ABSTRACT: In the 25 September 2009 issue of The Carmel Pine Cone, an advertisement, “SELL THE FLANDERS HOUSE AND SAVE THE PARK VOTE YES ON MEASURE I,” paid for by the Committee for AYE on Measure I, appeared on page 2A. The contents of the advertisement are reproduced. The advertisement’s claims are rebutted, including a rebuttal to ‘Sell the House and Save the Park,’ as follows: Monterey County Superior Court Judge Robert O’Farrell ruled that the Flanders Mansion Property is “parkland.” Ergo, selling the “house” is selling parkland, not saving parkland.
SELL THE FLANDERS HOUSE AND SAVE THE PARK
VOTE YES ON MEASURE I
Our mission statement:
Sell the House and Save the Park.
• Only 1.25 acres will be sold while the remaining 31.15 acres of land and trails will be maintained as parkland for all Carmel residents to enjoy.
• The Flanders litigation has cost Carmel taxpayers over $785,536 and is rising: Money that should be spent on useful projects for the community of Carmel and its residents.
• Selling the house for single-family use as it was intended, will give a family the chance to care for and restore the home, and will raise much needed funds for Carmel.
Vote Yes to Preserve:
• The Park
• The Mission Trails
• The Wildlife
• The Residential Character
• The Historic Family Home
• The Financial Health of Carmel
Join us The Friends of Flanders in preserving the park and vote the responsible choice.
ON NOVEMEBER 3RD OR BY ABSENTEE BALLOT:
VOTE YES ON MEASURE I
This ad sponsored by the committee for:
Aye on Measure I
Paid for the Committee for AYE on Measure I
(Source: The Carmel Pine Cone, September 25, 2009, Pg. 2)
REBUTTAL:
• ‘Sell the House and Save the Park’
Monterey County Superior Court Judge Robert O’Farrell ruled that the Flanders Mansion Property is “parkland.” Ergo, selling the “house” is selling parkland, not saving parkland.
And contrary to the inference that the proceeds from the sale of the Flanders Mansion Property would be budgeted for the maintenance of Mission Trail Nature Preserve, the monies from the sale of the Property would go into the City’s General Fund, not earmarked for Mission Trail Nature Preserve. Given the City has failed to fund and implement provisions pertinent to Mission Trail Nature Preserve from the City’s General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan and the Mission Trail Nature Preserve Master Plan, it is doubtful the City would use the proceeds from the sale to adequately maintain our largest park.
• Only 1.25 acres will be sold while the remaining 31.15 acres of land and trails will be maintained as parkland for all Carmel residents to enjoy.
The Mission Trail Nature Preserve Master Plan indicates that the Flanders Mansion is an “intrinsic part of the preserve and the surrounding area.” Significantly, the loss of the Flanders Mansion from City control represents “a significant and unavoidable impact that would conflict with policies that are intended to avoid and/or minimize potential impacts to parkland.”
Moreover, while the Flanders Mansion Property (1.252 acres) represents only 4% of the total Mission Trail Nature Preserve acreage, the loss of this acreage represents a disproportionate loss to Mission Trail Nature Preserve, as the Flanders Mansion is the focal point and differentiates the Preserve from all the other City parks.
• The Flanders litigation has cost Carmel taxpayers over $785,536 and is rising: Money that should be spent on useful projects for the community of Carmel and its residents.
The statement that the "Flanders litigation has cost Carmel taxpayers over $785,536" is fallacious. Approximately $105,000 was expended, not as a result of litigation, but rather as a legally required expenditure for a Draft Environmental Impact Report and Final Environmental Impact Report in order to sell the Flanders Mansion Property. Moreover, approximately $425,000 was expended by the City for the RDEIR, RFEIR, Consultant Planning Services, Economic Analysis Project and Site Evaluation and Construction Cost and attorney fees as a result of the City’s decision to continue to pursue the sale of the Flanders Mansion Property after Judge Robert O’Farrell’s ruling finding in favor of the Flanders Foundation and against the City and City Council of Carmel-by-the-Sea.
Note: Mayor Sue McCloud caused a lawsuit to be filed against the City when she advocated for the hiring of attorney William B. Conners to argue the Flanders Mansion Property was not “parkland” and the City was therefore not legally required to conduct a vote of the people. Moreover, a Monterey County Superior Court judge had to order the City to comply with the law and conduct a vote on the sale of the Flanders Mansion Property.
While the Committee for AYE on Measure I advertisement states over $785,536 “should be spent on useful projects for the community of Carmel and its residents,” the City has not identified specific projects to fund from the proceeds of the sale of the Flanders Mansion Property.
Note: Years ago, Mayor Sue McCloud stated publicly that the proceeds from the sale of the Flanders Mansion would fund the Carmel Fire Station Seismic Retrofit Project; however, General Fund revenues had already been budgeted for that Project.
• Selling the house for single-family use as it was intended, will give a family the chance to care for and restore the home, and will raise much needed funds for Carmel.
A precedent was established, when in 1972, a Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council made the decision to merge the Flanders Parcel and the Doolittle Parcel to form Mission Trail Nature Preserve. Accordingly, since 1972, the Flanders Mansion has been a public asset in the context of the City’s largest park, Mission Trail Nature Preserve. Moreover, a responsibility of our elected representatives is to act as good stewards of public properties. In this instance, that means using taxpayer dollars to preserve publicly owned parkland and maintain and determine and implement a public use for the Flanders Mansion for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations.
The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea does not need to raise “much needed funds,” rather Carmelites need the City to competently manage our taxpayer dollars. For example, as set forth in Miller, Jane Kingsley vs. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea (M99513), the City mismanaged taxpayer revenues by allegedly compensating city employees who failed to earn or merit additional compensation. Note: The City has a 2009/10 General Fund Budget of $13,741,050 and $10.5 million in reserve funds.
3 comments:
Sell the house and save the park is an idiotic slogan probably cooked up by Sue and Sarah. Their rallying cry is it is O.K. to break the law when it gets in the way of them doing with they want to do. Sue does not respect the law, she does not respect herself and she does not respect Carmel voters. Vote no, Measure I.
Only in government can people cover up their failures by divesting themselves of problems they created. The Carmel council does not have the vision or leadership or cooperative attitude to find a solution for Flanders so they vote to sell Flanders, only to be told they violated the law, but undeterred, then vote to put the sale on the ballot while campaigning for its sale privately. What’s next? Will the council vote to sell the Rowntree Arboretum, then the Scout House, then Vista Lobos, then Rio Park because they do not have the ability and determination to find public uses for them? There is a disturbing pattern developing. Stop the momentum and vote NO on Measure I.
The carmel council and mayor are so incompetent they cannot find a public use for Flanders Mansion, so they vote to sell it in 2005, and then have the gall to tell us we have to elect Sue’s political choices and reelect her even though they are all incompetent. And another vote to sell in 2009 and around and around we go, politicians never having to admit their errors, mistakes and incompentence.
Post a Comment