Click Analysis

Final Results Nov. 13, 2009 --Measure G Defeated by 52.52% to 47.48%
(Created and Based in Carmel, Ca)

Yard Signs and/or Bumper-stickers

No carmel valley city signs

Get Them While They’re Fresh!

FREE! Call Lawrence at 831-238-5058 or write to

Most Carmel Valley Residents Oppose Creating a New City.

Over 300 people attended the "Why Cityhood Would Ruin Carmel Valley" Community Event at Rancho Canada on Sept. 8, 2009.

UPDATE: Oct. 11, 2012

The G16 Coalition has endorsed David Potter for Re-election. They feel that Potter will better represent Carmel and Carmel Valley than his challenger Marc Del Piero.

UPDATE: Sept. 17, 2012

The G16 Coalition Warms Up to Supervisor David Potter

On Aug. 31, 2012, the G16 Coalition (formerly Carmel-Carmel Valley Coalition) held a special meeting with David Potter, Monterey County Supervisor from the Fifth District. The purpose of the board meeting was to grill Potter over some of his new positions. In the past, Potter had supported the incorporation of Carmel Valley, allying with pro-incorporation forces like LandWatch and the Carmel Valley Association.

However, that has all changed. Potter revealed during the meeting that he no longer supports incorporation of Carmel Valley, nor does he support the establishment of a Municipal Advisory Council (MAC) in Carmel Valley. For various reasons, many of Potter’s former supporters have abandoned him in favor of challenger Marc Del Piero for the November 2012 election. After Potter left the meeting, the board discussed endorsing him for reelection, but decided it hinges on whether a non-profit 501(c)4 can legally endorse a candidate, which is still under review by the G16 Coalition’s attorney.

An endorsement for David Potter could give the G16 Coalition a voice in the county government, if Potter wins in the general election. The G16 Coalition Board also talked about organizing a debate at Quail Lodge between Potter and Marc Del Piero.

UPDATE: June 12, 2012

How the New Stormwater Regulations
Will Affect You and Your Property!

Speaker: Thomas Harty
Monterey County Department of Public Works

Date: Thursday, June 21, 2012
Lunch: 12:15 PM (order from menu) RSVP if you want lunch
Speech: starts at 12:30 PM
Location: Quail Lodge Golf Club
8000 Valley Greens Dr., Carmel (in Carmel Valley)
Free to the public

SPEAKER: Thomas Harty is a licensed civil engineer with more than 25 years of experience in stormwater-related issues. He is currently employed by the Monterey County Department of Public Works, where he manages the County’s municipal stormwater program.

TOPIC: Thomas Harty will present an overview of the new stormwater regulations that are being proposed for the Central Coast. You may be surprised to learn that the State has defined stormwater as a ‘discharge’. Some of the proposed rules appear somewhat draconian, and might make it difficult for homeowners to build, remodel or add additions to their property. These new regulations will add costs to even simple permits. It will even affect a school or church fundraiser that washes cars, Plus the water, before it enters the ocean, will likely have to meet purity standards greater than those for drinkable water.

The public comment period for both of these regulations is still open thru early July, so learn about what is being proposed and consider sending in your comments!

Sponsored by The G16 Coalition (formerly Carmel-Carmel Valley Coalition). RSVP for lunch or for more information: Lawrence Samuels, or 831-238-5058

UPDATE: April 30, 2012

Speech on MACs, Land Control and U.N. Agenda 21

The G16 Coalition (formerly the Carmel-Carmel Valley Coalition) will sponsor a speech by network engineer and realtor Heather Gass on “The Problems with MAC’s (Municipal Advisory Council), Land Use Controls and the United Nations Agenda 21” on Thursday, May 17 at Quail Lodge’s Golf Club at 8000 Valley Greens Dr., Carmel.

The speech is free to the public. Starting at 12 noon, lunch is available for $15 if reserved before May 14. Seating is limited. For more information or RSVP, contact Lawrence Samuels

UPDATE Sept. 24, 2011 -- On the Water Issue -- by Lawrence Samuels

Local residents should not be surprised by the antics of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD). This government agency is merely caught in the typical boomerang effect.

Although the water board’s sole purpose is to find a new water source, there is little to show after almost 35 years and the expenditure of $100-$120 million in public funds.

