March 14, 2018
Dear Friends & Neighbors,
In April 2016, members of the Bluff Cove Homeowners Association (http://www.bluffcove.org) officially called for the resignation of PVE Chief of Police Jeff Kepley based on weak and ineffective leadership. Though it took a year for him to agree this was his best course of action, eventually Kepley went on a "five-week" stress leave that became a four-month "MIA" episode, and then finally, thankfully, an official "retirement" announcement.
Now, nearly two years later, the Bluff Cove Homeowners Association officially is calling for the resignation of PVE City Councilman Sandy Davidson. Mr. Davidson is the PVE councilman spearheading the unprecedented $45 million, 9-year Measure E "Law Enforcement" parcel tax (http://www.bluffcove.org/measure-e/). The $5 million/year tax only partially funds (50-67% of $7.5 -$10 million) the PVEPD's updated FY2017-2018 budget (excluding one-time cuts, including non-accrued pension expense). Nonetheless, Mr. Davidson and his wife's unconventional ties to the PVEPD continue to drive their crusade for what amounts to a small "down payment" on an unquantifiable, skyrocketing pension liability. This "pension bomb" is estimated to impair materially our City's balance sheet upon the signing of a 9-year PVEPD union contract, if Measure E were to pass. Thus, essentially the BCHA believes Mr. Davidson recklessly is spearheading a campaign that will lead to PVE's insolvency and related bankruptcy sometime during the PVEPD contract period.
Due to the fact that his seat does not come up for re-election in March 2019 as is the case with Councilpersons King, Vandever and Lin-Peterson (http://bluffcove.org/city-council-election/), there is not an electoral means to remove Mr. Davidson for another three years. Thus, as occurred with individuals working assiduously to expose Chief Kepley's lax oversight of the City's law enforcement department, the BCHA has begun its exposé of the lengthening list of Mr. Davidson's breaches of fiduciary duties to PVE residents.
Along those lines, last night the "Sandy Davidson Resignation" webpage was launched:
Though the documentation and source-linking of Mr. Davidson's credibility and related integrity is only in the early stages, one may find upon reviewing the listed webpage that evidence of his untruthfulness already is abundant. Prominently, the residents of PVE elected Mr. Davidson over Jim Goodhart in no small part based on Mr. Davidson's campaign pledge to protect PVE parkland. However, Mr. Davidson two weeks ago announced he shall "abstain from any future city actions involved in this [Parkland] legal matter." This news has hit PVE residents hard, especially those whose votes were driven primarily by his pledge to do the exact opposite - remain the sure vote against any adverse Parkland decisions by the City.
Please review the webpage below for more support underlying the BCHA's determination to assist Mr. Davidson in coming to the same conclusion as did Chief Kepley a year ago.
Sandy Davidson's Infamous "Venom Speech"
Sandy Davidson: Of Sound Mind?
Sandy Davidson Confronted by PVE Treasurer
Sandy Davidson's Preposterous Pledge
Why won't PVE Councilman Sandy Davidson tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Sandy Davidson Non-truth:
I pledge to "protect parkland and open space."
Within less than one year as a PVE councilman, Sandy Davidson essentially jettisoned this pledge in order to create harmony with the other four councilpersons seeking to pass the Measure E Parcel Tax. In essence, Davidson sacrificed and sold down the river his first born (PVE Parkland) in order to improve the prospects for his true love - the PVEPD that provides him and the other city councilpersons VIP services subsidized by the other 99.9% of PVE taxpayers.
You can watch Sandy Davidson deliver a pair of illegitimate excuses for shirking his duty to those who voted for him precisely because he pledged to be their vote on parkland issues (click here at 6:25). The following are the hollow pretexts offered by Davidson for bailing out on the very campaign issue that got him a Sierra Club endorsement and thereafter elected to our City Council:
"I cannot in good conscience participate in any further actions of this city in this matter for two reasons:
1) I certainly would never have participated in the creative economics that gave birth to this sale of parkland to a private entity in the first place.
2) I am a personal friend of the man who brought suit in this matter.
Therefore, for ethical as well as moral reasons, I will abstain from any future city actions involved in this legal matter."
Let's address each of these flimsy excuses offered up by Sandy Davidson:
1) That he didn't participate in the conception, structuring or execution of the invalid Via Panorama parkland sale didn't stop Davidson from using that transaction highly unpopular with voters as a carrot to get their votes. Now that he doesn't need their votes for another 3 years, he doesn't need to put it in front of voters' noses.
