HomeIsPalosVerdes.com

George Fotion

Call Realty Company

(310) 346-6467

Find Homes For Sale In Palos Verdes

Palos Verdes School Board Candidates

Posted on October 28, 2011 by fotion

Your school board candidates

Thursday, October 27, 2011 12:33 PM PDT

School board candidates are Dr. Dianna Chooljian, from left, Erin LaMonte, and Larry Vanden Bos.

Residents living within the boundaries of the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District will choose two new Board of Education members on Nov. 8. Three candidates, one of which is an incumbent, have actively hit the neighborhoods seeking support. The News had four questions for each of the candidates; below are their responses.

Dr. Dianna Chooljian
Occupation: Physician

The News: Of all the entities on the Peninsula, the school district has the largest budget and is the most dependent on the state for its funding. The state’s finances are a mess. How will you lead the district through these tough economic times and are you prepared to make tough decisions?

Chooljian: I will lead the district through these tough economic times with “new energy and a new vision.” I will look for means to increase revenues in our district through grant proposals, corporate alliances and bridging better communication with our residents. In addition to increasing our revenue, I will look with a “critical eye” at each budget line item to assure that every dollar is being spent wisely. Funds should be prioritized for our children and teachers in the classroom. I believe we need to work better together, especially in these difficult economic times. I will look for ways to consolidate our resources at every district level from preschool through high school to prepare our children for a more competitive and global world.

As a physician, I have made tough and difficult decisions my entire career in making important diagnoses. As a retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel in charge of department budgets and well versed in organizational dynamics and hierarchies, I have made challenging choices that had far-reaching consequences. As a medical educator of medical interns, residents and fellows, I have made selective decisions \[regarding\] health-care education and the delivery of health care. In summary, I am very comfortable and well versed in making difficult decisions and prioritizing those decisions.

The News: Each of the candidates has gone on record “wholeheartedly” supporting Measure M. The loss of the parcel tax would be terrible, but is the talk about potentially closing a school if it fails an exaggeration? Is local funding that important to the school district?

Chooljian: Local funding is absolutely critical in our school district due to PVPUSD being a “low-wealth” district based on the 1970s court case of Serrano vs. Priest, which decided the average base revenue limit of our district at $5,778.95. Our school district’s budget is comprised of approximately 80 percent from state revenues, 6 percent from federal revenues, and 14 percent from local revenue. Our state has already withheld approximately $25 million in the last few years and adopted a continued “flat line budgeting” approach that make our dependence on our local revenues even more critical. We need Measure M to pass to provide $7.2 million directly to the students in our community. We are fortunate that we have the PEF, which has pledged another $2.7 million to our schools this year. These local efforts to finance our schools are imperative to strengthening our children’s education and growth especially in times of our state’s economic crisis.

All budget line items need to be examined. While closure of a school is a possibility in this economic crisis, I would look at alternative means to reduce expenditures in our budget before resorting to such drastic cost-saving measures. For instance, there is a $9.7 million line item in the school budget for “consulting fees and other” that is not transparent to me. What do these costs include? A significant portion of this item is due to attorney’s fees but the amount is unclear. While legal fees are a part of any business, I believe that much of these costs may have been averted and better anticipated with improved proactive communication with the school board and our residential community.

The News: The divisive nature of issues, such as the PVPUSD vs. PVHA, stadium lights and bleachers, has created some rift between the school district and the community. If elected, how do you plan to rebuild relationships and trust?

Chooljian: When elected, I would rebuild relationships and trust with our residential community in several ways:
1) create liaisons with our school board members and respective city leaders in all four cities;
2) hold monthly meetings with these respective members to discuss current issues and better anticipate contentious issues;
3) conduct town hall meetings with residents in the respective cities with parties on both sides of contentious issues before they become a closed session item or are placed on the agenda for an upcoming meeting;
4) conduct more meetings at a time of day that is conducive to increased attendance and participation within our community;
5) have, as much as possible, fewer items discussed in closed session and more in the open session;
6) provide better summaries of the discussions from the closed session items;
7) inform the audience if a closed session is prolonged and an approximate time for the start of the open session;
8) facilitate live televised broadcasts with Cox Cable;
9) make meeting agenda available to residents in ways other than the Internet, i.e., in the local newspaper or a mailed newsletter; and
10) be respectful to our audience members who have come to voice their opinions by placing them earlier on the agenda especially for those who work the following day. This is respectful to the needs and schedules of our residents, administrators, educators and students who have elected us to serve them.
The News: Once elected, what’s your first priority?

Chooljian: Once elected, my first priority will be to scrutinize the budget line by line to eliminate unnecessary waste and prioritize funds to our children and teachers in the classroom. I can bring the energy and vision needed to think creatively, optimize our resources so that every dollar is spent effectively toward our children’s advancement. The school board needs to regain and earn the trust of our residential community. I believe that open discussions regarding scrutinizing our budget, actively seeking grants, collaborating with our corporate community, forming liaisons with our city leaders, and proactively meeting with these city leaders will all bring about the change that is needed on our school board.

Candidate statement
When my husband and I retired from the military, we settled in Palos Verdes because of the excellent schools and education in our district. Our two children attended the schools in our district, were both student representatives to the school board, and now attend Ivy League schools.

I had the opportunity to attend the school board meetings with my children during the past couple of years and observe the board proceedings, discussions and protocols. I learned a great deal from this process and realized that I had much to give back to education and our community of which our family has been the beneficiary.

As a former military physician currently in private practice, I have been a student and educator my entire career. I have always made education a top priority and have been active in PTSA in several premier school districts in our nation.

My top three goals include: 1) ensuring strong fiscal management and accountability in a challenging fiscal environment by scrutinizing each budget line item and eliminating unnecessary waste; 2) strengthening our educational excellence and best practices at all district levels; and 3) bridging better proactive communication and relations with our student and residential community.

