Measure I
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
Approve discontinuance and abandonment of, and authorization to sell, Flanders mansion property public parkland. 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?
Majority Approval
COUNTY OF MONTEREY
CITY/SCHOOL/SPECIAL DISTRICT ELECTIONS
November 3, 2009
Semi-Final Official Report 4
Measure I (2/2) 100%
YES Vote Count: 757 (63.29%)
NO Vote Count: 439 (36.71%)
TOTAL: Vote Count: 1,196 (100.0%)
9 comments:
Disappointed, but not surprised. I think there has been a change in the last decade with regard to the reason people live in Carmel. It has nothing to do anymore with intangible values like beauty, nature and community. It has everything to do with being in harmony with the in-power crowd clique. I think this vote is a signal Carmel-by-the-Sea as some of us used to know it is a thing of the past.
The 757 Carmel voters who voted to sell may have just set in motion a whole new set of problems. This is one of the worst times to be putting an unremodeled residence on the real estate market. The mansion could be on the market for years and not sell. What is the city going to do then? Will the city put money into it to make it more attractive to potential buyers? In the meantime, will park users be prevented from using the driveway for parking and what plans and timetable does the city have for reworking the trails, parking, etc.?
Why no comments on upholding the will of the people from the blog "moderator"??? An overwhelming majority has now made it perfectly clear. Isn't it time to move on now and stop the whining and the lawsuits and the needless insults hurled at the over 60% of CARMEL RESIDENTS who simply voted their conscience?
As Anonymous should know the vote to sell the Flanders Mansion Property is one step in the process; there is a pending lawsuit which challenges the legality of the sale based on inconsistencies with the City’s General Plan/Local Coastal Program, economic feasibility analysis conclusions, et cetera. As Robin Urevich reported in the Monterey County Weekly, “Tuesday’s vote could be moot because of an ongoing court battle.” There is a Hearing scheduled for December 17, 2009, Monterey Courthouse on Flanders Foundation vs. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea (M99437). The will of the people must be in accordance with the law. Advocating for upholding the will of the people without recognizing the significance of the rule of law in this case and the City’s past history in violating state and municipal laws is not indicative of good citizenship.
And as this blog "moderator" must know, thwarting the will of the people by searching out and exploiting legal loopholes is not "good citizenship"! What is truly outlandish, of course, is that the vocal minority wanted this vote, demanded this vote, sued to get this vote... and now wants to negate this vote! Ridiculous!
The California Government Code, CEQA and Municipal Code are not legal loopholes, they are the law. A reading of the original lawsuit (M76728) will inform you that the basis for the lawsuit was the overarching legal contention that it is illegal for the City to sell the Flanders Mansion Property/Parkland without following certain prescribed legal procedures, a public vote being one of them. Furthermore, the current lawsuit (M99437) argues, in part, that the City has not met Judge O’Farrell’s standard by demonstrating that the lease alternative is economically infeasible compared to the sale alternative and the sale violates and/or is inconsistent with the City’s General Plan, et cetera.
No one is negating the vote. A majority of Carmel voters voted to authorize the City Council to sell the Flanders Mansion Property. However, there is a process and that process should continue to its resolution, in this particular case, in the courts.
The will of the people should also be to demand our public servants follow the law and be held accountable for their violations of the law. Without holding our council responsible for violations of law, they are inclined to violate laws in other areas, such as allegedly violating the rights of on-leave Human Resources Manager Jane Miller, and others.
To the 757 Carmel voters who voted to authorize the City Council to sell the Flanders Mansion Property, 4 Questions, as follows:
1. Would you knowingly and willfully support an ethically challenged and intellectually dishonest public official?
2. If it were shown to you that Mayor Sue McCloud has acted unethically and dishonestly, would your personal consciences permit you to place Mayor Sue McCloud above the laws regarding employment discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation in the workplace?
3. It your answer to Question 2 is “Yes,” then our nation is no longer a nation of laws.
4. If your answer to Question 2 is “No,” then what would you demand of Mayor Sue McCloud?
Sue says “why doesn’t Billig buy Flanders Mansion?" I say why don’t the McCloud sisters buy the Sunset Center and take $1.5 million a year off the backs of taxpayers, many taxpaying Carmelites who do not attend events there anymore. Now, Sunset Center is the real constant drain on Carmel, not Flanders Mansion for Pete’s sake. Sunset Center and SCC suck up $1.5 million a year, nearly $8 million since 2004 versus $50,000 tops for Flanders Mansion. Buy it Sue and stop whining.
The Carmel electorate seems to be easily manipulated by cynical politicians using simplistic messages like sell the house, save the park. Our educational system teaches conformity and uniformity and does not instill citizens with the interest and/or ability to educate themselves on the issues. The 64% vs. 34% vote was more a vote for the mayor than a vote on the Flanders issues. Many voters did not even know where Flanders Mansion is located and do not use the park often. The press today seems to be interested in providing entertainment or shaping, manipulating public opinion, typical of the Herald and Carmel Pine Cone, not actually informing the citizenry. This vote seems to suggest the Carmel electorate is satisfied with Sue McCloud, which is a troubling and depressing thought, but we get the government we deserve, nothing more and nothing less.
Post a Comment