For instance, during the 1990’s there was a sensible proposal to store water near Clint Eastwood’s Tehama Ranch development (Canada de la Segunda), called the Canada Reservoir project. The owner agreed to donate the land for the reservoir, which could store 17,000 to 24,000 acre-feet of water. Water would have been pumped up from the Carmel River during excess flows in the winter.

But the MPWMD opposed this water project. The lesson that should have been learned from this debacle is that “government succeeds by failing.” The water board has to oppose its own water-increasing mandate. And the reason is clear. A successful completion of their task would put the water board staff directly in the unemployment line, which lends credence to the idea that government gets more money and authority if it continuously fails in its missions.

UPDATE: June 23, 2011

Lawsuit Filed Against Cottages of Carmel
The Graywater System Was Not Required

The Monterey Herald never fails to disappoint readers with mostly inaccurate or incomplete news stories. When Ed Leeper of Monterey filed a lawsuit against Cottages of Carmel in Carmel Valley – the assisted care housing project in Carmel Valley – the truth about its graywater system was finally revealed. In a front page story by the Carmel Pine Cone (June 17, 2011), the public suddenly learned a graywater system was “never a (required) mitigation of the original project.” The first owners of the project proposed the idea for a graywater system back in 1993. However, before the building permit was issued, the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District “concluded the graywater system wasn’t needed, and that 4.8 acre-feet per year was more than enough for 78 beds.”

When this information came out, the second owner, Don Houpt, decided not to include the graywater system. Monterey County planners agreed that a graywater system was not needed, signed off on the condition, and issued the building permit. Later, the county supervisors approved the project without a graywater system. However, the supervisors did include a number of new conditions to “make sure the project can’t exceed its water allowance.”

This whole episode shows that no good deed goes unpunished. This ugly incident might cause owners of property never to consider helping the environment again. And why should they – that attitude could be dangerous and end in lawsuits.

The no-growthers are always on the warpath, looking for any reason to stop any growth—no matter if it is smart growth or environmentally friendly. One wonders why these people don’t just bulldoze down their home and live in a high density area—a big city. I mean, shouldn’t they be the change they want to see? But no, they want the satisfaction of feeling environmentally superior without making personal sacrifices in their own neighborhood. It is always easier to condemn others for things we refuse to do ourselves.

UPDATE: June 12, 2011
Cottage of Carmel and CVA

When putting pen to paper, fictionalized stories make great reads. But they should never be confused with non-fiction.

The Carmel Valley Association (CVA) is doing just that. In their recent newsletter, they have charged the owners of Cottages of Carmel with evil intentions and that their assisted-living facility is just for the wealthy—as if our valley resembles the barrios of East Los Angeles.

Actually, a government agency made a mistake and told the owners of this senior complex that no graywater or cistern system was required. The Monterey Herald confirmed this debacle, writing that the “commissioners said county staff bungled project oversight. County staff issued a building permit that ignored the water system requirement after the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District found it wasn't needed.”

If the Cottages of Carmel proprietors can be accused of anything, it’s that they trusted the words from a government agency. Maybe this was why Tim McCormick, Monterey County Director of Building Services, was fired. Maybe he was the one who gave out the misleading information. If only they would fire incompetent bureaucrats more often. Unfortunately, government employees have a habit of giving out inaccurate and conflicting information to the public. We all have to take note of that.

UPDATE: March 25, 2011
Letter-to-the-editor in March 25, 2011 Pine Cone

Manufactured crisis?
Dear editor:

In regards to Christine Williams’ letter
(March 18): Almost no community uses the
traffic-counting methodology her group is
proposing. Then, one wonders why the CVA
keeps asking the county to employ a nonstandard
method to count traffic. It might
have something to do with trying to create
the impression that there is too much development
in Carmel Valley.

But the facts don’t add up to the conclusion
they are trying to prove. For instance,
according to the Monterey County Public
Works Department, traffic on Carmel Valley
Road has been decreasing for the last three
years. As for building, only 103 permits were
issued for new home construction in the last
10 years in Carmel Valley, and only three in
2010. In fact, according to the U.S. census,
our population is declining. In the last
decade, the population of Carmel Valley
Village went down almost 9 percent — more
than 400 residents moved away.