When elected, I pledge to serve you as an independent advocate for educational excellence and improved communication with all of our residents.
www.DrDianna4PVPSchools.com

Erin LaMonte
Occupation: Assistant to high school principal

LaMonte: Our public school system is a victim of the state of California’s budget disaster. Eighty-five percent of our budget comes directly from the state and approximately 87 percent of the district’s budget goes to employee costs. Electing individuals who have the understanding and background to enable them to make financial and budgetary decisions is the most important factor to consider when marking your ballot. My business degree and professional experience, coupled with my knowledge of the school district operations, make me extremely qualified to lead the district. For the last eight years I have represented you, the taxpayer, on the Citizen’s Oversight Committee assuring proper expenditures of our locally raised monies for our school system. As current president of a local homeowner association and past president of multiple organizations, I know how to lead with strength, civility and effectiveness. Experience in business and the school environment is what is needed on our local Board of Education.

LaMonte: There has been no talk of “closing a school” as far as I have heard. Student enrollment determines how many classrooms and desks are needed and we are currently overall flat with a small decline in several elementary level grades. Under normal circumstances, decisions regarding school opening or closing would be based solely on enrollment. However, in these trying economic times, and especially if Measure M does not pass, all options for cutting costs must be on the table.
I support the decision that the residents of this community should be able to vote to better control decisions on a local basis. The school children of Palos Verdes are at the financial whim of the state and by allowing the educated and informed voters of the Peninsula to determine local funding through vehicles such as the parcel tax, through which all of the monies remain in our district, we maintain the reputation and standing of our school district. I believe voters should have the right to make this decision, especially since the high quality of our schools keeps property values high. Approximately 15 percent of the district’s budget comes from local funding, which includes donations to PEF, donations to local schools and the Measure P and V funds. Having served on the oversight committee, I can tell you with absolute certainty that these local funds help maintain programs such as our engineering, technology and college prep courses, which differentiate our students when they compete for college acceptances.

LaMonte: There have been a handful of issues that have garnered the headlines in the local newspapers this past year. Living in a closely knit, caring community such as ours, no one likes to experience divisive issues. The truth is that because we are a dedicated and committed community, we can and do experience differences of opinions. As an elected Board of Education member, the process that we follow to engage, inform and involve our stakeholders would be of utmost importance to me. I have experience as a volunteer leading the PVP Council of PTAs, as a member of the Citizen’s Oversight Committee, as an employee and as a community volunteer working with all stakeholders. While conflicting topics do arise and never will everyone be pleased with all outcomes, community members should continue to express their opinions and must be heard by elected officials. Public meetings on topics of community interest should be held, notice of public meetings should be well publicized, such as via email, and decisions should be clearly explained. Finally, the school district must remember that our schools are part of our local communities and we should always strive to be good neighbors.

The News: Once elected, what’s your first priority?

LaMonte: A large portion of my professional experience consisted of consulting large corporations regarding organizational change. We have remarkable resources in our staff, parents and community. These resources can and should be tapped to help improve an already great school system. Since budgets are tight, let’s use this talent to help implement best education practices throughout the district while creating strategic plans for our facilities and finances.

Candidate statement
I am a product of these schools having graduated in the 1970s. Furthermore, my husband, Gary, and I opted to raise our family here. For the last 15 years, I have committed to our schools in leadership roles, as a volunteer, employee and parent. From serving on the Oversight Committee, serving as PTA president for multiple years and sites, to serving on numerous districtwide committees, my emphasis has been on serving all the children and families throughout the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Asking the public to elect me on Nov. 8 to serve the community by guiding our unified school district is the natural extension of my longtime service to this community. This background, coupled with my business and financial experience, qualifies me uniquely for this position. My knowledge of the financial constraints our district faces and my proven leadership skills will be an asset to the board as we face challenging times ahead.
www.ElectErinLaMonte.com

Larry Vanden Bos
Incumbent
Occupation: CEO of a food manufacturing company

Vanden Bos: The current PVPUSD 2011-12 budget assumes $71 million in current state funding. This level is about $7 million less than when I was first elected to the board and it may be decreased by up to a further $3 million in January. During this same period our student population has remained about the same. Nonetheless, we have educated our students at the same high level with lower per pupil funding each year. Despite these challenges, we have been able to maintain a dwindling but still prudent reserve for economic uncertainty, and no educational programs have been eliminated.

Working with all of our stakeholders, PVPUSD has been able to remain solvent through the generosity of the community (“Save Our Teachers,” Measure V and increasing PEF donations), the sacrifice of our staff (increased class sizes, unpaid furlough days, reduced administrative staff), one-time federal jobs monies and the reduction of all possible expenditures (utilities, supplies, et cetera). In addition, we have eliminated many district positions and reorganized district staff. I will continue to work with all of these parties in the most constructive, collaborative way possible to achieve the best possible balance of all of the interests of each group, even when these interests do not always align. With any compromise, however, I will always to keep two guiding principles in mind — that the board is the steward of the community’s money and that the primary job of the district is to educate students.

Vanden Bos: The PVPUSD 2011-12 budget includes $88 million in total revenue, of which Measures P and V (which Measure M would replace) provide roughly $7 million. As I stated above, the district has been able to maintain a prudent reserve for economic uncertainty and no programs have been eliminated despite continuing decreases in state funding.

This delicate balancing act, however, will evaporate without parcel tax funding. The district’s reserves would be reduced below the legally required minimum in less than one year without significant and ongoing cost reductions. Since employee costs comprise almost 82 percent of the district’s budget, every employee group would have to be slashed in order to generate needed savings.
PVPUSD already has the fourth lowest administrative overhead per student of the 47 unified districts in Los Angeles County, so unless school sites are combined to save costs, the bulk of the cuts would necessarily have to come from the classroom. Class sizes would have to dramatically increase and many of our most enriching programs would have to be eliminated. The district will be fundamentally altered in a way that our community would not recognize.

