Loading...
19791106 Eastview Annexation Special Election Arguments and Rebuttals ,. _ . • � � 1111 - . r--,7-›* M 4,,... i- ter -, RANCHO PALOS VERDE ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION M REBUTTAL TO ARGU T AGAINST PROPOSITION'M t' .. ' �r S EASTVIEW RESIDENTS FOR THE RIGHT TO VOTE The opposition to this measure failed to obtain 25%of the rew • istered voters signatures. FOR THE BALLOT A Yes vote will insure that the Los Angeles City Council Reso- .% lution welcoming Eastview to the City of Los Angeles will not bd.. 4 A state statute, MORGA, allows 5% of the registered voters of an come a reality. area to petition for annexation to a city. It does not allow for a vote The bedroom tax applies only to new construction, not addi- by the city or those who want to join the city unless 25% of the tions. This would have little impact on a community that is already registered voters oppose the annexation. Eastview residents wishing 95% developed. Permit fees are based on the cost to the city of RPV top reserve the right of choice gathered enough signatures to put the only, and are not a source of revenue. In a small city like RPV, matter on the ballot. we as voters would have strong representation regarding any pro- posed special assessment. The ballot indicates the issue of whether the Eastview area should The residents of Eastview will have no liability regarding land- annex ' slides after annexation to RPV. There are no plans for a new city hall EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S ANALYSIS, to Rancho Palos Verdes or remain County. A NO vote does notg ive the area to Los Angeles. at this time. The only building restriction applies to sign heights which effects commercial property only. ARGUMENTS AND REBUTTALS Although Proposition 13 will protect against a property tax increase, We cannot remain an unincorporated area. The MORGA Act of - g p cities can levy assessments, i.e. RPV has an existing assessment of 1977 provides for areas that wish to be annexed an opportunity to FOR $500 per bedroom up to $1,000, for new construction. Permit fees petition for it. This has been done by the citizens of Eastview. News- forEASTVI EW ANNEXATION anyconstruction are higher than county fees. letters have been published and distributed to Eastview residents that contain answers to all of the major issues. Open meetings of Eastview County residents will be involved in actions taken in landslide residents have been held in an earnest desire to provide answers to SPECIAL ELECTION decisions; however, if annexation occurs, there will be a double in- important questions. volvement — city and county. RPV plans a City Hall,11, p ark areas re- This annexation is supported by your neighbors who desire a TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1979 mote fromY our homes and additional new building restrictions, local and responsive government. A further benefit to your Yes vote . involvingall residents. will make you a part of a beautiful and well ordered city. Vote Yes on Proposition M The following arguments for and against the annexation have been Public services such as Sheriff and Fire Departments will remain the filed with the City Clerk pursuant to Section 35066 of the Govern- same. No plans exist to change the school districts, to change is a LARRY JOHNSON ment Code of the State of California. Arguments in support or op- long and costly procedure. Street harriers will not be removed. Al- Eastview Citizens for Annexation position of the annexation are the opinions of the authors. though Eastview is almost fully developed, you will be involved in many issues listed above that are now of no concern to you. Under requirements of the 1975 amendments to the Federal Voting Rights Act,the City has arranged to provide translation of these ballot materials into the Spanish language. A trans- You unincorporated ifyou vote NO. Eastview Residents lation of these ballot materials may be obtained in person at the City Clerk's office in the can remainp City Hall or, if requested by letter or telephone, a translation will be promptly mailed. for the Right to Vote will work to stop any attempts of annexation information, pros and cons, being givento all the resi- Bajo los requisitos de los enmendamientos de 1975 al Acto Federal de Derechos de Vota- without all info , cion, la Ciudad ha hecho arre�los para proporcionar traduccion del texto de la balota al dents and an open election for a majority vote on the issue. idioms Espanol. Una traduccion del texto de la balota se puede obtener en persona en la oficina del Secretario Municipal situada en la Alcaldia, o si es solicitada por carta o por telefono,una traduccion se enviara por correo prontamente. VOTE AS YOU PLEASE BUT, VOTE! LEONARD G. WOOD, City Clerk Eastview Residents for the Right to Vote City Hall, 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. NETTIE PRAGER Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90274 Phone: (213) 377-0360 A 0 . '--b-j.