I feel sorry for Christine Williams. Her
group is desperate to show out-of-control
growth in Carmel Valley, but keeps running
headfirst into the hard wall of reality. I guess
the old adage is true: If a crisis is not available,
just try to manufacture one.

Lawrence Samuels, Secretary
Carmel-Carmel Valley Coalition

UPDATE: March 14, 2011

2001 to 2010
Only 103 Permits Issued to Build
New Homes in Carmel Valley

Although the proponents of Carmel Valley incorporation published a slick, full-color flyer claiming that thousands of new homes were ready to be built in Carmel Valley, the record is far short of their lofty allegation. In the last 10 years (2001 to 2010), only 103 permits were issued to build new homes in Carmel Valley—around ten homes per year. Only three permits were issued in 2010. These figures come from the Monterey County Planning Department.

It is very difficult to building in Carmel Valley, and there are only about 700 to 800 vacant lots of record remaining in which the owner might be permitted to build a structure. Even with water, 40 to 50 percent of these lots would fail to qualify for building a permit for various reasons. And it should be noted that these lots cannot be subdivided—one main structure per lot no matter the acreage.

103 Permits to build in CV compiled by Scott Dick, President
Carmel-Carmel Valley Coalition (CCVC)
P.O. Box 402, Carmel Valley, CA 93924

UPDATE: Feb. 22, 2011

The people behind the CV incorporation movement are throwing a Community Traffic Forum this Thursday, Feb. 24 at 7:00 PM at the Carmel Middle School Gym. It is a one-side Forum complaining about the methodology used to determine traffic levels in Carmel Valley--although the traffic methods used in Monterey County's General Plan are the standards employed across the nation. Also, according to Monterey County Public Works Department numbers--the amount of traffic on Carmel Valley Road has decreased for the last three years.

Further, although the proponents of CV incorporation put out slick, full-color flyers claiming that thousands of new homes were ready to be built in Carmel Valley, the record is far short of that mark. In the last 10 years from 2001 to 2010, only 103 permits were issued to build new homes. In 2010, there were only 3 permits issued by the county. The information comes from the Monterey County Planning Department. If you want the report compiled by Scott Dick -- write to CCVC, P.O. Box 402, Carmel Valley, CA 93924. These figures came from the Monterey County Planning Department website.

--Lawrence Samuels

UPDATE: Oct. 24, 2010

Carmel Valley Incorporation: A Train Wreck Avoided
Shortfall of $2.29 Million in Fiscal Year 2011

Report by Tom Adams

Editor Note: November marks the first anniversary of the unsuccessful attempt to incorporate Carmel Valley in 2009. Tom Adams, a financial analyst and media consultant, decided to find out whether this proposed 12-mile-long city would have been financially feasible. He examined tax data for Carmel Valley over the last fiscal year. He looked at revenues collected from sales tax, property tax and the hotel tax (TOT). With data provided by the Monterey County Tax Assessor office, Adams discovered that for the fiscal year 2011, the proposed city of Carmel Valley would have had a $2.29 million shortfall. LAFCO had predicted $10.63 in tax revenues for fiscal 2011, but the actual figure turned out to be $8.34 million.

Property Tax

FY 2011 property taxes were projected by LAFCO to be $3.34m. But the assessed value of property in the CV plan area was $2.9bn in 2010, and the Assessor’s office says we can assume 1% of that is paid in taxes with 10% of that going to the municipality. Assuming the assessor’s -2.5% change estimate “for a number of years” applies to FY 2011, we’re assuming $2.84m in 2011 property tax, a $500k shortfall from LAFCO’s projected $3.34m. We thereafter grow property taxes at 1 percentage point below the projected LAFCO growth rate. That would leave 2020 property taxes at $3.72m, or $1.36m short of LAFCO’s projected $5.08m.

Hotel Tax

TOT taxes were projected by LAFCO to be $2.98m in 2011. Instead, they fell to $2.55m in 2009 and to $1.974m in 2010, according to the county tax collector, with Quail open 4 months and the Ranch running at super-low occupancy for six months. Pull out Quail’s 4 months TOT, and assume occupancy recovers at the Ranch now that its remodel is 90% complete, and 2011 should come in at $1.77m. That’s a gigantic $1.2m shortfall (-41%) from the LAFCO projection. With consumer spending still crimped, assume 2% growth going forward rather than LAFCO 3%. So 2020 TOT would be $2.12m, not LAFCO projected $3.88m, a $1.7m shortfall.

