Sunday, March 08, 2009

COMMENTARY: City Government Culture of Harassment, Ill Will, Retaliation, Vindictiveness & “Evil Motive or Intent

While it is beyond the scope of this commentary to comment on the allegations of John Mandurrago that the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Council, et al. violated the California Environmental Quality Act, the Housing Accountability Act, Government Code housing statures, his constitutionally protected rights under the color of state laws, his Fifth Amendment and Fourteen Amendment to the Constitution of the United States rights, including violations of substantive and procedural due process rights, it is within the scope of this commentary to comment on how this latest legal compliant against the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea displays a disturbing pattern of abuse and misuse of power against citizens and residents of Carmel-by-the-Sea.

As the mayor of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Sue McCloud has the power and responsibility to make certain that the City adheres to municipal, state and federal laws and individuals are not deprived of their rights and privileges afforded to them by state laws and the Constitution of the United States. Yet, during her nearly nine year tenure as mayor of Carmel-by-the-Sea, the City has sanctioned violations of municipal, state and federal laws (M76728) and as John Mandurrago alleges in Mandurrago v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea (M97273) more violations of state and federal laws. Furthermore, John Mandurrago’s compliant against the City characterizes Carmel’s actions as not only “illegal,” but intended to “delay, harass, as well as deny the Project as the City’s method to retaliate against Petitioner;” “vindictive and ill will at Petitioner intended to delay and ultimate deny the Project based on animus, ill will and wholly arbitrary and irrational subjective requirement;” intended to harm Petitioner in that Petitioner was subjected to “humiliation and indignity” and “mental pain and suffering;” and done with “evil motive or intent, or with reckless or callous indifference to petitioner’s rights.” Finally, in additional to general damages, Mandurrago seeks putative damages, as follows: “For punitive damages in an amount appropriate for Respondents’ and Defendants’ actions, wrongful conduct, and to set an example to other cities that delaying qualified housing development projects based on animus, ill will and wholly arbitrary and irrational subjective requirements is not an accepted practice, particularly when Petitioner’s due process rights protected by Fifth Amendment and Fourteen Amendment are deprived under the color of state action.”

Unfortunately, this latest compliant against the City highlights other cases where the City has engaged in arbitrary, discriminatory and wrongful acts, namely by violating the California Environmental Quality Act, Government Code and Municipal Code in Flanders Foundation v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea (M76728) and where Mayor Sue McCloud has engaged in harassment, ill will and vindictiveness against Carmelite Susan Page as she sanctioned the delay of her application before the Forest and Beach Commission, voided her permit without cause and substituted language in the permit not approved by the City Council.

In closing, regardless of the legal outcome of Mandurrago v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, et al., all Carmelites should challenge, confront and condemn city actions which can be construed as actions characterized by harassment, ill will, retaliation, vindictiveness and “evil motive or intent,” all Carmelites!

ADDENDUM:Mandurrago sues city over bank building demolition, MARY BROWNFIELD, The Carmel Pine Cone, March 6, 2009


Anonymous said...

It is certainly true that the mayor and city councils over the past eight or so years have routinely "engaged in arbitrary, discriminatory and wrongful acts" and that the mayor has frequently harassed others as well as shown ill will and vindictiveness. Further, it is widely known that there is no love lost between Mandurrago and McCloud. In this case however the city council appears to have the right of it. Whether you'd like to preserve the Burde building or not, state law does seem to support the city and the preservationists. Mandurrago appears tio be grasping at straws although you never know how a judge may rule.

Anonymous said...

John Mandurrago alleges far more serious charges than violations of state law, federal law too.

We all will see...before trial or before then.

Anonymous said...

The owner deserves some benefit of the doubt as he is the one putting his own money and investment at risk here. The city is not. The city will spend our tax money to defend this lawsuit and has nothing to lose even if it loses in court because carmelites do not seem to hold our city government accountable for their unlawful deeds. Flanders Mansion is one example; there was no outcry on the part of citizens about the city's blatant violations of laws and no call to halt the momentum towards selling the Mansion.