The News: The divisive nature of issues, such as the PVPUSD vs. PVHA, stadium lights and bleachers, has created some rift between the school district and the community. If re-elected, how do you plan to rebuild relationships and trust?

Vanden Bos: The board, as the policy-making body for the district, must spearhead the effort to achieve better communication with the community in order to avoid and/or better manage issues that affect the community. We should re-examine our own communications policies and goals (keeping in mind the constraints of the Brown Act) and we should examine some of the existing board policies affecting issues such as capital campaigns and school construction projects. We should see what measures that we can take beyond those legally necessary and already in place to better inform our constituents of a pending project or upcoming issue.
As the policy-setting body, we should also encourage active and open communication between the board, the district administration, site administrations and the community. One step we have already taken is the “Superintendent’s Update” sent to every school family. It is impossible for the board to know everything going on within the district and the community at all times, but it is our responsibility to ensure that there is an open and honest dialog within the district, and between the district and the community. This can only be accomplished when the board leads by its own example.

The News: Once re-elected, what’s your first priority?

Vanden Bos: My first priority — and that of the board — has to be to establish a financial framework for the future years. By law, every PVPUSD budget must be balanced, and we must submit a budget to the L.A. County Office of Education for two years into the future. State funding wreaks havoc on those plans, even during the current academic year. My colleagues have told me they look to me for guidance on those fiscal matters, and I hope to continue to bring my business and finance background to these very tough economic and budgetary issues. Beyond that, I plan to continue to explore ways to leverage taxpayer funds in our ongoing facilities construction program. I also plan to re-evaluate our policies that impact relations with our community and other stakeholders, to ensure that all viewpoints are heard and respected before a decision is made.

Candidate statement
I grew up on the Peninsula. In fact, I live in the house in which I was raised. My three children graduated from PVPUSD, as did I. My education prepared me for the life I lead, and I feel privileged to be able to give back by serving on the school board. I have had impact already, I believe, on improving relations among the board and district, and on ongoing district projects. For example, I helped leverage existing bond funding for construction from Measures R and S into more classrooms than originally planned at both large high schools. We are fortunate to have such a great school system, and two great comprehensive high schools that offer students the same quality education. Our district, and our community, is best served when we all work together toward the goal of providing our children the best education we can to prepare them for life beyond high school. With the voters’ approval, I hope to continue to serve that goal.
www.larryvandenbosforschoolboard2011.com

George Fotion

Call Realty Company

(310) 346-6467

Get your own Proprietary Charts for the South Bay & Palos Verdes

California Housing Forecast for 2012

Posted on October 27, 2011 by fotion

For proprietary real estate trend information more localized to Palos Verdes and the South Bay Cities, please go to Real Estate Transaction Charts for Palos Verdes and the South Bay

George Fotion

Call Realty Company

(310) 346-6467

Real Time Palos Verdes Home Search

If THIS guy reduced his price to get his home sold, shouldn’t you?!

Posted on October 21, 2011 by fotion

Over 40% price reduction, so what are you complaining about?

The grand real estate mogul, Donald Trump, just sold the mansion he built for himself here in Palos Verdes for $5 million less than his asking price. Sellers, WAKE UP … if he’s doing that, maybe, just maybe if your listing has been on the market too long, it’s not your broker that is failing, it’s your list price that is failing.

It’s time to re-evaluate the market action on your home. If you haven’t had an offer in a while or if showings are slow, REDUCE YOUR PRICE. Sorry, it’s not what you want to hear, but it’s the TRUTH.

If you’re looking for a broker that has the courage to tell you the truth even at the risk of you not liking it and tempting you to find some other weak agent (there’s hundreds of them out there … shouldn’t be that hard) that just tells you what you want to hear, then give me a call or send me an email. And if you want to know about Palos Verdes real estate new listings and price reductions in real time, play the video below and then follow the link

George Fotion

Call Realty Company

(310) 346-6467

Click here to see more pictures and detailed information.

What do do when your Mortgage Application has been Rejected

Posted on October 21, 2011 by fotion

After a rejection
Some borrowers think that because their mortgage application is turned down the first time, they won’t ever be approved. In reality, some borrowers succeed on the second or third attempt, usually with a different mortgage professional, and often several months later, after they have saved more money for a larger down payment or improved their credit score. You might enjoy using the calculators here

Making sense of the story

Before reapplying for a mortgage, borrowers are advised to look at the reasons they were initially rejected.
The Equal Credit Opportunities Act requires lenders to give loan applicants specific reasons in writing within 30 days of their decision. If it’s based on a problem in the borrower’s credit report, the lender must tell the borrower the name and address of the credit agency that provided the information.
Talking to the loan officer who denied the application to see how close the borrower was to being approved also can be helpful. Sometimes the gap is small and could be bridged with a larger down payment or another home appraisal, for example.
It also may be worthwhile to shop around for other lenders. I strongly recommend American Capital and Kent Kirkpatrick.
A credit union also might be a better bet for some applicants. Credit union loan committees may permit better deals for longtime members; they might also modify loan terms for borrowers they already know.
However, first-time buyers may need to scale back their aspirations. One reason people get turned down for a mortgage is because they try to buy more property than they can afford based on current incomes.
Applicants also should look at ways to strengthen their financial picture. If a borrower’s credit is poor, paying down credit-card balances can help to increase a FICO score.

Why not find out if you would qualify for this Rancho Palos Verdes Ocean View Home?