Sales Tax

LAFCO projected $1.85m in 2011 sales taxes, up from FYE June 2008 actuals of $1.6m (page 83 of LAFCO report). County sales-tax receipts were $6.8m that year, and have subsequently declined to $5.4m (-21%). We can assume that declines in the Carmel Valley area were at least as steep with several restaurants and hotels closing or downsizing. But even it they only declined by the same 21% as the county, FY 2010 sales tax receipts in the proposed city would have been $1.26m. Even in the unlikely event that they don’t decline again in FY 2001, sales-tax receipts would be 32% below the LAFCO projections in the city’s first year. Assuming continued weak consumer-spending trends, and therefore annual growth going forward that averages 1 percentage point less than LAFCO’s projected rate, the city would come up $38% short of LAFCO’s $2.41m projection for 2011 at $1.5m.

Total Revenue

The impact of the Great Recession on Carmel Valley’s tax revenues would have been profound. Instead of having $10.63 in revenues in fiscal 2011, the city would have had $8.34, a $2.29m shortfall v. LAFCO projections. In 2020, total revenue would have been $10.35m, not the projected $14.69m, a $4.34m shortfall.

At projected expense levels, LAFCO projected:

The city would run a surplus (after Road Fund deficits) through 2015, and only small deficits thereafter, leaving it with a $3.77m cumulative surplus in 2020. On top of that, the city’s contingency fund would have about $9.1m in it.

As it turns out, the city would have started running deficits in fiscal 2012, even before it had to begin making “mitigation payments” to the county to recompense it for the tax base transferred to the new city. The deficits would have jumped dramatically to $2.57m in 2013 when mitigation payments to the county began. By 2020, the cumulative deficit would have been $29.5m. Of course, rather than building a contingency fund at $1m/year, the city would have devoted the contingency cash to reducing that deficit—but still, the $20.3m cumulative deficit would amount to $4,060 per valley home.

Proponents insisted this debt-ridden-city scenario couldn’t happen, and they are right, since who would loan money to people reckless enough to incorporate during the Great Recession, then militantly refuse to allow development to fill the budget gap? Banks don’t have that kind of forbearance. To avoid going broke, the city council would be forced to not only allow the development contemplated in the county General Plan that is 93% built-out already, as the county might do, but pursue development plans well in excess of what the county’s General Plan would allow. That’s what other peninsula cities are doing. That’s what all cities do.

Report issued on Oct. 13, 2010.

Aug. 28, 2010

The Carmel-Carmel Valley COALITION has just created a new website -- Membership is only $25 per year. The CCVC first newsletter -- Summer edition -- is now available.

Dave Potter’s Ploy -- May 18, 2010

By Lawrence Samuels

According to Nader Agha, the corruption charge filed against Monterey County Supervisor Dave Potter was not dropped for “insufficient evidence,” as reported in the Monterey Herald. Instead, according to Agha's attorney in Sacramento, the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) dropped the investigation of David Potter due to a lack of funds. To save money, FPPC has implemented a policy to investigate charges only if they are less than one year old. All other charges are given low priority status or not pursued at all. Agha filed charges with the FPPC in 2008.

So how did Agha discovered Potter’s ploy? During lunch with a Monterey County Supervisor, the elected official joked that Potter had used Agha’s $10,000 campaign donation for a vacation in Hawaii. Giving little credence to the offhand remark, Agha called the Monterey County Elections office and discovered that his name was indeed not listed on Potter’s 2004 campaign contribution list.

Supervisor Dave Potter was a strong supporter of Measure G – an unpopular and ill-fated incorporation effort to turn Carmel Valley into a City.

May 17, 2010

The May 1 fundraiser and phonathon co-sponsored by the Carmel-Carmel Valley Coalition (CCVC) raised over $5,000 for repairs at the CV Community Center in the Village.

UPDATE: May 1 Fundraiser/Silent Auction to
Repair the CV Community Center

One of the first activities of the newly formed Carmel-Carmel Valley Coalition (CCVC) is to co-sponsor the fundraising/silent auction drive and repairs for the Carmel Valley Community Center in the Village. The first phase of this project is to raise $50,000.

