Voters Turn Down RPV's Charter Proposal

Rancho Palos Verdes voters overwhelmingly turned down the city's proposed charter measure Tuesday night, ending a campaign that was hotly debated in weeks leading up to the election.

The charter initiative, or Measure C, would have transformed RPV from a general law city to a charter city. About 72 percent of voters rejected the two-page document on the ballot Tuesday and about 28 percent voted in favor of the measure, according to preliminary results.

"It is absolutely clear that the RPV voters took a hard look at the pros and cons of this proposed city charter and decided that they would rather remain a general law city," Councilman Brian Campbell said Tuesday evening.

A 'no' campaign created an impression in some voters that charters are very dangerous, Mayor Tom Long said. That, and an influx of mailers urging residents to vote against the measure, might have swayed voters, he said.

"What (the vote) reflects is how difficult it is to overcome a well-financed negative mailer campaign, particularly when you're seeking to have people vote 'yes' on something," Long said. "If (voters) get conflicting information and they can't sort through it, they're going to vote 'no.'"

The ballot measure formed vocal groups of supporters and opponents, though some opponents said they weren't given enough time to debate the issue and even called for a later vote in November.

“We’ve done a herculean job of reaching out to a good number of residents in a very short time,” said Sharon Yarber, longtime RPV resident and opposition group No on C spokesperson.

Yarber and other opponents said the two-page charter placed a dangerous amount of control in the hands of city council members and was too vague.

Pleased with the election results, Yarber said if residents want a charter, "we should have extensive outreach including anyone who wants to be included (not a committee hand selected by Council) to get input from residents."

"At the end of the day, nothing is broken in RPV so there was no need for a bad 'fix,'" she said.

Some opponents were not opposed to the idea of a charter city, but felt this proposed charter needed more work and resident input.

Campbell said resident interest in becoming a charter city would likely arise in the future.

"I do predict that at some point in the near term, that the residents of RPV are going to want to revisit becoming a charter city," he said. "The advantages of a well-written charter, in my opinion, vastly outweigh remaining a general law city."

Long said agreement on a different charter would not come easily and another ballot measure could take years.

"(The vote) brings to an end the issue of whether we will be a charter city any time soon.

"I know some opponents say, ‘We’re not against all charters, just this one.’ The problem is, they don’t have an alternate charter, and it’s not a multiple-choice issue," he said.

Supporters of the charter campaigned on its ability to give more control to the people of RPV and take power from the state, in addition to providing prevailing wage savings, among other financial benefits for the city.

Long said a 'no' vote will cost the city near one million dollars per year for the forseeable future.

"We can't deliver as much in the way of services for the money we have," he said.

Still on many voters' minds was the city of Bell, also a charter city, riddled with scandal.

Coming out of the polls Tuesday, resident Robert Critelli said he thought the proposed charter was a "back door approach" by city council to change things in city government without input from the public.

Regardless of the measure's outcome, Campbell said voters made the right decision.

"If they vote 'yes,' they made the right decision, if they vote 'no,' they made the right decision," he said. "They'll carry on and I'll carry on. ... We've got a really well-educated electorate up here. I think we stand a whole lot better chance at making the right decision in this community than in most others in California."