In Palos Verdes Penninsula News
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Former Marymount College Teacher-
Measure P is a Trojan horse. It disguises itself as a community enhancement but, in reality, will mark our demise. We're in a war zone; it is not pleasant. Marymount [College's] arrogant maneuver to abolish community input or city oversight has made us all victims. We support higher education. I taught a political science class at Marymount. My daughter attended Marymount with a stellar president, Dr Tom McFadden.
The college, once a good neighbor in a bedroom community, worked with us and the city to make the best of a dangerous driving environment. Palos Verdes Drive East has been identified by the county as one of the 10 most dangerous roads in California. A student was killed on this road last year. A community leader was permanently disabled by a teen driver on this road a few years ago. The new plethora of weekend bicyclists has made the place an obstacle course, and they sometimes get hit-and die. Combine this with the fact that we're the foggiest part of the Hill, and we've got an increased potential for tragedy.
Is this really where parents and residents want 250 dormitory students to practice their driving skills? If this were in your neighborhood would you? This unpleasantness won't be over after Election Day.
Regardless of the outcome, Marymount's shortsighted and precipitous effort has ensured that the courts will tie it up forever.
And to think, we wanted a new library and campus improvements. Had this project not morphed from a vision to an albatross over a 10 year period due to the colleges constant changes, we would all be enjoying an enhanced, neighborhood compatible environment. People want peace with their neighbors, not war. Please vote "no" on [Measure] P.
Susan Brooks
president, Mira Catalina
Homeowners Association
Rancho Palos Verdes
Pick up a copy see Page 5 Letters to the Editor
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Measure P Cut to the TRUTH inside Rancho Palos Verdes
The following message is made available by The Concerned Citizens Group of RPV.
Dear Neighbor-
Dear Neighbor-
Have you seen Marymounts ads implying those opposing Measure P have been lying to you? "Whoppers"? "Pants on fire" ?
We are not a community of children and such false mud slinging is insulting to RPV.
Fact-
In COURT the JUDGE ruled that Marymount was “False and Misleading”
They have not stopped. So who is lying?
Issue #1
If you were led to believe measure P is about a Gym, Athletic Facilities, a Library Etc.
Perhaps You have been Mislead
You may feel a little offended for placing Trust in what Marymount told you.
They already have all those things and more- all approved by the city council
AND YET THEY SUED THE CITY COUNCIL and persist in blurring the truth.
Stop attacking our community and its leaders.
Issue #2
Measure P is essentially about REMOVAL OF RPV'S GOVERNING BODY TO OVERSEE MARYMOUNTS FUTURE ACTIONS
AND
250 NEW NEIGHBORHOOD DORMS
Measure P is really about the removal of RPV's authority to protect itself and its citizens from future acts by Marymount College.
But they mask their case and call it support of education.
But they mask their case and call it support of education.
Sure we love the college. Of course we care deeply for the students but Measure P is a political TRICK
to circumvent the entire protective mechanism of RPV itself.
to circumvent the entire protective mechanism of RPV itself.
!!!!!!!!!!
THAT SHOULD CHILL HOME OWNERS IN RPV TO THE BONE.
Issue #3
1.3 MILLION dollars spent by Marymount vs. the $22,000 invested by local residents to share the truth with their friends and neighbors.
Issue #4
Even Prior Marymount EMPLOYEES who see through the smoke and mirrors
have spoken out against a measure so misleading and misrepresented.
“Measure P is a Trojan horse. It disguises itself as a community enhancement but, in reality will mark our demise. It will abolish community input or city oversight."
Marymount CAUGHT “false and misleading” in a court action they started.
Marymount CAUGHT with false endorsements contained in their HUGE mass mailings.
On thursdays last debate City councilman Brian Campbell offered a large sum of his own money to be forfeited if
his correction of even MORE misstatements made my Marymounts Lobbyist Steve Keikendall were not wholly accurate.
Just another example of untruths unleashed on the masses by highly paid lawyers and spin doctors
BUT WE DO NOT WANT MARYMOUNTS ACTIONS TO PULL MORE AND MORE MONEY OUT OF THE COMMUNITY STANDARDS, ITS CITIZENS OR ITS LOCAL representatives.