Schedule a Showing

George Fotion

Call Realty Company

310-346-6467

Free search of homes for sale in Rancho Palos Verdes

L2L Virtual Tours RT

George Fotion

Call Realty Company

(310) 346-6467

Find Palos Verdes Estates Ocean View Homes For Sale

Why does building a home in Palos Verdes Estates on a hill cost so much? VIDEO

Posted on October 20, 2011 by fotion

Wonder why building a home on a hillside costs so much?

For more information and to search for Palos Verdes Estates Homes for sale, go here.

George Fotion

Call Realty Company

(310) 346-6467

Search for Palos Verdes Foreclosures

Palos Verdes Foreclosures trend comparison vs California Foreclosures

Posted on October 20, 2011 by fotion

California Foreclosure Starts Decline in September

California statistics:
• Foreclosure starts declined 20.9 percent
• Foreclosure sales declined 23.3 percent
• Foreclosure timeframes declined 3.9 percent

But how does that compare to the Palos Verdes Peninsula; meanwhile, please continue reading below the charts to learn how you can search for Palos Verdes Bank Owned homes not listed for sale yet as well as bank owned homes for sale on the Palos Verdes Peninsula now.

George Fotion

Call Realty Company

(310) 346-6467

Find out the value of YOUR home

Does Your Agent have the Courage to tell you the Truth?

Posted on October 19, 2011 by fotion

Hi Folks,

As many of you know, I’ve been helping my clients solve their real estate problems, challenges, issues and helping them reach their goals for over 30 years. And with that amount of experience, you would think certain things would get easier, wouldn’t you? And in fact, certain things have become easier.

But I have a confession to make – there’s one issue that has plagued real estate agents for decades and will continue to challenge real estate agents for decades more. It is a perpetual source of fear, trepidation and nervous tension. I’m somewhat less susceptible to this issue today as I was in May of 1980 when I first obtained my real estate license, but it still gnaws on me and I would like to share with you how you should be aware of this so you don’t lose money!

Do you want to take a guess at what it is?

It’s TELLING THE TRUTH! Ahh, I know what you’re thinking … you’re thinking I’m talking about telling the truth about that broken furnace, or crazy neighbor, or some other sort of disclosure issue, right? Well, you’re wrong … telling the truth about disclosure issues is easy, at least for me. They are what they are, the law commands that you disclose, so you disclose. Period.

No, what plagues every real estate agent is telling the truth to their potential seller with whom they are interviewing for the listing. And the problem all stems from FEAR. Did you know that in the South Bay area there are nearly 6,000 real estate licensees? So if an agent goes into an interview and really, really wants that listing, do you think there might be just the slightest tendency for that agent to be tempted to telling the potential seller what they want to hear, just to get the listing, rather than telling the cold hard truth? The agent is AFRAID that if they tell the brutal truth, that seller will just go and hire some other agent. In point of fact, that often happens. In fact that’s what mostly happens.

That’s why today, and this is a typical day, there were 54% more price reductions, cancelled and expired listings than new listings. There were 67% more price reductions, cancelled and expired listings than there were properties being escrowed today.

Put another way, the typical seller entering the market today, has a 67% better chance of not selling their home than selling. WHY?

Because I’m convinced, real estate agents are too darn scared to tell the truth up front to their seller. They think, “Oh, if I just tell them what they want to hear then I can get the listing signed and then ask for price reductions later blaming the market as the bad guy”. And it may be much more “innocent” than this. Out of fear, the agent may not have any malice at all and just want the listing so bad that they make up reasons in their head for agreeing with why the seller is right on their inflated view of their home’s value. Either way, the seller is poorly, poorly served.

So let me conclude here by saying this … if you want the truth, good, bad or neutral … if you want an agent that wants your business, but doesn’t “need” it so bad that fear becomes the motivator … if you want an agent from a position of strength can negotiate with other buyers and agents to defend the right price we set on your home … then call me. But let me warn you, this market is TOUGH. Know this, the only homes that are selling are those which buyers feel themselves compensated for the risk of buying in a market that probably has more price softness ahead than price firmness. That means you have to take the competitive sales to your home and subtract a few percent and make that your LIST price. You need to get ahead of the curve. Even then, it’s a tough, tough market and you need expert marketing and promotion skills in your agent to get the job done.

So bottom line – strength/courage or fear? Which do you choose?

Please feel welcome to contact me, hook me up to a polygraph and ask me what I believe the market will pay for your home.

At Your Service,

George Fotion
424-226-2147
george.fotion@homeispalosverdes.com
DRE # 785373
www.homeispalosverdes.com

George Fotion

Call Realty Company

(310) 346-6467

Search Homes for Sale in each of the Palos Verdes Peninsula Cities

Palos Verdes Schools Measure M

Posted on October 19, 2011 by fotion

Peninsula voters asked to toss school levies’ time limit

The strong academic performance of Palos Verdes Peninsula schools is often cited as a reason newcomers buy expensive homes on The Hill, and residents have for years been generous in support of the school district.

Now, faced with continuing cuts to Sacramento’s education budget, the district is asking homeowners on Nov. 8 to open their wallets indefinitely in support of a $374 annual parcel tax with no expiration date and an adjustment for inflation.

The tax, which provides an exemption for senior citizens, amounts to the exact same dollar figure that property owners are paying now for two parcel taxes – at $165 and $209 per year – that are set to expire in 2013. The funds can only be used for district educational programs, not for facilities or construction.

But the fact that Measure M includes no sunset date has generated more pushback for a district that has asked voters to fund three construction bond measures and three parcel tax measures since 2000.

There’s no organized opposition – and no ballot measure argument against it was submitted – but handmade signs opposing Measure M have been spotted on the Peninsula.

“This is a hard sell. But because it becomes a no sunset, the district can rely on this money,” said Julie Trell, a Palos Verdes Estates mother of two and co-chairwoman of the pro-M campaign, Keep Our PVP Schools Strong.