° , . ) "~-:«,4 0 , . The text of the proposition to be voted on at the Special Election 4 '' ARGUMENT IN FAVOR F PROPOSITION M REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION'M ' to be held in the territory known as "Eastview Annexation" on Tuesday, November 6, 1979 is as follows: A yes vote will insure annexation to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Annexation proponents repeatedly imply that a no vote will result in r • ~ '• and permanently stop any further attempts by the Los Angeles City an Eastview annexation to Los Angeles City. , Shall the order adopted on August 7, 1979, by the City Council to absorb any or all of Eastview. Council of the City.of Rancho Palos Verdes ordering the — NOT TRUE!! A NO vote simply means Eastview will remain an unin- annexation to said city of the territory described in said Annexation will improve local control with respect to all administra- corporated County Area. The County Supervisor's office is on record order and designated as the Eastview Annexation area be tive functions. This will insure faster response to all requests ranging that Eastview residents will not be forced into any annexation with- confirmed? from building permits to licensing your pet. Annexation to Rancho out an open election indicating a majority in favor of it. Palos Verdes will result in one city council person per 10,000 citizens; Los Angeles representation would be only one per 500,000 citizens. Proponents predict better things if annexed to RPV. They assume that services may improve, property values will immediately rise and Annexation to Rancho Palos Verdes will not raise your property faster response will be given to building permit applications. taxes, even though your property values will immediately increase. Ir - State law prohibits property tax increases beyond 2% per year any- In fact, most of the services such as Sheriff and Fire Departments where in the State of California. will remain essentially the same. If property values do rise, this is a paper value, having little meaning until the house is sold. The Eastview area is currently part of Los Angeles Unified School EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S ANALYSIS District. School District annexation is a separate procedure and would The assumed faster building permit response will be accompanied by not automatically occur as a result of annexation. higher cost than County. This is an inhabited proposal containing 3,991 registered voters. The subject area is bounded on the west by the City of Rancho Palos The Eastview area is currently served by the Los Angeles County Pro-Annexation leaders agree that school and library districts won't Verdes, on the north and south by the City of Los Angeles, and on Library District. Special district annexation is a separate procedure change. the east generally by Western Avenue. The area, which was a part of from city annexation, so the area would not automatically become the original boundaries of the proposed Rancho Palos Verdes incor- part of the Palos Verdes Library District. Residents of Eastview should ask themselves what they will actually poration, is substantially developed with residential uses and with gain by annexation to RPV. Re-read paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of our ini- commercial development along Western Avenue. There will be no The annexation to Rancho Palos Verdes would result in a higher tial argument. Keep up with news reports on Peninsula Cities' fund- commercial e in the tax rate upon completion of this proposal. level of law enforcement with better traffic control and response inproblems, attempt to solve low income housingrequirements and g p p p p times than currentlyexists. Easier longrange fireprotection and g p q g pending landslide problems. LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION rescue planning by the fire department for the entire peninsula RUTH BENELL, Executive Officer would result. The area would continue to be serviced by Lomita If Eastview joins RPV, you and your new administration will be in- Sheriffs Department and Fire Station No. 83 "Miraleste." volved in resolving these problems and more. These new administra- tive functions won't be free. A yes vote will insure that all public services now present will remain or be improved. Better local control and forever stopping Los Angeles Also to be considered, a percentage high of RPV anti-annexation g can be accomplished by voting in favor of annexation to Rancho residents supporting the LAFCO lawsuit reside in the area directly Palos Verdes. pp g above Eastview. THE CITIZENS IN FAVOR OF ANNEXATION Re-read paragraph 6, initial argument. LARRY JOHNSON Eastview Residents for the Right to Vote NETTIE PRAGER 29318 Highmore;San Pedro, CA 90732 831-3486 September 21, 1979