ABSTRACT: At the Special City Council Meeting on Tuesday, August 5, 2008, at the end of a 3 hours 26 minutes meeting, pulled Consent Calendar items G and H, namely Consideration of a Resolution entering into an agreement with Denise Duffy & Associates to prepare an environmental impact report in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Flanders property in an amount not to exceed $67,000 and Consideration of a Resolution entering into an agreement with CB Richard Ellis Consulting to prepare an economic analysis for the Flanders Property in an amount not to exceed $40,000, were addressed. During the public comment period, Flanders Foundation President Melanie Billig spoke to the two pulled Consent Calendar items. Billig’s remarks are transcribed and a link to the video/audio is provided. COMMENTS are made regarding Flanders Mansion.
Melanie Billig, Flanders Foundation President:
“I would like to suggest, the Flanders Foundation, that the hiring of these two consultants immediately might be a little bit premature. We’d like to respectfully request that the council defer moving forward immediately on hiring due to number one, we’ve got a new council member and we’ve just had an election. And also we’d like to question if it wouldn’t be better to have some kind of townhall meeting or hearing, probably something much more relaxed like a townhall meeting, but whatever you’d like to do, for discussion on the fate of the park and on potential uses prior to moving forward.”
“After about ten years, we continue to offer the council the idea that we would like to really work with you amicably and cooperatively and that includes the administration, too, to resolve the issue of use with the park and with the mansion.”
“Our walks, we’ve been doing for ten years now and last month our walk we had over thirty some people on it and a lot of those people, many of them are residents, or people who have lived in the area, who have lived here for a long time and don’t even know the park and they’re just astounded when they go up there. Many also are tourists. And I’d just like to suggest that ecotourism, like we mentioned before, and heritage tours, are really big things. This property could be a real jewel for all of you, for this community economically as well as just for the pleasure of residents and tourists alike. So it’s a terrific asset that should be looked at, a little bit, I think, differently.”
“You’ve spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on litigation, consultants and on staff time, tremendous amount of staff time and effort. And again we’d like to say, we would really enjoy working with you on a very positive solution to what we could do with the park. At least let’s try to explore it. You’ve got another hundred thousand dollars here tonight that you’re looking at spending, and maybe wouldn’t it be better if we could get together and talk about what we could do together before you necessarily go out and spend that, go through a lot of public hearings and an entire process that might land us up in a couple of years exactly where we are now talking to each other and saying let’s not go through this again, let’s try to work together. We would love to work with all of you. It would be great if we could sit down with mayor, with you, with you, Rich. And see what we could do. And so I offer this again to you because I think that there is a lot of room for discussion and some great possibilities that would work very well for all of us and give a much more position result too, I think.”
“Thanks a million.”
COMMENTS:
• Over approximately ten years, according to Flanders Foundation President Melanie Billig, Flanders Foundation has offered to work with the City to find a viable public use for the Flanders Mansion. Despite City Attorney Don Freeman’s statement about the City always wanting to talk to anybody about any parcel of property, during that time period, Mayor Sue McCloud refused to work constructively with Flanders Foundation. Moreover, Mayor Sue McCloud’s blaming Flanders Foundation for the City’s current predicament, when she is responsible for the City’s violations of State and Municipal laws, is an unprofessional and disingenuous attack on the one organization which has steadfastly offered to work with the City towards finding a compatible public use for the Flanders Mansion.
• Needless to say, City Council Members Paula Hazdovac, Karen Sharp, Ken Talmage and Mayor Sue McCloud voted unanimously to approve both Consent Calendar items after no substantive discussion about the Flanders Mansion.
• While the City is currently under the Court’s supervision, as asserted by City Attorney Don Freeman, it is within the City’s discretion to halt the sale of the Flanders Mansion property. To wit, if the City Council chose not to proceed with the sale of the Flanders Mansion, then the City would not be obligated to contract for an updated, revised EIR or an economic analysis.
REFERENCE:
Archived Videos
Special City Council Meeting
August 05, 2008
(Time Beginning 03:12:20-03:16:00 Time Ending)
3 comments:
Melanie Billig’s testimony shows it as it is. Flanders Foundation has been petitioning the city for years and years now and Sue doesn’t even have the professional courtesy to acknowledge their correspondence, let alone respond in a way geared to benefit the community. Sue has abused her position by substituting her own bias against the Flanders Foundation to poison the well with lies.
Just recently, at Flanders, one woman commented on the work being done there and said money towards maintenance is an improper use of money since it is going to be sold. When challenged, any historic building in the city has to be maintained in accordance with the Municipal Code and there will have to be a vote of Carmelites to decide whether Flanders is sold or not sold, this information didn’t seem to register with her, so wedded to her mindset that Flanders is going to be sold, everyone knows that.
Another instance, a man commenting on the Pine Cone story about the city spending over $100,000 for an EIR, etc. because of the lawsuit. When challenged with the facts, Flanders Foundation would not have won the lawsuit if the city had not been judged to have broken the law and if the city took the sale of Flanders off the table there would be no reason for an EIR and economic analysis, he admitted that was right, but his mindset was Flanders Foundation was to blame for the money spent by the city when the city is to blame for breaking the law and continuing down the path of selling Flanders without talking to Flanders Foundation, etc. Mindsets are very difficult to change, no matter how many facts are presented or how much of people’s opinions are shown to be based on misinformation and outright lies.
Flanders Foundation has to counter Sue’s prevarications about Flanders with more than monthly walks in the Park. Something has to be done to reverse the lobbying Sue has been doing in her attempt to get potential voters believing Flanders has to be sold because 5 task forces looked at it and found no use. Don’t count on the Pine Cone to help. They are too busy pushing Sue’s propaganda.
Only a city with a mayor who confuses personal bias with public service, a mayor with no vision and no appreciation for historic resources, except her own house which is on the inventory but shouldn’t be, would go down the path of trying to sell a National Register of Historic Places property.
Flanders Mansion and the greater park area could be marketed as cultural heritage tourism definitely. The Mansion could hold open days for the public to view art from the city's art collection, view exhibits about the Arboretum, Park and Mission history with docents to assist answering visitors and residents questions. To be successful though the city would have to be supportive. The city could show its support by charging Anda Burghart with developing a cultural heritage tourism plan encompassing the Flanders Mansion, Lester Rowntree Arboretum, Scout House, Sunset Center, Forest Theater, etc. How about it city council? Let's see an act of good will and good faith on your part. It would be a winning situation for everyone.
With two of the most recent council members acting as deaf mutes, not speaking or asking any discerning questions, the public is left with the impression Karen and Ken have been taken aside by Sue and told the facts of life in carmel city government. What a shame, a monolitic council not looking out for the interests of current and future residents.
Post a Comment