The measure comes as the school district has been in the spotlight in recent months

for a lawsuit over land use in Palos Verdes Estates, a contentious battle over parent-proposed football stadium lighting at Peninsula High, and criticism from neighbors over new bleachers installed at Palos Verdes High.
But district officials feel confident because voters have been so supportive in the past.

The measure needs approval from at least two-thirds of voters. A 2009 parcel tax measure – one of the two that will expire in 2013 – garnered a fairly close 68.9 percent of the vote.

The two existing parcel taxes bring in about $7 million for district operations each year, a big chunk of the Palos Verdes Unified School District’s $90million general fund budget, Deputy Superintendent Pearl Iizuka said.

“If we were to lose that portion of that funding, we’re talking devastating cuts,” Iizuka said.

Without that $7 million, the district forecasts layoffs for 90 teachers and 40 support staffers, plus cuts to athletic programs, counseling, academic intervention initiatives, library and technical employees. Class sizes would increase as well.

Those cuts would come on top of a loss of $25 million in state funding since 2008-09 – money that’s owed to the district.

The precarious state budget situation is yet another reason that the district wants a reliable source of local revenue, Measure M supporters said.

When cuts began three years ago, the district had the equivalent of about 629 full-time teachers, counselors, nurses and psychologists. Today, that figure is 565, while the district serves about the same number of students – nearly 12,000.

And though it covers an affluent area, the 15-campus district is considered a “poor” education agency because it receives less money per pupil than many other nearby districts because of an arcane state funding formula.

Still, with a generous education foundation that recently pledged to raise $2.7 million for the district this year, Palos Verdes Peninsula schools haven’t seen truly deep cuts found in other districts.

Andrea Sala, executive director of the Peninsula Education Foundation, said the nonprofit has witnessed increasing belt-tightening among area residents, but parents have continued to give.

“Schools are very important in this community, whether you’re living in an apartment and you’re a single parent or you’re in a $10 million home. … Most of the people who moved here – whether they’re 35 or 85 – moved here because of the schools,” Sala said.

However, voters, she said, are more “leery” about Measure M than in the past because of the lack of a sunset date.

At a City Council candidate forum in Rancho Palos Verdes last week, most of the contenders expressed alarm about the issue, though none specifically said they outright opposed Measure M. (School board President Dora de la Rosa is among those running for a Rancho Palos Verdes council seat, and she has enthusiastically backed it.)

Trell said she explains to voters that the school board can move to stop levying the tax at any time in the future. And voters can choose to place an initiative on the ballot to overturn the parcel tax if they decide it’s unfair. That could be passed by a simple majority vote.

“The misconception that people have is that no sunset means it’s permanent. That’s not the case,” Trell said.

As for concerns about the tax’s built-in inflation adjustment based on the consumer price index, Trell notes that the board has to hold a public hearing and vote each year on whether to make that adjustment – typically a small percentage.

Iizuka, for her part, said it’s hard to foresee a future when the district won’t rely on money from the parcel tax.

“If we look at history as to how the state is, maybe there will be a time when we’re able to be made whole again. At that time, maybe we can evaluate the parcel tax,” Iizuka said.

George Fotion

Call Realty Company

(310) 346-6467

From: tomlong@palosverdes.com

Palos Verdes Elections

Posted on October 16, 2011 by fotion

PVP Watch Newsletter – October 12, 2011

To Our Friends and Supporters

In this Newsletter:

* Election Time on the Peninsula

* RPV – Council Election

* RPV – Employee Union / Pension Reform

* Peninsula Schools – Measure C

———————————————————————————————————————

ELECTION TIME ON THE PENINSULA

Vote November 8th

PVP Schools / PVPUSD Board of Education – Two Seats – PVP Watch Suggested Candidates

Larry Vanden Bos / larryvandenbosforschoolboard2011.com

Erin LaMonte / www.electerinlamonte.com

Why these two? We believe that Erin LaMonte and Larry Vanden Bos have by far the greater knowledge and experience needed by the PVPUSD.

Rancho Palos Verdes City Council – Three Seats – PVP Watch Suggested Candidates

* Jerry Duhovic / www.jerryduhovic.com,

* Dora de la Rosa / www.doradelarosa.com

* Susan Brooks / www.susanbrooks2011.com

Why these three?

RPV – Council Election

This election is a critical event for RPV as residents will decide; do they wish to continue the mismanagement of RPV City Hall as demonstrated by Tom Long, Doug Stern and Steve Wolowicz, or is there a desire for transparency and open government with respect and civility to residents / taxpayers?

Following is an email message sent by Tom Long to his fellow attorneys at his law firm Nossaman LLP. Wondering when Long learned that RPV Council candidate Eric Alegria was employed by Nossaman client Healthcare Partners? While Tom Long’s request does not seem illegal, his ethics in seeking contributions for an employee of a client do seem questionable.

——————————————————————————————————————————-

From: Long, Thomas D.

Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 9:31 AM

To: Nossaman_LA All Attorneys

Subject: Election 2011 City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes

I am termed out but am endorsing 3 candidates. Some of you may recall our former councilmember Susan Brooks. I am endorsing alternatives to her (please note this Howard!).

Eric Alegria works for HealthCare Partners (a Nossaman client). He is new to RPV and very much needs money to help support his campaign. As someone in his early 30s he will bring a breath of fresh air to a candidate list cluttered with worn out has beens like Susan Brooks .

Dave Emenhiser and Jim Knight are the other two candidates I support. Donations of up to $99.99 do not result in your name being listed.

Checks can be made payable to “[Candidate Name] for RPV City Council” and sent to me.

