ABSTRACT: In the MONTEREY COUNTY WEEKLY article “Political Dogfight: Sex, lies but no videotape – yet – in steamy Carmel mayoral and city council races,” Carmel Mayor Sue McCloud stated that “she has embarked on settlement talks with the opposing attorney.” Subsequently, Flanders Foundation attorney Susan Brandt-Hawley submitted two letters to the editor, one to the MONTEREY COUNTY WEEKLY and another to The Carmel Pine Cone correcting, clarifying and amplifying the controversy. Highlights of Brandt-Hawley’s letters to the editor are presented. A COMMENT is made about the veracity and sincerity of Mayor Sue McCloud.
HIGHLIGHTS OF LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, “Brandt-Hawley’s offer” & “McClouy LOGIC:”
• “I understand that Carmel Mayor Sue McCloud has stated that she has “embarked on settlement talks” with me relating to the Flanders dispute. This is misleading. I represent the Flanders Foundation. On its behalf in recent years I have presented the city council with offers to lease the mansion and to pay for its restoration and maintenance, which it has rejected."
• “Mayor McCloud and I also had a couple of cordial telephone conversations about Flanders last summer, and one in January. I suggested a lease of Flanders to minimize traffic on Hatton Road, such as for artists-in-residence. The mayor made no suggestions to avoid a sale. So our talks ended.”
• “To date, the city will only consider a sale and the Foundation strongly believes the mansion should be leased and remain in city ownership. There has been no ongoing discussion.”
• “But as there has been no variance from our two bottom-line positions—the City Council wants to sell and Flanders Foundation wants the mansion to be leased and remain in city ownership— there are no ongoing discussions.”
• “...there are a great many opportunities to resolve the Flanders issue short of sale. The Flanders Foundation would welcome the opportunity to settle this matter in the public interest.”
COMMENT:
• Mayor Sue McCloud led the MONTEREY COUNTY WEEKLY to believe that she was “searching for common ground” with the Flanders Foundation and a peace settlement was possible. Contradicted by Flanders Foundation attorney Susan Brandt-Hawley, Brandt-Hawley wrote that “there has been no variance from our two bottom-line positions—the City Council wants to sell and Flanders Foundation wants the mansion to be leased and remain in city ownership.” Additionally, over the years since Sue McCloud was elected mayor, Susan Brandt-Hawley “presented the city council with offers to lease the mansion and to pay for its restoration and maintenance, which it has rejected.” And while Susan Brandt-Hawley wrote that the “Flanders Foundation would welcome the opportunity to settle this matter in the public interest,” short of sale, and given the fact that the City has lost two lawsuits involving the sale of the Flanders Mansion, it is now a test of Mayor Sue McCloud’s veracity and sincerity regarding whether or not she makes a good faith effort to reach a “peace settlement” with the Flanders Foundation.
Sources: Brandt-Hawley’s offer, Susan Brandt-Hawley, Glen Ellen, The Carmel Pine Cone March 19, 2010, 22 A
McClouy LOGIC, Susan Brandt-Hawley | Glen Ellen, MONTEREY COUNTY WEEKLY, March 18, 2010
Political Dogfight : Sex, lies but no videotape – yet – in steamy Carmel mayoral and city council races, Robin Urevich, MONTEREY COUNTY WEEKLY, March 11, 2010
5 comments:
An astute mayor without an personal axe to grind would have sized up the first EIR and followed a lease option course. The first EIR determined the environmentally superior alternative was the lease option, not the sale option. An astute advising city attorney and mayor looking out for the taxpayers and best use of limited city time would have seen the real legal quagmire of going against an EIR, CEQA and the slim odds of winning on every single point of a petitioner's lawsuit. That said, CEQA was meant to make it extremely difficult to realize a sale of parkland and that balances the inherent bias towards the discretion municipalities are afforded by law.
Absolutely this is a test of the mayor. The mayor is the one who put the idea of a peace settlement out there for public consumption. Now, let's see whether or not she lives up to her own rhetoric. Possibly the loss in Flanders 2 will bring Sue and the city to its senses and at least make an attempt to solicit lease offers, bring them to the public and make an effort to work something out for the benefit of the park and users. There are many fine ideas out there that have not been explored. At the very least, the mansion could have restrooms for the benefit of park users since there are presently no restrooms available in the entire 35 acre park. Hope springs external.
For all the revisionist historians out there, it is well worth repeating without Flanders Foundation filing the first lawsuit, Flanders 1, and winning that lawsuit, the city would have continued to not maintain the mansion and allow it to deteriorate and decay in violation of the municipal code and the city would not have had a public vote on the sale, that is why they argued the property was not parkland. It is the city which had in its power to quietly lease the mansion with terms and conditions agreeable to the neighbors, thus avoiding all costs for EIRs, consultant reports and attorney fees.
I remember when it would have cost less than $500K to repair and restore the Flanders Mansion but, even then, the Mayor would have nothing to do with it. Easy, inexpensive repairs were ignored knowing that they would cost substantially more in a few years...demolition by neglect! I also remember a discussion with the City Administrator when they discussed turning off the water to let the gardens die! What a pity.
Wow, in Sue McCloud's universe appealing a lawsuit is the equivalent of a peace settlement. What is wrong with this picture? Plenty. And we were supposed to beleive the Flanders Foundation was responsible for all those taxpayer expenditures when the city is oblivious to costs for this appeal. By the way, all this talk about the vote, the vote is not a legal issue in this case and therefore has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not the city followed the law in the council's second attempt to sell the mansion.
Post a Comment