Save Carmel Valley . org - Financially Viable?

Click Analysis

Financially Viable?

Carmel Pine Cone -- Sept. 18, 2009

Dear Editor,

Proponents of incorporation have always concurred that
the new municipality is not financially viable without including
the shopping centers and hotel located next to Highway
1. But this meant that neighborhoods in the lower valley and
at the mouth would be cut away from their historic community
identity, which is the Greater Carmel Area. Residents are
understandably against being forced into identification with
a civic and commercial center 11 miles to the east in Carmel
Valley Village.

As a lifelong resident of the valley and 30-year resident of
the Village, I can respectfully say that the feeling is mutual.
It is my contention that starting with the loss of our Bank of
America branch and other key community institutions, the
village has been in a steady decline for the past 25 to 30
years. This is largely due to the trend toward consolidation of
the valley in the mid-valley area. As evidenced by our fire
and school districts, the greater Carmel area, which in many
minds includes the mid-valley area, has a tendency to dominate
valley politics. It has been close to 20 years since we had
a CUSD trustee with a 93924 address.

The Carmel Valley Master Plan Area is just that, a planning
area. It is not a community. It is made up of distinct
communities which must retain their historic social, cultural,
civic and commercial identities. In my opinion, the LAFCO
process was found to be wholly inadequate in exploring this
dynamic. But, lucky for the proponents, this proposal will
never need LAFCO approval again. That means, should
Measure G fail, they will be able to bring the question back,
albeit with new fiscal analysis and revenue neutrality agreements,
in two years, or sooner if LAFCO finds this restriction
would be “detrimental to the public interest.” With this in
mind, it is prudent for voters to say, “No,” to incorporation at
this time. If proponents can adequately resolve issues
LAFCO could not, they can try the voters again.

Paul J. Ingram,
Carmel Valley

Last Updated: Sep 18, 09

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 ...