ABSTRACT: On the 3 November 2009 General Election Ballot, there will appear the following question: “Shall discontinuance and abandonment of the Flanders Mansion Property (APN 010-061-005) as public parkland, and authorization to sell the Flanders Mansion Property "with Conservation Easements and Mitigation" as passed on May 12, 2009 by the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council by Resolutions No. 2009-30 through 2009-33, be approved.” A Summary of the SALIENT POINTS FOR THE SALE OF THE FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY gleaned from Letters to the Editor and Editorial Commentaries between March 13, 2009 and September 25, 2009 are compiled and presented. REFERENCES consisting of links to the entire original letters and commentaries are provided.
SALIENT POINTS FOR THE SALE OF THE FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY:
• “Keep the unused asset and get little or no value, or sell the unused asset and use the interest income off the proceeds to fund important things for your family. Selling is the sensible thing to do.” (September 25, 2009)
• “There will still be lots of room for dogs, people and wild animals to roam around if we return the home to private use.” (September 18, 2009)
• Asks “How safe is it to have a building and its surrounding area continually exposed to people coming in to prepare for a public event with the extra traffic, water use, possibility of damage to the property and improper use of a narrow county road?” (September 11, 2009)
• Claims it is “very unlikely” that if Flanders Mansion were on Scenic Road instead of Hatton Road, the Flanders Foundation would not take the position that the property should be other than “a single family residence— perhaps a museum, or put to use for some other public purpose.” (September 11, 2009)
• “By not selling the house, the community risks a possible devastating fire or continuing acts of vandalism. New residents would not only restore the home, but would oversee the property. It could then return to its primary purpose — a lovely home in a welcoming residential neighborhood.” (09/05/2009)
• Claims “If the mansion is not sold and becomes some kind of public institution, increased traffic and pedestrians will be at risk.” (09/05/2009)
• ”...the sale can become a shot in our economic arm and our wallet.” (09/04/2009)
• States that the “Carmel City Council and the previous mayor voted to sell the Flanders Mansion property in December 1999.” (08/26/2009)
• “Selling 2 percent leaves 98 percent total parkland for Carmel.” (August 14, 2009)
• Claims using Flanders Mansion “as a quasi-public institution would disrupt the tranquility of the area, with traffic and service vehicles, and even unsettling to flora and fauna.” (August 14, 2009)
• Claims the Flanders Mansion is “unsuitable” for any “worthy public use” “due to its location in a quiet, residential neighborhood.” (7/03/2009)
• Wants “objectors” to purchase Flanders Mansion Property and pay for restoration rather that waste “taxpayers money with legal obstructions.” (5/08/2009)
• Claims, if polled, neighbors want private residence “compatible with the area.” (5/08/2009)
• Claims “no public use that’s suitable” for the Flanders Mansion; cites committee proposal for use as a culinary academy voted down by City Council under Mayor Ken White. (3/27/2009)
REFERENCES:
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, September 25, 2009 (A Useful Analogy, Mike Cunningham, Carmel) pg. 36A
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, September 18, 2009 (A ‘mistake’ to buy it, Carolyn S. Akcan, Carmel) pg. 28A-29A
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, September 11, 2009 (How safe? J. Daniel Tibbitts, Carmel) 20A
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, September 11, 2009 (Flanders ‘fiasco,’ William J.Woska, Carmel) 20A-21A
The Carmel Pine Cone, Editorial: Through the looking glass, September 4, 2009
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, September 4, 2009 (Vote Aye on Measure “I,” Patricia Sandoval, Carmel)
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, September 4, 2009 (‘A lovely private home,’ Suzanne Lehr, Carmel
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 09/04/2009 (Proceeds from Flanders Mansion would help city, Jon Kannegaard Carmel)
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 08/26/2009 (Flanders options to be studied, Sue McCloud, Mayor of Carmel)
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, August 14, 2009 (Flanders ‘myth,’ Marikay Morris, Carmel) 26A
The Carmel Pine Cone July 3, 2009 (Editorial: The power of one)
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, May 8, 2009 (‘Get rid of Flanders now,’ P. S. Chase, Carmel) 26A
Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, March 27, 2009 (‘Here we go again,’ Rita Holloway, Carmel Valley) 22A
3 comments:
The mayor likes to portray her council as just implementing the 1999 city council’s decision to sell Flanders. What she neglects to tell the public is that the Flanders Foundation became a nonprofit in 1999 and she has had 9 years to develop a relationship with them with the aim of finding a compatible and reasonable public use for Flanders, but has failed to even acknowledge correspondence, let alone meet with them or any other like minded entity. The public needs to pay attention to what she has not done for her constituents and hopefully are informed enough to see what she does not tell us and conclude what she does not say is more important than what she does say which is more often than not misleading or simply untrue.
Talking with the sell flanders crowd leaves several impressions. First, they repeat over and over like broken records they are sick and tired of flanders, this has been going on for decades and just vote to sell it. They are oblivious to the consequences of voting to sell. They don't show any signs of thinking through what must occur if a majority vote to sell Flanders. Is it a marketable property the way it is today? If not, what needs to be done and at what cost? Is there a market for the property once it is listed? What if the property does not sell for years and years?
Put simply, they don't have all their ducks lined up in a neat row, not at all.
The vote AYE on Measure I advocates come across as old, tired, unimaginative, uncreative, and not fully engaged in the present.
An example is Sue's going back to 1999 and 1968, 1969 and 1972. What happened then has nothing to do with what Sue has not done in the decade she has been mayor. Shame on her for not showing leadership on Flanders, then again she has not shown positive leadership on anything in Carmel.
These voters cannot be persuaded by any facts though, they will vote with Sue no matter what, sad to say.
Post a Comment