The Carmel Valley Community Center and the CCVC have scheduled a fund raising event:

Saturday, May 1, 2010
Community Center on 25 Ford Road
4:00 PM to 6:00 PM.

Various leaders will shovel the first spade of earth in a ground-breaking ceremony to signify the start of this long-overdue rebuilding project.
Wine, cheese and food will be served during a silent auction.

Although many of the leaders of the CCVC were involved in defeating the CV incorporation measure last November, their main focus is to get involved with local community activities. The Coalition hopes to be an alternative to the Carmel Valley Association by better representing the needs and interests of Carmel Valley and the greater Carmel area.


Kimberly Belleci is President of the Carmel Valley Community Center (a 501(c)(3) charitable organization – 659-3983,
Scott Dick is the President of CCVC (a 503(c)(4) non-profit organization. His home number is 659-9139; his cell is 238-0532; email is

Carmel Valley News (April 1, 2010).

A Recipe for Disaster

Regarding Christine Williams’ letter, a MAC is a bad idea because we don’t have a perfect world. Government committees are notoriously unproductive, seek more controls and interference, and produce an abundance of red tape. The Carmel Valley LUAC has been working on land use issues for decades, but apparently (to Williams), unsuccessfully. Why does anyone think a MAC would be any different?

But the real problem with a MAC is that the people who want to populate its five-member municipal council are pro-cityhood leaders. And, as I have observed during the years, many of these leaders support a political psyche that believes the ends justify the means. And unfortunately, these Machiavellians feel they are privileged to say or do anything as long as it furthers their noble ends – a recipe for disaster.

Generally, the wrong people gravitate to political committees and offices. As a social chaologist, I have noticed that the people who would avoid being busybodies and controlaholics in political positions simply do not run for office. They, like most people in society, simply want to left alone. But politicos are always on the prowl to control society. They have a linear mindset that seeks to interfere with people’s lives because they “know what is best” for society. Of course, they don’t really know what’s best, but they do have the power to force their righteous opinions on others.
We need fewer political committees and politicians, not more. The world is indeed imperfect. And because it is, most politicians and command-based systems are flawed. Maybe this is why politicos have repeatedly failed to make the world a better place. I put my trust in letting people handle their own affairs. To my way of thinking, people should run society, not government.

--Lawrence Samuels

UPDATE: March 1, 2010:

We are perplexed. Did the Carmel Valley Forum break Federal Law? After talking with the Monterey County Elections Board, we discovered that the Carmel Valley Forum raised $15,026 in support of Measure G. In other words, this charitable organization participated in a political campaign that urged Carmel Valley citizens to vote for incorporating Carmel Valley. But wouldn't that be illegal under IRS codes? According to their letterhead, the Carmel Valley Forum is a 501 (c) (3) non-profit, tax-deductible organization, which is prohibited from getting involved in political campaigns.

Interestingly, the CV Forum only spent $2,592. One wonders what happened to the unspent $13,866?

According to National Center for Charitable Statistics (NCCS), the CV Forum had total revenues of $184,586 and total assets of $85,712 in 2008. What projects does this organization fund?

NOTE: According to a local attorney, it may now be possible for 501 (c) (3) charitable organizations to find loopholes in which to engage in political elections and activities.

UPDATE: Cityhood proponents spent $271,000 (Yes on Measure G and Carmel Valley Forum). Opponents spent around $60,000 to $65,000. Reports are available (PDF files) -- Forms 410, 460, 465. Write requests to

Carmel Valley News, Feb., 2010

Municipal Advisory Council Discussed
at Special County Planners Meeting

by Lawrence Samuels

A special meeting on Jan. 6 was held with the Monterey County Planning staff in Salinas to discuss road traffic and future development as they relate to the latest version of the General Plan. Both proponents and opponents of CV cityhood were there in equal numbers. The proponents wanted to explore ways to lower the traffic trigger numbers to stop most development. This seemed like an odd request, since pro-city candidate Karin Strasser Kauffman, during one of the incorporation debates, had argued for more “in-fill development” in Carmel Valley.

As the four County Planners were discussing the General Plan and what it would mean to Carmel Valley residents, the meeting turned to another subject. Cityhood proponents brought up the establishment of a Municipal Adversary Council (MAC).

