ABSTRACT: In the Friday, 18 September 2009 edition of The Carmel Pine Cone, Carmelite William Doolitte expressed his opinions on the Flanders Mansion Property, formerly a part of Paul and Grace Flanders property prior to it being merged with William Doolittle’s property to become Mission Trail Nature Preserve in 1972. Each of Doolittle’s statements is reproduced accompanied by rebuttals.
William Doolittle: “The house has been more than adequately studied, in terms of a realistic use,” he said this week. “Access is always going to be a factor, and impact on the neighborhood really limits what can be done with the property.”
Rebuttal: While there have been Task Forces to study uses for the Flanders Mansion is the past, since 2000, with the election of Sue McCloud as mayor, Mayor Sue McCloud has refused to meet and confer with representatives of the Flanders Foundation to explore reasonable public uses for the Flanders Mansion. (The Flanders Foundation obtained non-profit 501(c)3 status in 1999; its Mission is to “preserve, enhance, and maintain the Flanders mansion property as an historical, cultural, and educational resource for the benefit of residents and visitors to Carmel-by-the-Sea.”) It appears that since the Flanders Mansion has been used by the Carmel Art Institute, Carmel Heritage, Carmel’s Historic Survey Committee, the Arboretum Committee and the Alliance on Aging for the benefit of the public in the past, a public use could be found today if our city government leaders had the political will.
William Doolittle: “It’s time to be realistic about this, because I don’t think they’ll ever come up with a use that will satisfy or make the neighbors comfortable.”
Rebuttal: The owners of the Flanders Mansion Property are the citizens of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, not the residents of Hatton Fields. And while the concerns of Hatton Fields residents should be considered, Hatton Fields residents should not have veto power over a reasonable public use of the Flanders Mansion.
William Doolittle: Doolittle said he thinks foundation president Melanie Billig and her supporters should have focused on saving the mansion by collecting funds to buy it and fix it up, rather than on suing the city at the expense of taxpayers.
“This group that wants to save Flanders Mansion, if they had started raising money 10 years ago, they probably would have been able to raise enough by now to acquire it for themselves,” he said.
Rebuttal: William Doolittle, former president of the Campaign for Sunset (a $21.1 million capital campaign for the renovation of the Sunset Center in partnership with the City), should know that the Flanders Foundation had an informal arrangement with the City that the Foundation would abstain from soliciting donations for the rehabilitation of the Flanders Mansion for the duration of the Campaign for Sunset because of the finite, limited number of potential donors.
More importantly though, the issue in not about the Flanders Foundation acquiring the Flanders Mansion “for themselves,” rather the issue is about the City honoring its stewardship responsibilities and using taxpayer monies to maintain, determine and implement a public use for the Flanders Mansion for the benefit of Carmelites and the public at large.
William Doolittle: And while opponents of the sale argue it would remove “the heart” of Mission Trail Nature Preserve, Doolittle disagreed.
“Considering the community hasn’t had access to the house for so many years, it’s not like we’re being denied something we had access to before,” he said. “We’ve never really had access to the house, and I think the property could be separated in such a way that it wouldn’t really have a negative impact on the park.”
Rebuttal: Arguing that because the community has not had access to the Flanders Mansion “for so many years,” the community isn’t “being denied something we had access to before,” implies that the City’s past poor management of Flanders Mansion, i.e., not maintaining the structure per Municipal Code and not determining and implementing a reasonable public use, is a reason to sell the property. This is akin to saying our city government is so incompetent in managing a public asset for the benefit of the public, our city government must therefore sell it, instead of being responsible stewards of the Flanders Mansion Property.
When William Doolittle stated he thinks “the property could be separated in such a way that it wouldn’t really have a negative impact on the park,” does he understand that the separation does not create a parcel contiguous with the two properties on either side, rather the separation creates a private inholding, a parcel surrounded entirely by parkland? Generally speaking, the elimination of inholdings is the aim of planning policy, not the creation of inholdings because inholdings can create problems, including potential disputes between private owners and public park users, et cetera.
(Source: Mission Trail park benefactor says, ‘Sell Flanders Mansion,’ MARY BROWNFIELD, The Carmel Pine Cone, September 18, 2009, 6A)
6 comments:
There are a couple of issues I do not believe have been publicly addressed. One is the real estate market and whether or not there is a market for a multimillion dollar residence in the middle of a public park. The other issue is the city is now under court order to maintain Flanders Mansion, but a private owner is under no legal obligation to maintain the structure. So a multimillionaire could buy Flanders as just another one of his residences and let it deteriorate to the point of demolition by neglect and there is nothing that anyone or any agency can do about it.
The speculative nature of whether of not there exists a person or persons with the desire to buy this property plus the unfortunate circumstance that the building may not be maintained both support the notion voters should vote no on Measure I and not allow the city to sell Flanders Mansion and keep it as public property in Mission Trail Nature Preserve.
Bill and Nancy Doolittle are BIG supporters of Mayor Sue McCloud, so this is no big surprise. I do agree his opinions do not stand up to much scrutiny and of course the Pine Cone is doing everything it can to shape public opinion in favor of selling Flanders. The Doolittles and Sue McCloud both act as if the Sunset Center is numero uno. If the sale of Flanders goes through, residents can expect the Scout House to be next in line for sale.
Just a thought on the possible sale of Flanders Mansion. If Mission Trail Nature Preserve Park is depreciated by its loss and subsequent less parkland, it will be reflected in the market value of every residence in the City-of-Carmel-by-the-Sea. Every home will be worth at least $100.000 less. This total loss in real estate value at $100.000 x 2,900 residences = 290 million. That is quite a bit more to lose than the 2 million or so that the Flanders Mansion would bring upon sale. Think about it! VOTE NO ON MEASURE I.
Mary Brownfield’s story in the Carmel Pine Cone reads like an editorial, not a news article. She does not ask tough follow-up questions of Bill Doolittle to show readers his opinions are based on subjective feelings, not objective facts. For instance, he should have been challenged on his opinion about the Flanders Fnd raising money to buy Flanders over ten years when he was raising funds to renovate Sunset Center. By not asking those types of questions, reporters risk being thought of as in the tank for a particular cause or person and their credibility is gone. This is a perfect example of the Carmel Pine Cone influencing public opinion; it belongs in an editorial, not in a news article.
My criticism of Mr. Doolittle is he comes across as not being a frequent user of MTNP. I say this because when he says it is not like the community is being denied access to anything because the mansion has not been accessible to the public for some time, he does not seem to understand the use of this part of the park by the public now for the parking of cars, water bowl area for dogs, excellent proximity to the park in all directions and the significant views from that place not available from anywhere else in the park. I do not think he along with proponents of selling the property have thought through the things the city would have to do after a sale that the city has not had to do. Things like redoing parking areas, trails, enforcing conservation easements, etc. When you step back and think about it, the selling of this property does not seem worth the effort and the selling of it could really damage the park experience for historic users and newcomers to Carmel and the park.
I agree with elle about the Pine Cone and Mary Brownfield. In so many stories about Carmel, Mary seems not to comprehend the difference between the craft of journalism and stenography. Here, in this referenced story, readers get a stenographic accounting of Bill Doolittle's opinions mixed with facts not necessarily pertinent to his opinions. Simply put, there is no analysis of his opinions, with the inference voters should be persuaded to vote Aye, just like Bill Doolittle. I hope voters are smart enough to see this for what it is, the Pine Cone's blatant attempt to manipulate voters into voting to sell Flanders. I hope voters do not do as instructed, vote no, not aye.
Post a Comment