Thomas D. Long Attorney at Law NOSSAMAN LLP

777 South Figueroa Street , 34th Floor Los Angeles , CA 90017 tlong@nossaman.com

T 213.612.7800 F 213.612.7801

D 213.612.7871 M 213.718.4484

Please note our new address.

——————————————————————————————————————————-

Candidates Ken Dyda, Dave Emenhiser, Jim Knight and Eric Alegria are supported by Tom Long, Doug Stern, Steve Wolowicz, Larry Clark and others who wish to continue the failed policies of the past. Following is a message sent by Tom Long on October 9th. Needless to say, Long’s comments are typically illusory and lacking factual support.

Although some PVP Watch Newsletter subscribers have likely received Tom Long’s outrageous and defamatory commentary, we believe all should be aware of Tom Long’s disgusting behavior and the reasoning why we must elect those who are not beholden to Tom Long.

To:

Subject: RPV Council Election November 2011

Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2011 16:41:28 -0800

From: tomlong@palosverdes.com

Subject: RPV Council Election November 2011

Message: October 9, 2011

Dear RPV Residents:

On Tuesday November 8th RPV residents will vote to select 3 new council members to replace Steve Wolowicz, Doug Stern and myself. There are 8 candidates, 7 of whom have been actively campaigning. I have posted connections to the candidates’ webpages here

http://www.palosverdes.com/tomlong/index.cfm?go=websites

and answers to my questions here http://www.palosverdes.com/tomlong/index.cfm?go=election2011

RPV TV (Channel 33 on Cox and 38 on Verizon) will be running broadcasts of city council candidate debates every day except Friday at 8 p.m. and school board candidate debates at 10 p.m. also every day except Friday. This election may be among the most important in the city’s history.

Over the last 8 years that Steve, Doug and I have been on council some important changes have been made. The city obtained grant monies that funded the acquisition of the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve, establishing 2 square miles—15% of the city’s land area–as open space in perpetuity. City revenues have increased from about $1 per resident per day to about $1.30. Most of the added revenue has been devoted to increase spending to restore decayed infrastructure that the city had neglected for decades. (Editor: For

those 8 years, Long, Stern and Wolowicz failed to address a most serious problem in RPV, The

San Ramon / Tarapaca storm water runoff. It was not until Misetich and Campbell were elected did this problem get any attention and nothing has been done about the Portuguese Bend / PV

Dr. South landslide). The council specifically decided to devote all of the new revenues from the Terranea resort to capital improvement projects rather than to the city’s operating budget. We are on the brink of obtaining a $9.4 million grant toward the repair of San Ramon canyon where the city and its staff outdid other applications from much larger agencies. We can also begin

to plan for other civic improvements as well if we stay on course (Wonder what

Long has in mind, a new City Hall?) All of this has happened with one of the smallest city payrolls and employee headcounts and, until last week, without a city employees’ union—unlike most cities.

I am confident that the three candidates I endorse, Eric Alegria, Dave

Emenhiser and Jim Knight will keep us on the constructive path the city chose

8 years ago with the 2003 re-election of Doug Stern and the election of Steve Wolowicz and me. Both Doug Stern and Steve Wolowicz have endorsed both Dave Emenhiser and Jim Knight as well. Dave and Jim both have considerable experience serving the city. Dave is a communications executive and a current planning commissioner and also previously chaired the city’s finance committee. Dave is an exceptionally skilled consensus builder. Jim is a retired real estate professional and has been a planning commissioner for 8 years. Jim is exceptionally intelligent and detail oriented. Currently I am the only former planning commissioner on the council. The city has almost always had former planning commissioners on council. Eric is a health care executive. Eric is new to the city but has experience with other city governments and non-profits and is a state commissioner such that he can

bring a valuable and different perspective to governing our city. I have seen that Eric is a quick study on the issues facing the city. Our current city manager had not lived in the area before she was hired and yet the perspective she has given us has been very helpful. Many residents of the city moved here relatively recently and deserve a voice as well. Eric can provide that voice. (Editor: Alegria moved to RPV some 6 / 7 months ago and almost immediately declared his intent to seek an RPV Council seat. The three candidates Long is

supporting all agreed to follow his agenda in effect, if elected, continuing Long’s failed policies.)

I am less confident that the 5 candidates I do not endorse will stay on a constructive path and I want to explain why. Unlike most voters I personally know all but one of the candidates and have had an opportunity to learn about their backgrounds and views. I address the candidates I do not endorse in alphabetical order below. Scroll down after my name if you are interested in these thoughts. (Ed:Brooks, de la Rosa and Duhovic all rejected Tom Long’s questions thus angering Tom Long)

Tom Long

Mayor, Rancho Palos Verdes

(Ed.: Observe that Long signed this as Mayor and sent out using the Internet services provided to him by PV Net, RPV’s IT vendor)

————

Susan Brooks is a former one-term councilmember from about a decade ago. She spent much of that term running for Congress. She is a charismatic public speaker, president of her HOA, and has been very involved in local issues, particularly opposition to Marymount’s Measure P, although she is now supported by that Measure’s proponents. Ms. Brooks has been candid about her stand on the issues. She has stressed that the city had half the employees it has now when she was on council. Even though RPV has far fewer public employees and much lower payroll costs than most other cities our size,

Brooks will reduce public employment—and services–even further in a quest to

return to the “good old days.” Ms. Brooks claims that as mayor she “turned a

$2 million budget deficit into a $2 million budget surplus.” But she doesn’t tell you she did so by abdicating the city’s responsibilities. City infrastructure was neglected during Brooks’ prior council term leaving the current council to deal with millions of dollars of deferred maintenance and property damage she and others left behind. Look for Brooks to seek

abolition of the storm drain user fee and the utility user tax, which her PVP

Watch supporters oppose and which combined make up about 20% of city revenue and are vital to street and storm drain maintenance. We could each save as much as $90 per resident per year as a result, but the impact on our public infrastructure would damage our property values. Brooks and her fellow PVP Watch slate candidates Duhovic and De La Rosa should also be credited with

the city employees’ vote to form a union last week. Brooks and her supporters have exaggerated staff salary increases and have falsely stated that the council recently increased pension benefits. The council actually decreased pension benefits to the tune of estimated net savings of $1.2 million to $1.6 million over the next 6 years. By waging an anti-government, anti-staff campaign based on falsehoods, Brooks and her supporters have given the city

a union for the first time in its history. This will lead to increased costs and reduced efficiency and undermines a positive employer-employee relationship that took years to achieve and is instrumental to the city’s success in obtaining competitive grants.