Kathleen Lee, an aide to Supervisor Dave Potter, said that Potter supported the creation of a MAC in Carmel Valley. Ms. Lee explained to the crowd how to begin the process and get the proposal before the five Supervisors, but that it could take two or three years to complete the process.
At this point Glenn Robinson talked up the advantages of a MAC and said that stronger land-use control was what they really wanted in the first place, and not necessarily a new city. If this were the case, why did city proponents spend almost $250,000 in their cityhood campaign, when they could have spent almost nothing to establish a MAC in a far shorter period of time?

After the proponents of cityhood had their say, a number of incorporation opponents voiced their concerns about establishing a MAC. They argued that since the voters have decided against a city of Carmel Valley, why should the county spend time and money on an organization lead by the losing side of the measure? Another city opponent said that a MAC controlled by the incorporation crowd could easily become a shadow government with five council member seats, serving as a stepping stone to put the incorporation issue back on the ballot.

Cost was another issue. With Monterey County experiencing large deficits for the foreseeable future, a MAC would take considerable taxpayers’ money and county staff time. County staff is already overloaded with resolving the many issues in the 5th version of the General Plan.
Others pointed out that Carmel Valley already has a citizen’s land use organization – Carmel Valley Land Use Advisory Committee (LUAC) and a Carmel Valley Road Committee. So, why re-invent the wheel?

One anti-incorporation leader noted the complete irony in having the Supervisors establish and appoint the pro-city candidates to a MAC. After all, during the campaign, it was the pro-incorporation leaders who repeatedly trashed the Monterey County Supervisors as poor stewards of the valley, careless and clueless leaders, and nefarious shills for out-of-town developers.

Every MAC is different. Will this one have a budget to put out expensive, but biased newsletters? Will this MAC have some binding authority? Will the five positions be appointed by the Monterey County Supervisors or elected? And will the council members be appointed or elected at large or by district?
The discussion meeting ended with no action taken. The aide suggested that the MAC proponents clarify their desires and complete the required paperwork before bringing the issue up again.

THE VOTERS DECIDED: Measure G Defeated on Nov. 3, 2009
Proponents Outspent the Opposition by Seven to One

As reported in the Monterey Herald, the proponents of Carmel Valley cityhood (Measure G) raised over $220,000 a week or so before the election. This is more than seven times the $30,000 raised by the opponents. Final figures are probably much higher – perhaps $250,000 to $300,000 raised by the proponents – some of it from as far away as Washington state and San Francisco. One contribution to the incorporation proponents was over $30,000.

Considering how much money was spent by the advocates of a city, along with their large campaign headquarters manned by a paid campaign manager and staff (which opponents did not have), it seems like a miracle that we were able to defeat Measure G.

The total cost for the push to incorporated Carmel Valley was over $500,000 – some $250,000 shelled out for feasibility studies and the legal process to get on the ballot, and then another $250,000 for the Yes on G campaign. This means that the cost of the 2,500 votes that favored Measure G comes to an astounding $200 per vote. Why would anyone spend this kind of money for an administrative change? What hidden agendas are being concealed?

The proponents of cityhood ran a Chicago-like political machine, but failed to overcome the underfunded and grassroots organization of the opponents. Ironically, the Measure G campaign attacked us throughout the campaign for having loads of money and being in bed with powerful special interest groups, although cityhood advocates had many special interests on their side – a host of politicians, political organizations and developers.

The effort to turn a 12-mile long section of Carmel Valley into a city was an attempt by the political elite to gain more political power with five additional politicians and another layer of government. This battle was neither over the well-being of Carmel Valley residents nor over keeping our valley rural. This was a battle over expanding control over the citizenry by a more centralized and micro-managing group of political insiders and ideologues – the same politicos who have caused much of the financial turmoil and deficits that now plague California and the nation.

Congratulations to everyone who helped defeat this measure.

Anti-incorporation Slate of Candidates
Vote NO on Measure G


Thomas C. White, III, Ph.D., CPA is an associate professor of accounting and taxation at the College of Charleston, Charleston, South Carolina. He is the former treasurer/tax collector of Monterey County. White has authored two texts on understanding financial statements.

