OPINIONS Sans Evidence

National Register of Historic Resources Flanders Mansion
Mission Trail Nature Preserve
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA.

In regard to The Carmel Pine Cone’s 19 January 2007 Editorial, “Letting the people have their way;” the Editorial posits that the fate of the Flanders Mansion was a “central campaign issue” in “several different elections” and “the candidates who wanted to sell Flanders Mansion won, and the candidates who wanted to keep it lost.” In reality, the issue of Flanders Mansion was never a “central campaign issue” in any recent City Council election. While candidates who won may have gone on record supporting the sale of Flanders Mansion, there is no evidence that this stance was the reason those candidates won. Moreover, no recent election has been decided on one single issue.

The Editorial claims that “a small group of people who foresee a public use for the mansion have forced the city of Carmel to defend their decision at great expense through a long, drawn-out trek through the courts;” and this represents an “end-around democracy.” Flanders Foundation vs. the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea et al. alleges violations of state and local law, i.e., CEQA, Government Code, General Plan, and Municipal Code. Violations of law are not synonymous with “an end-around democracy.” If fact, the City’s record of violating the Municipal Code, General Plan and Local Coastal Program, i.e., removal of 43 historic resources from the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources as a group, installation of signs in Mission Trail Nature Preserve without a coastal permit, installation and operation of lights in the Ocean Av. medians without a amendment to the Municipal Code, et cetera, demonstrate the City Council’s refusal to abide by the law. Hence, a lawsuit against the City is the only recourse available to citizens to ensure City Council Members uphold their duties and responsibilities to Carmelites and the democratic process.

The Editorial states “None of the arguments made by the Flanders Foundation attorney in court even approached that standard” of overturning a decision of the City Council. Owner/Publisher/Editor Paul Miller of The Carmel Pine Cone was not present during the Writ of Mandate Hearing on Thursday, 11 January 2007. Nor is there any evidence in the editorial or elsewhere that Paul Miller read the administrative record (2,000 pages) which represents the basis of Judge Robert A. O’Farrell’s upcoming decision. Hence, Paul Miller’s claim that Attorney Susan Brandt-Hawley’s arguments did not approach the standard of overturning the City Council decision is not based on actually hearing those arguments in court.

Finally, this Editorial illustrates the deficiency in The Carmel Pine Cone as a local source of news about Carmel-by-the-Sea. To wit, Paul Miller, as Owner/Publisher/Editor/Reporter, fails to honor and uphold the principles of journalism; namely, “Journalism’s First Obligation Is To The Truth,” “Its First Loyalty Is To Citizens,” “Its Essence Is A Discipline Of Verification,” “Its Practitioners Must Maintain An Independence From Those They Cover,” and “It Must Serve As An Independent Monitor Of Power.” Moreover, while editorialists are not neutral, “the source of their credibility is still their accuracy, intellectual fairness and ability to inform—not their devotion to a certain group or outcome.” Sadly for Carmelites, Paul Miller has betrayed the public trust by not adhering to the above enunciated “principles of journalism.”