Marymount does not feel obliged to tell the truth about Measure P. They should not be rewarded with your vote for such actions.
As your neighbor I've already seen much of this before. If you care to read on you may notice a pattern in Marymounts acts.
As a community we should not be for sale to the highest bidder.
PLEASE continue reading here to learn more
PLEASE continue reading here to learn more
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Measure P Palos Verdes – Marymount, RPV Homeowner Truths
Does Marymount continue to mislead homeowners with Measure P ? Will your RPV home value drop along with your quality of life with measure P Palos Verdes ?
Why does Marymount College keep attacking the city it resides in? They attack city council, lash out in name calling of the locals with terms like NIMBY's and refer to those in process as "capricious", brain damaged. It's like a battle of 2 cities and Marymount has paid for the best spin doctors they could find to have it both ways. On one hand they say their 24/7 dorms are good for our community, but keep using tactics which hurt the RPV system by all appearances circumventing the cities proven process. Sure lawyers can always find a way and eventually break or bankrupt the pocketbooks or willpower of the cities inhabitants but is this what we are being asked to support? Lambs to the financial slaughter. Hopefully RPV residents will see what potentially buying votes through mass spending does to the fabric of RPV process.
For starters, mass advertising executed by Marymount College has been proven to be riddled with falsehoods, mass mailings shown intentionally misleading, phone solicitors paid to repeat more untruths, and even a federal courts ruling that deemed Marymounts antics for measure p rpv "false and misleading". But that was not enough to stop them. Such set backs do not seem to phase Marymounts plans. It's the lawyers vs the locals in a battle for public housing. Cheap rent in the heart of a RPV city.
Ok we get it. So Marymount asks to be above the process in Measure P in rpv, in its own cocoon, its own city in a city from a technical standpoint. Untouchable and unanswerable to the city in a way that neither Trumps, or Terrania, or Trader Joes would ever dream of. They continue to misstate their arguments according to a federal ruling and continue with "false and misleading" behavioral language to the public. A hole Marymount dug themselves in by Suing our own city council, presumably an attempt to force them into submission. But as residents of RPV already know about them selves, don't push informed residents around with a barrage of legal hyperbola without a reaction.
Its been stated a thousand times but still many residents don't know that Marymount ALREADY got everything they wanted with perhaps the exception of 24/7 Dorms. All in accordance and with the blessings of the city council. But that's not EVERYTHING in RPV they wanted. In comes the strategy to buy an election some say by sidestepping process and mis-informing well intentioned locals. Anybody deeply engrossed in the 51 pages of encoded measures knows that the 1.5 million dollar alleged smokescreen Marymount is perpetrating is primarily about 2 things, 24 hour Dorms, and circumventing any authority the city council ever may have to adress potentially discordant activities Marymount may accidentally or otherwise run into.
Why just last night Marymount lobbyist, Steve Kuykendall (resident of Long Beach) in a debate with RPV City Councilman Brian Campbell about Measure P Palos Verdes opened by stating how nice it is to walk your dog on the beautiful campus of Marymount. Did he know myself and other locals have been escorted off the campus repeatedly for trying just that? Literally forced off the grounds multiple times for taking a stroll in our neighborhood. And this removal by "security guards" at Marymount are the same lot who drag-race complete with repeated burnouts at the end of their shift in the Marymount parking lot very late at night. Just one small detail locals know, and lobbyists asleep in their beds in other cities never see. A small point to some but a perfect example of false spin by outsiders who know little of the fight they are paid to execute.
In last nights debate in Rancho Palos Verdes Steve Kuykendall went on to blame city council for Marymount College only having 8 years to complete their building project (again folks its already been approved) don't believe the false statemets, but as City councilman Brian Campbell clarified with a cash reward out of his own pocket if proven to be incorrect, it was Marymount that actually requested the 3-6 then 8 years now granted to Marymount for the new construction. They already have the 8 years they asked for in RPV to complete the library, athletic building, athletic field etc. all without the passing of Measure P. Now that's not good enough because if measure P passes Marymount can take 30 or more YEARS to complete the ongoing build. Again folks the expansions are already approved and those are NOT what measure P is really about. Seems they get what they want and repeatedly come back for more. Such actions strain the resources of a locally trusting community and in this case have indeed split the city.