Lawrence Samuels – The editor and contributing author of Facets of Liberty, he was elected Chair to the Project Area Committee (PAC), a citizens committee to advise the Seaside Redevelopment Agency and the city of Seaside over eminent domain issues. He is the author of a forthcoming book, In Defense of Chaos: the Chaology of Politics, Economics and Human Action. Samuels is the winner of the 2007 Karl Bray Memorial Award. More information:;

Michael Addison, business owner/entrepreneur, MSEE-Stanford University 1959-1964; MBA-Harvard 1972-1974; US Navy Submarine Force -- nuclear (Chief Engineer) 1964-1970; Bechtel Corp. – Nuclear Engineer, 1970-72; principal and CEO of various small companies; VP Finance-Congregation Beth Israel; past president-Prado Del Sol Homeowners Association; member-CV Rotary.

Lee Lightfoot, A graduate of Carmel High School, he is works in the local wine making industry.

Scott Dick - A retired army officer, has worked as a political and military analyst with two decades of experience in government. He has a BA in Psychology (Phi Beta Kappa) and an MA in International Relations from Columbia University and is a graduate of the US Army's Combined Arms Services Staff School and the Command and General Staff College. As an Armor officer and Foreign Area Officer, he has led or commanded 6 to 300 personnel and managed budgets in the millions of dollars. As a young enlisted Marine machine gunner he participated in the evacuation of Saigon in 1975 (Operation Frequent Wind) and as an Army officer he was the assistant political advisor to the 1st Armored Division's commanding general during the first US presence in Bosnia (IFOR '95-'96), was the Operations Officer for a military community of 6,000 active duty military and their families stationed in Bad Kreuznach, Germany and has worked in Luxembourg, Germany and Spain. He now hosts a daily, 2-hour evening talk show on KRXA-AM providing news, interviews, commentary and analysis.

Jacob Odello, graduated from Carmel High in June of 2009. He is now attending the University of the Pacific in Stockton, and is willing to come home if elected. --;

Ernie Bizzozero – A retired Coast Guard Captain, he earned a BS in Business Administration from Boston College, graduating in 1956. Ernie is president of the Carmel Views Community Association and a member of the Ft. Ord Retiree Council.

"Savva" Vassiliev, writer and actor – A graduate of Carmel High School, he is planning to run for the 27th Assembly District in 2010 under the Libertarian Party banner.


Dear friend:

If it isn’t broken, why fix it? Carmel Valley is not perfect, but it is certainly not broken. Improvements will not magically take place by creating a shiny-new city with an expanding bureaucracy, higher taxes and more smooth-talking politicians.

In an era when the U.S. Congress has an approval rating of only nine percent, there is a small but powerful group of Carmel Valley residents determined to have a 39-square mile City with all the trimmings. They want five more politicians, a full-blown city staff and code enforcers who will have greater authority over our lives and what we do with our property. And they say that all this will not cost one dime more.

Where is their proof? They have a number of feasibility reports (paid for by themselves) which say everything will be hunky-dory. But the data are old and stale -- first published six years ago with minor revisions since. With the closing of Quail Lodge, the exclusion of Tehama, and falling property values, the city will be bankrupt before it gets started. Where will new revenues come from? Obviously, from taxpayers. Rest assured, if taxpayers balk at paying higher sales and property taxes, city politicians will threaten that without additional tax revenues, police and fire services will be severely cut. This is how the political revenue game is played.

But what the Cityhood proponents have ignored most is the law of unintentional consequences. Nothing ever really works out the way it is planned. The creation of a new government entity always unleashes a Pandora’s Box of unforeseeable money problems and headaches. How do we know? Just look at the other cities.

Currently, most of Monterey County’s cities are experiencing anything but bliss. They are confronted with petty bickering, serious budget problems, boisterous infighting, special interests, sex scandals, sudden resignation, recall movements, labor disputes, tax increase measures, and the bankruptcy blues. Why trade in the calm of country living for the political turmoil of a City?

And what about all of those unfunded mandates that cities are required to carry out? “Caballero, (former) mayor of Salinas, Monterey County's largest city, said a city ‘has a lot of obligations that unincorporated areas don't,’ including providing public facilities for meetings and city business, meeting affordable housing quotas, cleaning up any runoff water from storm drains, holding elections and paying for programs the state requires but doesn't fund.”*

It does not take a rocket scientist to see that city services always cost more. As the Aug. 21 Carmel Pine Cone editorial noted, “adding a new layer of government invariably increases government expenditures.” City living can be expensive, unpleasant and frustrating, especially when trying to fight City Hall. That is why many of us moved to the country. Even one of the biggest Cityhood proponents, Karen Strasser Kauffman, echoed this sentiment in 1989, saying: “If you want to live in the country, then you are properly in the County rather than a city.”