2) That illegal parkland sale litigant John Harbison was Sandy Davidson's "friend" before he was elected didn't stop him from using the parkland lawsuit as the centerpiece of his election campaign. Moreover, according to sources, Davidson at the time of his election really wasn't even Harbison's friend; at most, they were acquaintances who sporadically chat about City matters, but not much else. It gets much worse: on January 11, 2019, Sandy Davidson deeply maligned publicly (at the City Council meeting approving a legal settlement) John Harbison as a "litigious, wealthy man with his own agenda … a power hungry lobbyist who has sold his soul … stealing from the PV Homes Association and giving to everyone else on this tiny cul-de-sac of Via Panorama" (click here at 1:12). It has become patently obvious that Sandy Davidson is pathologically dishonest, disingenuous, and disloyal to anyone but himself and his silly little political "career" and even more fragile ego.
The trend with Davidson is clear: he is a politician, thick and through, using popular campaign themes to win an election, but then tossing them aside once he has used those pledges and the voters' gullibility to get what he wanted.
Joan Davidson Non-truth?:
I didn't lock a Los Angeles County Sanitation District employee into a Sanitation District truck on January 6, 2016 (click image below).
Here are the facts as we know them. The content almost entirely may be verified by obtaining documents via the California Public Records Act (CPRA). On a rainy day in January 2016, an innocent Sanitation District engineering technician named Humberto was in the back of his Sanitation truck after collecting samples from a monitoring well. A woman he didn't know approached the back of the truck and asked, "Do you remember me?" to which the technician replied he did not. The woman reportedly began to rant, mentioning "pollution," but the technician found impossible to understand nearly everything being ranted. The woman then closed the door of the truck and immediately closed its latching handle. This outside location is the only means by which one can open the closed/latched door. With the truck running and keys in the unlocked cab, the technician was scared. Banging on the door, screaming, "Let me out! Let me out!" had no impact on this woman. He called another LACSD employee using his cellphone, but that employee was excessively distant. Desperate, the employee used his tool kit to dissemble the lock from the inside of the truck, allowing himself to escape. When the employee came back to the office, he described the woman who had locked him into the truck. Someone offered that this sounded like a description of Joan Davidson, who again had been pestering for many years the Sanitation District over unproven claims of soil contamination (Note: it is estimated that Davidson's ludicrous contamination crusade (click here and here) cost over $2 million of taxpayer money). After viewing a video of former high school art teacher Joan Davidson from another episode, the employee believed the woman who had locked him into the truck was indeed Joan Davidson. The LACSD then sent a letter to the City Manager of Rolling Hills Estates, with pressing charges against Joan Davidson taken into consideration.
I guess we'll never know for sure if Joan Davidson locked a Sanitation worker in a Sanitation District truck. That being said, a few key points: 1) Both of the Davidsons have very distinct "hair" and faces, making identification from close distance a near certainty; 2) After seeing on the Board meeting minutes the name of the Sanitation District employee who dealt with the allegations, we Google'd her to understand her credentials; it seems unlikely that a longstanding, accomplished Los Angeles County Sanitation District Division Engineer (Kristen Ruffell: click here and here) would back up a fabricated story; and 3) Does this highly detailed episode even slightly surprise anyone who knows Joan Davidson?
Sandy Davidson Non-truth:
I pledge to obtain the enforcement of laws against illegal cycling in PVE.
Based on a CPRA document request by a BCHA member, the PVEPD has not issued a single citation for a cyclist riding side-by-side obstructing traffic (in violation of CVC 21202(a)) during the entirety of Sandy Davidson's tenure as a councilman. This illegal cycling is rampant throughout our city, with members of the Big Orange Cycling Group flagrantly and illegally riding in "swarms" right in front of the PVEPD HQ on Palos Verdes Drive West. Cyclist groups do this on a predictable schedule on weekend mornings; the ease with which the PVPED could issue tickets to illegal cyclists cannot be overstated. Yet, Councilman Davidson's allegiance truly is with his "private" police department and its officers, rather than to the PVE taxpaying residents who elected him and pay the PVEPD's budget consuming 55% of our City's total.
Sandy or Joan Davidson Non-truth:
A PVE resident misquoted former high school art teacher Joan Davidson in relation to her aggressive, incessant campaigning for Measure E.
Joan Davidson misrepresented Page 72 of the "McCrary Report" while misusing Nextdoor.com as a campaign communication service, all as part of an aggressive, arguably unethical campaign to assist Measure E's passage.
The following is word-for-word March 4, 2018 reply to Councilman Davidson from a PVE resident following Davidson's egregious understatement of Measure's actual cost per home and apparent refusal to engage in an online debate with a "NO on Measure E" PVE resident:
"Dear Councilman: I personally received email correspondence from your wife (that's who said she was on her phone call to me last Tuesday night) forwarding information which were already turned down by the Council quite some time ago (per Dez's post today). You are calling out ND members for misleading voters STRICTLY for the reason of using pseudonyms. However, have you had a chance to have a conversation with your wife and ask why she did that and how many people she had done that to?
