students desireing to live on campus.
Also, the Environmental Impact Report has a sentence about potential hazards because of errant balls coming off the field or tennis courts and landing along Palos Verdes Drive East.
Continuing, Marymount has agreed to increasing the height of the pole and retractable netting, increasing the height of the permanent fencing around the tennis court, and having the field closer to the gym than is what is illustrated in The Marymount Plan.
Marymount also offered up to $200,000.00 to assist the city with funds to install the center median barrier even though it is not part of The Marymount Plan and just might not be a real part of the show, depending on how the poles look.
I'll wake up tomorrow morning and add to this. Sleep well.
I Need Darkness To Write About Marymount Later
Well, it seems like the words some of us were attempting to have Dr. Brophy listen to finally sunk in.
He seemingly just acknowledged that had he not offered to foot the bills for the proposed initiative's processes through the voting, taxpayers would have had to foot the bills.
Isn't that what I have been asserting for some time?
OK, it finally sunk in. Its a start. Unfortunately, it is only a start.
What about the taxpayers' funds that will have to be utilized for the three mitigation for traffic in both The Project AND the Marymount Plan?
So far, Dr. Brophy want Marymount to pay only its "fair share". How nice. But what about the rest of the costs? They have to come from taxpayers' funds unless he does what he just wrote to the Mayor and then sent to registered voters that he and Marymount are now willing to pick up the taxpayers' fund's portion of the required costs.
Now I know Dr. Brophy told me several times that he doesn't think traffic signals will ever get placed at the intersection of Miraleste Drive at Palos Verdes Drive East. I hope he is correct about that opinion.
So, in the interest of helping Marymount do what it stated over and over and over again that The Marymount Plan would would be completed at "no taxpayer expense" here is what I am now proposing.
Hey Marymount! It is time you offer to pay for ALL mitigation costs for the three traffic mitigation in both The Project AND The Plan and it would be dandy if you placed your 'fair share' or the total costs for Miraleste Drive at Palos Verdes Drive East into an Escrow account on June 2, the day after the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council adopts the two Resolutions allowing The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project to go forward to the next steps that will eventually lead to the issuance of permits for The Project to get underway.
But wait, there's more! Now that the C.C. will approve the Resolutions, it is also time for Marymount to include the traffic and potentially hazardous condition mitigation of placing a concrete median barrier between the opposing lanes of Palos Verdes Drive East around the long arc of that roadway going around a good portion of the Marymount campus.
I am very grateful that Marymount has agreed to offer up to $200,000 towards the completion of that mitigation and I hope Marymount decides, as the good neighbor they claim to be, to cough up the remaining funds to complete that project, too.
I'll write another post in a while after I finish some more work on the set of "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, The Musical" opening on June 11, 2010 at the historic Warner Grand Theatre in downtown San Pedro.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)