Moreover, many of us have seen city redevelopment agencies confiscate private land and give it to private developers in order to increase city coffers – as has happened in almost every Monterey County city. We have seen hotels and strip malls proposed and built to keep cities from going bankrupt. We have seen city officials give sweetheart deals to their favorite developers. We have read about the dire financial straits of cities that have overspent like drunken sailors. And because of this addiction to spending, many municipalities are forced to tack on higher fees, increase business licenses, issue more city bonds and debt, flirt with parking meters, and repeatedly put sale tax hikes on the ballot.

Your donation today will help us stop this hostile takeover of Carmel Valley by the political elite. Together, we can prevent a future financial train wreck from derailing the rural character of Carmel Valley, as has happened to so many communities across California. If we don’t stop this city today, it will likely cost far more tomorrow. Please help us keep Carmel Valley rural. Please donate as much as you can possibly afford, and Vote No on Measure G.

Save and Protect Carmel Valley – No on G
P.O. Box 22231
Carmel, CA 93922

For more information or to request lawn signs and bumper-stickers, please see our website at If you wish to remain anonymous, any donation of $99 or less is not reportable by law. (FPPC #1320169)

*Monterey Herald, Kevin Howe, “Cityhood proponents face new Hurdle,” Jan. 25, 2005.


Carmel Valley California is a sublime pastoral river valley nestled into the towering Santa Lucia range, and is one of the finest wine growing regions in California. The main artery is Carmel Valley Road, which starts at Scenic Highway 1 and meanders eastward, winding along Carmel River past endless opportunities for recreation, entertainment sumptuous food and premier wine tasting. In Carmel valley you will find three championship golf courses, several world-class resorts as well as quaint country inns.

Carmel Valley is home to Garland Ranch Regional Park’s 4,000+ acres, open for day-use activities, known for excellent mountain trails for hiking, biking and horseback riding along the willow-lined banks of the Carmel River. In Carmel Valley one sees working horse ranches, many offering clinic English and Western riding, Hunter/Jumper and Dressage, Sulky and Carriage Driving.

Thirteen miles up Carmel valley from Highway 1 is the quiet country Carmel Valley Village with its fine dining, wine tasting, antique shops and art galleries. This is where folk singer Joan Baez led the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s and 1970s from her nearby Miramonte ranch. Celebrities galore have visited Carmel Valley dating back to the 1890s when the Del Monte Lodge used the old Rancho Los Laureles as a guest lodge.

Until WWII, many millionaire sportsmen built mansions in the Carmel Valley and invited their Hollywood friends to hunt boar in the hills, play polo and golf, and attend horse shows and fiestas. To this day several luminaries have made their homes here including actress Doris Day and entertainer Merv Griffin. Celebrity weddings and receptions are also the norm in the valley.

"Sunny" Carmel Valley enjoys the moderately warm temperatures year round, with an average high of 71 degrees Fahrenheit in the summer, 61 in the winter and 78 in September and October (Indian Summer—the best weather of the year). Carmel Valley has earned its “Sunny” name because its neighbors to the west, Carmel-by-the-Sea, Pacific Grove and Monterey are known for dense fog when the weather warms up. Families have found Carmel Valley an ideal place to raise their children because of the weather, good schools, and the fact that it is considered a "safe" environment away from urban crime.”

Proprietary php/sql by

Last Updated: Oct 11, 12

Most Recent

Final Results Nov. 13, 2009 --Measure G Defeated by 52.52% to 47.48%

Yard Signs and/or Bumper-stickersGet Them While They’re Fresh!FREE! Call Lawrence at 831-238-5058 ...

Poll: Many Oppose C.V. Incorporation

SURVEY CARDS mailed to residents at the mouth of Carmel Valley have a resounding “no...

Irvine to be Flooded with Afforable Housing?

Erika Chavez, Staff WriterOrange County RegisterDespite lawsuits and appeals, the City of Irvine is ...

Housing Mandates in California

By Lawrence SamuelsIn 2002, the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) determined the ...