Dora De La Rosa is the President of the School Board where she has served as a trustee for 8 years, a clear demonstration of her commitment to public service. Ms. De La Rosa is well spoken, intelligent, and the only lawyer among the candidates, although she has not actively practiced law for some time. Her views on city issues are a bit of a mystery. Although she is a registered Democrat, her support comes primarily from the Libertarian PVP Watch group, one of whose founders indicated that its goal is “to drive government toward zero” and which consistently opposed the city’s open space

preservation policies, recently describing them as “mismanagement.” Ms. De La Rosa declined to answer any questions about her views indicating that “As to specific issues, I will wait until I am seated on the council and have all

the information before making any decision on any issue.” In sum, De La Rosa

appears to be a mystery candidate. Her prior history does give some clue to her views, though. De La Rosa is a close political ally of Erin LaMonte a PVP Watch member who is currently running for School Board. LaMonte is the former PTA President who, while on a lobbying trip to Sacramento with then Board President De La Rosa met with the state official in charge of the

city’s grant application for millions in state funding for the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve to urge the state to reject the city’s application. (Former RPV Mayor Larry Clark confirmed the meeting by talking to the state official involved.) De La Rosa has been unhelpful on other issues important to RPV as well. Under her leadership the school board refused to cooperate with efforts to bring Eastview into the district and efforts to allow military dependents from the LA Air Force base to attend. The board also rejected the city’s advice to put the Peninsula HS lights issue through the normal planning process, instead triggering a lawsuit through a confused and chaotic process that treated both sides of the question unfairly. Finally, as board president, De La Rosa has misapplied the Brown Act suggesting that it forbids board members from responding to public questions and public meetings and has stifled dissent from board members who have sought to change policy or just express an opinion De La Rosa did not like.

Jerry Duhovic is a financial services executive who has donated his time to public service as a member of the city’s finance committee. Jerry is very well spoken and exceptionally intelligent. Although he declined to directly answer my questions, the issues page on his website provides a very good summary of his thinking and is very thoughtful and well written. Mr. Duhovic indicated that he would not accept endorsements from any sitting council members. But he does have the endorsement of PVP Watch and appears to share their views and distrust of city council members, city staff and city

government in general. He has also repeated some of the misinformation Brooks and others have spread about city staff benefits and salaries. But his time

in city government has been limited to only a couple of years so perhaps with more time he will be able to better focus on the real issues and less on political dogma. Until then I cannot support him despite his good qualifications.

Ken Dyda was on the second city council and was one of the city’s founders and first mayors. No one has given more heart, soul, and time to the city than Ken Dyda and all of what he has given has been motivated purely and solely by a desire to serve the city with no thought to what is in his own best interest. Mr. Dyda is intelligent, well-spoken and a real assert to the

city. He served on the council for several months with me filling a temporary vacancy. This allowed me to see that he is definitely up to the job despite his age (late 70s). Mr. Dyda would surely do his best to figure out what is best for the city. However, I think electing Mr. Dyda to council at this time would be wrong. Mr. Dyda is not shy with his opinions, so the new council

will have the benefit of his views whether he is elected or not. When he was

appointed to serve for a few months he hit the ground running because he was already familiar with all of the issues. He will spend the same amount of time helping the city as an elder statesman (which has been his role now for decades). It is time to develop new leadership for the future and electing

Mr. Dyda would only delay developing that new leadership. I am also concerned that as a councilmember Mr. Dyda would micromanage the city. The city has changed in the decades since Mr. Dyda was first elected. It is no longer a brand new city with inexperienced staff. Instead it has a highly professional staff that needs to be allowed to run day to day affairs without improper

interference. Indeed state law requires as much, making “council manic interference” illegal. The council is a board of directors and sets policy. Day-to-day decisions are handled by staff without favoritism toward the friends of particular council members. Mr. Dada’s desire to put individual council members into city hall and supervising departments, however well intentioned, would be a serious mistake. Moreover, realistically, Mr. Dyda may not be able to serve 2 terms. Term limits means we will be having a lot of turnover on council in the future. We should not make the situation even worse by electing people who are much less likely to be able to serve a second term.

Cynthia Smith is the candidate about whom I know nothing. She did not respond to my efforts to contact her and I have been unable to find a website or any campaign information about her. I have no knowledge of her background or

views and have seen no means for me or other voters to learn more about her.

—————————————————————————–

Editor: Tom Long’s ranting clearly demonstrates why he has been such a poor Council member. His arrogance, lack of civility as well as poor judgment have been detrimental to RPV. While Doug Stern and Steve Wolowicz have not displayed as much demagoguery, their attitudes and actions have more often than not been less than positive as well.

In the last newsletter we pointed out Tom Long’s website and the fact that Council candidates Emenhiser, Knight and Alegria had dutifully responded to Long’s questions set wherein they clearly provided replies that satisfied Tom Long. It seems a safe conclusion that if Emenhiser, Knight and Alegria were to be elected, they would follow in Tom Long’s, Doug Stern and Steve Wolowicz footsteps. Why would anyone with common sense believe otherwise?

