Measure P fails after hard-fought bid
By Ashley Ratcliff, Peninsula News
Thursday, November 4, 2010 10:55 AM PDT
RPV — Rancho Palos Verdes residents dismissed Marymount College’s well-financed initiative that sought approval of residence halls on the Palos Verdes Drive East campus, in the aftermath of a fierce election climate.
 |
| Susan Brooks, a former Rancho Palos Verdes mayor, center, hosted a No on Measure P party at her home. Watching the votes with her are, from left, RPV Planning Commissioner Dave Emenhiser, sitting, Peter Drake, standing, former Planning Commissioner Ed Ruttenberg, Don Page, Patty Ott and Jasmine Jemebi. The college’s initiative was rejected by 55 percent of RPV voters. |
Early on Tuesday night, the opposition was in the lead by an 11-percent margin: 55.97 percent (2,386 votes) to 44.03 (1,877 votes), and maintained that momentum. With all precincts reporting on Wednesday morning, 55.09 percent (7,782 votes) voted “no,” while 44.91 percent (6,345 votes) were in support of the measure.
“The biggest political upset in Southern California history happened early this morning with the sound defeat of Measure P: the Marymount Plan,” RPV Councilman Brian Campbell said in an e-mail. “Against seemingly insurmountable financial odds and a ferocious Marymount College, the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes stood their ground and said ‘No on P.’”
About 51 percent of the city’s 27,584 registered voters cast their ballots.
“Despite the outcome, we are proud and honored to have earned the support of 6,345 voters,” Dr. Michael Brophy, Marymount’s president, said in a statement. “We continue to believe that the Marymount Plan is the right choice for Rancho Palos Verdes. Moving forward, we will do what we do every day: put our best foot forward to serve our students and this community.”
If passed, the initiative would have allowed dormitories for 250 students on campus, in addition to a number of improvements that the City Council approved, such as the new library, athletic facility and field. Measure P also would have eliminated some city oversight of the development and created a special district for the college.
The residence halls were of major concern to neighbors of the 250-acre campus, situated among single-family homes. Brophy said this aspect of the project was “necessary to the function” of the liberal arts school, which in March became a four-year college.
The announcement that Marymount College would take its $50-million master plan directly to RPV voters was met with surprise from residents who thought the course was completes with council’s approval the project. By then, the college had removed dorms from the project after the Planning Commission informally expressed no desire to authorize them.
However, at the end of the 10-year planning process, the college was displeased with the final product, a result of what officials called “tinkering” from the City Council, which reduced the height of the athletic building and altered the configuration of the playing fields.
Controversial campaign
Thus began a hostile election season, rife with negativity from both supporters and critics of the measure.
“We’re very, very disappointed,” said Marymount trustee Sue Soldoff, who submitted the 51-page initiative on behalf of the college. “We feel that the opposition mounted a very dirty campaign. … It’s really sad that the neighbors and people of Rancho Palos Verdes had to resort to this.”
A courtroom battle over ballot argument language, accusations of sign stealing and religious bias, and questioned endorsements were prevalent throughout.
Former RPV Mayor Susan Brooks, who fought the initiative, likened the campaign climate to a “war zone.”
One high school student even told the City Council on Oct. 19 about an alleged incident in which a member of the No on P camp verbally and physically assaulted him as he removed a sign near his home.
Spending was another point of contention, with some opponents characterizing the election as a David-versus-Goliath battle. The college’s deep pockets — it spent $542,680 in its bid just to get the initiative on the ballot — spurred challengers Save Our City III to counter with its slogan, “RPV is not for sale.”
Marymount’s most recent campaign filing shows that it has spent $1.3 million — roughly $205 per vote — toward the initiative. Save Our City III spent $40,000 on its campaign, which largely was financed by residents, including former mayors, homeowners associations and Concerned Citizens Coalition/Marymount Expansion Inc., which appealed the Planning Commission’s approval of the project to the council last year.
“Unfortunately, we did not have the budget or the time to get everybody informed,” said Ken Dyda, former RPV mayor who heads SOC III. “If we had, I’m sure we would have won by a much larger margin.”
Marymount used mailers, television commercials and newspaper ads to spread its message, while the opposition stuck to mailers, volunteer callers and robocalls.
The robocalls caused some strife, particularly on the eve of the election with a phone call to residents at 11:30 p.m. claiming to be from Steve Kuykendall, a former RPV mayor and congressman who also is a Marymount campaign consultant. The voice urged a “no” vote on the measure, but it remains unclear where the call originated.
So, with the votes tallied, can the now-divided city return to a sense of community? Many hope so.
“We have to go back to working just as we did with the formation of the city, where everybody has to work to the general plan, to our municipal code and to the ordinances, as we have been for the past 37 years,” Dyda said. “It’s held us in good stead for that length of time, and I’m sure it will hold us in good stead forever.”
Brooks said she was entertaining the idea of hosting a unity celebration.
“Justice prevailed, for now. Hundreds of dedicated residents worked tirelessly to ensure that the debate was framed by truth and accuracy,” she said. “There are so many good people here in PV. Now it’s time for the healing.”
A call to Brophy and an e-mail to the college’s campaign consultant for further comment were not returned as of press time. It is uncertain what Marymount’s next step forward is.
aratcliff@pvnews.com
 Print this story |  Email this story
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of pvnews.com.
Submit a Comment
We encourage your feedback and dialog, all comments will be reviewed by our Web staff before appearing on the Web site.
|