Also, thanks for breaking down the math. But, its been stated thousands of times now, that a) there was a shortfall in the budget last year, and b) the pension cost (a long term liability) is not contemplated into your budget. I run a small business, however, my balance sheet reflects my long term debt.
We've been waiting for you response. Thanks for engaging in the dialogue."
The following reportedly is content verbatim taken from a February 27, 2018 E-mail from Joan Davidson to this resident:
"“Hi- here's the photo image of the 100 page doct. page showing the PVE Consultant recommendation to keep the PVE police with cost savings. The council could go that route and stay within the budget.”
The following was this PVE resident's March 4, 2018 response to Joan Davidson after this city councilman's wife, in an attempt to cover up her attempt to trick this PVE resident into voting "YES" for Measure E, made the false accusation that the PVE resident "misquoted" her.
"The council could not go that way and had not gone that way and in fact had turned “that way” down as not plausible months ago, and you omitted that information. You also omitted the other 99 pages.
You are not an average person. You are the wife of a councilman, and held to higher standards or you should be. What you did was misleading and wreck less.
Regarding my marital status: I don’t know why it’s a topic of ND conversation, but yes I introduced myself and gave you some background information about myself including my profession, where in PVE and how long I’ve lived here, and that I’m not married (among other things). I don’t understand why you took that to mean that I’m deserving of unreliable information."
Sandy Davidson Non-truth:
"Bluff Cove Homeowners Association was formed about 3 1/2 weeks ago [in late January 2018]." (February 27, 2018; click here at 2:00)
The BCHA's website was launched in early 2018. However, the BCHA was formed in 2008 in response to illegal wedding receptions being held at 605 Paseo del Mar (the infamous "Wedding House"). Many articles (click here) have been written in the Daily Breeze and elsewhere about this problem for our Bluff Cove neighborhood. Please click here to read the most recent such article.
Interestingly, the BCHA began in a similar way as did the Malaga Cove Homeowners Assn. Way back when, the Neighborhood Church sought to convert all or part of a parking lot into a social hall for weddings/receptions. The immediate neighbors were concerned but got little satisfaction from the PVHA. It became clear that a unified voice was needed to deal with the California Coastal Commission and other regulatory bodies. And thus the MCHA was born, with Betty Wing as its first president.
Sandy Davidson Non-truth:
"[I am] even more determined to make sure voters get accurate and true information to inform their votes." (February 13, 2018; click here at 13:00)
Sandy Davidson's behavior could not show a higher determination to make sure voters get inaccurate and untrue information to misinform their votes.
For starters, Sandy Davidson on March 4, 2018 posted on Nextdoor.com a public reply to someone asking what was the calculation to determine one's Measure E parcel tax on their own home. Davidson's response was astounding. It appears that he did not even know the simple formula for Measure E, understating the cost tax by as much as 70% for a sizable PVE home. While Davidson admitted his error after multiple residents
Sandy Davidson Non-truth:
"If we do not pass Measure E, we will never, I repeat never, be able to return to a private police force dedicated only to PVE and shared with no one." (March 27, 2018; click here at 30:05)
Sandy Davidson, during this very same March 27th speech, stated that before determining to join every other Peninsula city by contracting with the Sheriff, the City should complete all phases of a Sheriff Feasibility Study. Thus, Davidson is finally recommending (in the event Measure E fails) the SFS be completed in order to give his prized PVEPD yet a THIRD bite at the apple after Measure D and presumably E failed.
Sandy Davidson Non-truth:
"Until we do a real 3-phase [Sheriff Feasibility] study, we don't have any true cost figures. We have no idea. It may be more, it may be less, it may be the same." (March 27, 2018; click here at 31:30)
There is absolutely NO possibility that the Sheriff contract for PVE will cost more than the PVEPD's massive, 55% consumption of our City's entire budget. First, the City obtained a quote offering 50% MORE patrol service hours than PVEPD's current deployment for a cost 40% BELOW the PVEPD's updated FY2017-2018 budget. Second, a year later in 10/2017, PVE's very own City Manager Tony Dahlerbruch stated in an official staff report, "the contract alternative of the Sheriff's Department is generally estimated to be $3.5 million to $4.5 million." Lastly, it is ludicrous even to consider as possible, much less probable, that PVE's Sheriff contract ever would exceed the PVEPD's $7.5 million/year cost given that RPV has a $6.1 million/year Sheriff contract successfully protecting its geography and population at three times PVE's size.