Visitors to Tom Long’s website will find that Jerry Duhovic, Dora de la Rosa & Susan Brooks all declined to respond to Tom Long’s attempt to influence, future Council direction, thus unleashing Long’s vicious comments about them.

——————————————————————————————————————————-

RPV – EMPLOYEE UNION / PENSION REFORM

Tom Long’s ranting claims that some of the Council candidates are responsible for RPV employees deciding to associate themselves with a public employees union. Long’s hysteria is but more rhetorical nonsense.

Let’s look at the facts. It was Tom Long, Doug Stern and Steve Wolowicz who rammed the recent “pension reform” proposal through on a 3 / 2 vote. These three denied a request by

Councilmen Campbell and Misetich to take the time to “get it right.” Campbell and Misetich wanted more information and a better analysis on employee impact as it was reported that

some of the senior staff, who are approaching 55, will reap a retirement financial bonanza while it appears the lower level staff will not be as well treated. One example, a 30-year employee making $100,000 annually would receive a pension of $75,000 annually FOR LIFE. An in-depth analysis is critical to measuring these observations.

That the staff has decided to associate themselves with a public employees union is clearly a reflection on the current Council and City Hall management and not on who might be elected this November. Perhaps a union is a good thing for the taxpayers as benefits and raises will henceforth be negotiated in a public forum and likely will not be as generous as recent Councils have granted to “prevent union intrusion” in RPV.

There are many fine “staffers’ working at RPV City Hall and without question all employees should be treated fairly. However it is important that taxpayers be treated fairly as well. In general, there are a great many residents who perceive that public employees have cushy jobs with GREAT benefits. We found the staff protests at the September 20th Council meeting of the proposed pension changes pathetic and over the line. Few in the community have received the generous pay and benefits that the RPV staff received these past few years and Staff is not leaving the taxpayers many choices other than to reduce staff to reduce numbers to control the ballooning payroll expense.

In the last Newsletter we reported the following;

During this seven-year period, the tenure of Tom Long, Doug Stern and Stefan Wolowicz:

– Added 13 Full Time Employees, an increase of 29%

– Increased Salaries by $2,409,700 or approximately 85%

– Increased Benefits by $1,143, 576 or approximately 130%

And while the employee costs were increasing, City Hall failed to maintain the Ladera Linda property, drove out the Montessori school that was widely used and desired by RPV residents, losing an $80,000 annual revenue stream, and now plans to spend $100,000 to determine how the Ladera Linda property should be used. And Tom Long is frustrated….. How about RPV residents….?

Since then, Doug Stern commented at the October 4th Council meeting that reports of increased salaries and benefits were bogus. Well… for those interested in the true facts we

have posted on the PVP Watch website (Current Issues page) the May 4, 2004 staff report titled ” Revisions to the Proposed Budget for FY 2004-2005. Also posted at www.pvpwatch.com is the RPV budget for FY 2011 – 2012. As they say, figures don’t lie but …..

Another bit of interesting data is that this staff report that surfaced during our investigations is not listed on the agenda for May 4, 2004. However, the June 1, 2004 Council agenda indicates that the Budget revision item was discussed at the May 4th Council meeting. We wonder why the May 4th Budget revision item is not posted on the May 4th agenda? Is not this the official RPV record?

——————————————————————————————————————————-

PENINSULA SCHOOLS – MEASURE M

Measure “M” combines existing Measures “P” and “V” into one tax and continues the current cost of $374 per year. Whether or not you consider this to be a new tax or an old tax, you should look at the options and the specifics of the proposal.

The unpleasant options according to the proponents include eliminating approximately 90 teaching positions and approximately 40 classified positions. There is also the potential for closing a K-5 site, reducing / eliminating athletic programs, music, arts, AP courses, etc.

At the same time, Measure M does not have a Sunset Clause and is therefore a potential tax in perpetuity regardless of future State funding. However, the Measure M Parcel Tax does have to be enacted by a board vote each year, which is something the present Parcel Taxes do not have because of the specified end date (June 2013). When one looks at the current chaos in Sacramento it does not seem like financial problems there will end any time in the foreseeable future.

Conducting a parcel tax election is expensive with the 2007 election costing almost $270,000 and $148,000 in 2009. This year the cost for LA County election services is estimated at

$20,000 (because PVPUSD already has a scheduled election). This does not include the public information costs which will be approximately $125,000. Future elections, if required, would cost significantly more if scheduled in an off election year.

In general, we believe that everyone should pay a school parcel tax since everyone benefits whether or not they have kids in school. Seniors, however, will again have an exemption opportunity and we suggest that Seniors who plan on taking the exemption not vote on Measure “M.” Committing others to a tax when taking an exemption does not seem appropriate. That is the same position we took on the RPV Storm Drain User Fee

——————————————————————————————————————————-

Newsletter Responses

Reader comments are welcomed and should be sent to info@pvpwatch.com. Newsletter responses are posted with names removed and no editing other than obvious grammatical changes. These are subscriber thoughts and opinions and PVP Watch does not vouch for those opinions. That so many have sent their comments has made the Newsletter more interesting

and we appreciate the input.

This issue of the Newsletter omits subscriber responses because of the length of Tom Long’s epistles.

We have been reminded that not ALL subscribers are aware of the PVP Watch website;

www.pvpwatch.com. Lots of good info posted there.

————————-

PVP Watch – Newsletter List

PVP Watch – Contributions

PVP Watch thanks the many subscribers who have contributed to PVP Watch. Those desiring to make a modest contribution, please send checks to PVP Watch PO Box 7000-22 Palos Verdes Peninsula, CA 90274

Subscribers

The Editorial Committee

Search Homes for Sale in each of the Palos Verdes Peninsula Cities