In my own experience Marymount has repeatedly caused property damage by entering my property with employees hanging 3 feet into my yard who cut away years of foliage designed to create a natural barrier from the activities of the school. When I confronted the perpetrators (employees) they literally ran away. I later insisted that Marymount apologize and state in writing they would NEVER again cause such damage or attempt to cut into my premises without prior written consent. Here's the kicker and my point. Even with such a signed document from the Vice president of Marymount college himself (and a very small check to aid with the damage) they went ahead and did it all again at a later date....all without ANY prior notice of any kind whatsoever. And the damage remains today.
What does this have to do with Measure P? Broken written agreements, lack of respect for neighbors, fix it all with money because they have more than you do? That is the fear if unpredictable land movement, or unpredictable anything occurs without a city able protect its citizens from an immune entity as Marymount would effectivly be. That is why measure P is so divisive as they say. It should seriously concern all residents of RPV or Rancho Palos Verdes.
I could go on about the Marymount student who came to my door prior to Measure P to insist he have full access to my property for a personal land survey. He insisted it was his legal right to enter the premises and when he was asked to leave he said he would return with a warrant and a police officer to continue this survey anywhere he wished. Ok kids will be kids but who at Marymount is really going to keep 250 young defiant adults such as this in order in late night hours when history shows that most students at Marymount didn't grow up here and may not demonstrate long term respect for the city itself or the community as stated above?
It seems Measure P RPV effectively removes residents ability to object to excessive noise levels ever again as well. Sure we are free to sue the college ourselves (more lawyers and money) and prove we were harmed by the excessive noise, but never could the city intervene or enforce any city ordinance as they become null and void as Marymount would not be subject to many existing city regulations. We all must comply with the cities rules but Marymount will not be required to do so in the mannor that every other business or resident must. Are my small real world experiences painting a picture? The cities hands would be tied if such abuses were to get out of hand.
Read both sides of the Marymount debate: No on Measure P
rpv measure p
Measure P Rancho Palos Verdes
Please arm yourselves with the facts about what Measure P Rancho Palos Verdes would mean to your city and community.
Why does Marymount College keep attacking the city it resides in? They attack city council, lash out in name calling of the locals with terms like NIMBY's and refer to those in process as "capricious", brain damaged. It's like a battle of 2 cities and Marymount has paid for the best spin doctors they could find to have it both ways. On one hand they say their 24/7 dorms are good for our community, but keep using tactics which hurt the RPV system by all appearances circumventing the cities proven process. Sure lawyers can always find a way and eventually break or bankrupt the pocketbooks or willpower of the cities inhabitants but is this what we are being asked to support? Lambs to the financial slaughter. Hopefully RPV residents will see what potentially buying votes through mass spending does to the fabric of RPV process.
For starters, mass advertising executed by Marymount College has been proven to be riddled with falsehoods, mass mailings shown intentionally misleading, phone solicitors paid to repeat more untruths, and even a federal courts ruling that deemed Marymounts antics for measure p rpv "false and misleading". But that was not enough to stop them. Such set backs do not seem to phase Marymounts plans. It's the lawyers vs the locals in a battle for public housing. Cheap rent in the heart of a RPV city.
Ok we get it. So Marymount asks to be above the process in Measure P in rpv, in its own cocoon, its own city in a city from a technical standpoint. Untouchable and unanswerable to the city in a way that neither Trumps, or Terrania, or Trader Joes would ever dream of. They continue to misstate their arguments according to a federal ruling and continue with "false and misleading" behavioral language to the public. A hole Marymount dug themselves in by Suing our own city council, presumably an attempt to force them into submission. But as residents of RPV already know about them selves, don't push informed residents around with a barrage of legal hyperbola without a reaction.
