Mayor McCloud’s Revisionist History
Perhaps Mayor McCloud has a poor memory. Or perhaps it is more sinister. Perhaps she confuses her convenient opinion of the moment with reality. In any event, at the 8 August 2006 City Council meeting during the Council’s deliberations on the city’s first Mills Act Contract for the historic property owned by David and Debbie Hutchings, Mayor Sue McCloud fallaciously and fictitiously stated:
“I would like to remind Council that one of the things that we were trying to do before we did the workshop was to get the Historic Context Statement done. And that has hit a couple of bumps which has delayed what our effort is as far as the sequence we were trying to do. So in all fairness to staff, you know, we now are still at that point where, and the other thing I would say is, there is no difference whether we decide it tonight or we decide it in 2 months, when we could have, everybody being treated on a level playing field from the standpoint of proceeding after a workshop. But the sequence we were going to do, Historic Context Statement, and then the workshop.”
In short, only in the mind of Sue McCloud is there a linkage between the update of the Historic Context Statement and the granting of Mills Act Contracts; that is, a public understanding that the update of the Historic Context Statement was to be completed prior to Council consideration of Mills Act Contracts. There is absolutely no evidence in the public record to indicate that the City Council ever intended to hold hostage Mr. & Mrs. Hutchings’ Mills Act Contract to the update of the Historic Context Statement.
Finally, perhaps Mayor McCloud has forgotten the intent of a phrase in the City’s Response to the 2005 Monterey County Grand Jury’s Report on Open Government, a letter she signed as mayor of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, dated March 8, 2006; “The purpose of doing the public’s business in public is to assure that decisions being made by an elected or appointed body are visible to the public.” Ergo, Mayor McCloud’s decision to link the Historic Context Statement to Mills Act Contracts was not “visible to the public” and in violation of the spirit and letter of the Ralph M. Brown Act.
References:
Note the independent relationship vis a vis historic preservation of the Historic Context Statement and Mills Act Contract, as codified in the City’s Municipal Code.
Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code
Chapter 17.32
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
17.32.060 Determining Eligibility for the Carmel Inventory.
A. Historic Context Statement.
2. The purpose of the Historic Context Statement is to establish a baseline of information against which the potential historic significance of a property is evaluated. “The significance of an historic property can be judged and explained only when it is evaluated within its historic context. Historic contexts are those patterns or trends in history by which a specific occurrence, property, or site is understood and its meaning (and ultimately its significance) within history or prehistory is made clear.” (National Register Bulletin: “How to Apply the National Register Criteria For Evaluation,” p. 7). However, exclusion of a resource type from the context statement shall not preclude a finding of historical significance by a qualified professional.
17.32.100 Benefits Available to Historic Resources on the Register.
B. Mills Act Historical Property Contracts.
1. Purpose. A Mills Act contract under State law is an agreement between the City of Carmel and a property owner of an historic building listed on the Carmel Register. The property owner benefits from a reduction in property taxes, and the City is assured that the historic building is rehabilitated, maintained and preserved. All Mills Act contracts shall be established, processed and approved in conformance with California law.
No comments:
Post a Comment