Its been stated a thousand times but still many residents don't know that Marymount ALREADY got everything they wanted with perhaps the exception of 24/7 Dorms. All in accordance and with the blessings of the city council. But that's not EVERYTHING in RPV they wanted. In comes the strategy to buy an election some say by sidestepping process and mis-informing well intentioned locals. Anybody deeply engrossed in the 51 pages of encoded measures knows that the 1.5 million dollar alleged smokescreen Marymount is perpetrating is primarily about 2 things, 24 hour Dorms, and circumventing any authority the city council ever may have to adress potentially discordant activities Marymount may accidentally or otherwise run into.
Why just last night Marymount lobbyist, Steve Kuykendall (resident of Long Beach) in a debate with RPV City Councilman Brian Campbell about Measure P Palos Verdes opened by stating how nice it is to walk your dog on the beautiful campus of Marymount. Did he know myself and other locals have been escorted off the campus repeatedly for trying just that? Literally forced off the grounds multiple times for taking a stroll in our neighborhood. And this removal by "security guards" at Marymount are the same lot who drag-race complete with repeated burnouts at the end of their shift in the Marymount parking lot very late at night. Just one small detail locals know, and lobbyists asleep in their beds in other cities never see. A small point to some but a perfect example of false spin by outsiders who know little of the fight they are paid to execute.
In last nights debate in Rancho Palos Verdes Steve Kuykendall went on to blame city council for Marymount College only having 8 years to complete their building project (again folks its already been approved) don't believe the false statemets, but as City councilman Brian Campbell clarified with a cash reward out of his own pocket if proven to be incorrect, it was Marymount that actually requested the 3-6 then 8 years now granted to Marymount for the new construction. They already have the 8 years they asked for in RPV to complete the library, athletic building, athletic field etc. all without the passing of Measure P. Now that's not good enough because if measure P passes Marymount can take 30 or more YEARS to complete the ongoing build. Again folks the expansions are already approved and those are NOT what measure P is really about. Seems they get what they want and repeatedly come back for more. Such actions strain the resources of a locally trusting community and in this case have indeed split the city.
In my own experience Marymount has repeatedly caused property damage by entering my property with employees hanging 3 feet into my yard who cut away years of foliage designed to create a natural barrier from the activities of the school. When I confronted the perpetrators (employees) they literally ran away. I later insisted that Marymount apologize and state in writing they would NEVER again cause such damage or attempt to cut into my premises without prior written consent. Here's the kicker and my point. Even with such a signed document from the Vice president of Marymount college himself (and a very small check to aid with the damage) they went ahead and did it all again at a later date....all without ANY prior notice of any kind whatsoever. And the damage remains today.
What does this have to do with Measure P? Broken written agreements, lack of respect for neighbors, fix it all with money because they have more than you do? That is the fear if unpredictable land movement, or unpredictable anything occurs without a city able protect its citizens from an immune entity as Marymount would effectivly be. That is why measure P is so divisive as they say. It should seriously concern all residents of RPV or Rancho Palos Verdes.
I could go on about the Marymount student who came to my door prior to Measure P to insist he have full access to my property for a personal land survey. He insisted it was his legal right to enter the premises and when he was asked to leave he said he would return with a warrant and a police officer to continue this survey anywhere he wished. Ok kids will be kids but who at Marymount is really going to keep 250 young defiant adults such as this in order in late night hours when history shows that most students at Marymount didn't grow up here and may not demonstrate long term respect for the city itself or the community as stated above?
It seems Measure P RPV effectively removes residents ability to object to excessive noise levels ever again as well. Sure we are free to sue the college ourselves (more lawyers and money) and prove we were harmed by the excessive noise, but never could the city intervene or enforce any city ordinance as they become null and void as Marymount would not be subject to many existing city regulations. We all must comply with the cities rules but Marymount will not be required to do so in the mannor that every other business or resident must. Are my small real world experiences painting a picture? The cities hands would be tied if such abuses were to get out of hand.
Read both sides of the Marymount debate: No on Measure P
rpv measure p
Measure P Rancho Palos Verdes
Please arm yourselves with the facts about what Measure P Rancho Palos Verdes would mean to your city and community.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)