Monday, December 2, 2013

Important New Website: Stop the Monastery Housing Project & Preserve the Mater Dolorosa Monastery

.
Mod: I don't know if you have seen it yet, but there is an important new website in town. Called STOP the Monastery Housing Project and Preserve the Mater Dolorosa Monastery, you can link to it by clicking here. As far as I can tell, this site came into existence on November 26, and it is already attracting quite a lot of attention. I have yet to meet the people behind this effort, but their organizing work so far has been nothing short of remarkable. Full page ads appeared this weekend in the Pasadena Star News and Mountain Views News, community meetings have been held, the website we are talking about today got up and running in less than two weeks, and yard signs! Nothing says "really serious" more loudly than yard signs. I got my order in … In the spirit of spreading the word, we are relaying their Nov 26 message here. As the owner of a website that has as its core mission the preservation of this town and protecting such Sierra Madre treasures as the Mater Dolorosa Monastery, I am going to want to help in this effort any way that I can. You should as well.

Stop The Mater Dolorosa Housing Project
As you read this, a proposal is moving forward to sell a significant portion of the Mater Dolorosa Monastery to a developer to build a housing project.  This project must be stopped before it’s too late.  The project itself will require a zoning change from institutional to residential.

For most of us, we first heard the news of this project in the Mountain Views News article of November 16th entitled: "Mater Dolorosa Retreat Center Contemplating Housing Project." Only after this news was leaked out did the Monastery send out a letter on November 19th to nearby residents to inform them of this development.

Since then, there has been a groundswell of concern and shock, that this 88 acre oasis of beauty is about to be carved up, sold to a developer and lost forever.  Amidst the increasingly frenetic pace of modern life, do we really want to lose this beautiful property with its majestic vistas and open space to another unnecessary housing project?

What makes this property special is the buffer of land separating the Monastery structures from the hustle and bustle of modern life.  Without that buffer, the essence of this property will be ruined.

WE NEED YOUR HELP!!!!!
If you have ever taken a walk on the Monastery grounds and enjoyed its natural beauty, we need your help!

If you are from a nearby Parish and have ever taken a retreat there and enjoyed the solitude and spirituality of this unique place, we need your help!

If you are a long-time Sierra Madre resident who fondly remembers the annual Fiesta and other events held at the Monastery, we need your help!· If you are a Catholic or non-Catholic who has ever made the annual pilgrimage on Good Friday and followed the Stations of the Cross, we need your help!

If you simply live in Sierra Madre and want to preserve 88 acres that has been a city landmark since 1926 and a refuge for a wide array of wildlife, we need your help!

If you are a homeowner living near the Monastery and don’t want to endure a lengthy construction project lasting for years with caravans of noisy, smelly, grinding trucks parading up to the once tranquil grounds only to end up with increased traffic and congestion, widened streets, a significant decline in your property values, and maybe Sierra Madre's first traffic light, we need your help!

HOW CAN YOU HELP?
Send us your email address so that we can contact you and give you the latest information and news alerts. (The email address is Savemonastery@gmail.com)

Email us and ask for a “Stop the Monastery Housing Project!” yard sign.

Call the Mater Delorosa Monastery at 626-355-7188, Archbishop Gomez at 213-637-7534 and Father Donald Webber at 773-631-6336. Share with them what the Monastery has meant to you.

Contact your Sierra Madre City Council members and let them know how you feel.

Contact everyone you know who may share your concerns about this project.

If you have any special expertise that you can lend to the cause, let us know. We are interested in retaining formal legal representation to assist us in our efforts.

(Mod: One thing that I would like to add here. I have heard from several sources now that those presently living at the Mater Dolorosa Monastery have precious little to do with the sale of this land. Nor are they particularly thrilled about it. Apparently this is coming down from the top. Why the Office of Archbishop Gomez should be so keen on receiving the relatively few millions of dollars it would realize from the sale of this land, and at the cost of radically despoiling one of its great treasures, escapes me.)

http://sierramadretattler.blogspot.com

74 comments:

  1. So far the Catholic Clergy has paid over 3 Billion for the continual sexual abuse of children.
    Many did not receive specie payments:

    • Santa Rosa CA • 3 nonmonetary terms 2000-03-15
    Accused priest was Rev. Donald Kimball. For more information on this Santa Rosa settlement, see below.


    • Los Angeles CA • 11 nonmonetary terms 2000-12-04 Plaintiff was Ryan DiMaria; accused priest was Msgr. Michael A. Harris. For more information on this Los Angeles settlement, see below.

    • Toledo OH • 5 nonmonetary terms 2004-07-03 Plaintiffs were William and Scott Clarr; accused priest was Rev. Bernard Kokocinski. For more information on this Toledo settlement, see below.

    • Jackson MS • 5 nonmonetary terms 2006-03-16 Lead plaintiff was Kenneth Morrison; accused priests were Broussard, Kirchner, Haddican, et al. For more information on this Jackson settlement, see below.

    • Spokane WA • 7 nonmonetary terms 2007-01-05 For more information on this Spokane settlement, see below.

    • Davenport IA

    • 17 nonmonetary terms 2008-02-01 For more information on this Davenport settlement, see below.

    • Chicago IA • 2 nonmonetary terms 2008-08-12 Deposition and document release. For more information on this Chicago settlement, see below.

    • Kansas City-St. Joseph MO • 19 nonmonetary terms 2008-08-19 For more information on this Kansas City-St. Joseph settlement, see below.

    • Indianapolis IN • 7 nonmonetary terms 2010-05-03 For more information on this Indianapolis settlement, see below.

    • Wilmington DE • 11 nonmonetary terms relating to document release
    • 18 nonmonetary terms relating to matters other than document release 2011-02-02

    • Wilmington-Philadelphia Province of the Oblates of St. Francis de Sales • 17 nonmonetary terms 2011-08-04

    We will be just fine without a large Catholic retreat.
    Neuroblast Films
    http://www.bishop-accountability.org/settlements/

    ReplyDelete
  2. Catholic Church Settles Sex Abuse Case Wednesday, Nov 27, 2013 has left a new comment on your post "Important New Website: Stop the Monastery Housing ...":

    Wednesday, Nov 27, 2013
    The archdiocese has agreed to pay the now 20-year-old man $2.3 million in the case involving former priest Daniel McCormack.


    http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Catholic-Church-Settles-Sex-Abuse-Case-233536361.html

    ReplyDelete
  3. Minnetonka priest’s tenant is ex-priest who abused teen has left a new comment on your post "Important New Website: Stop the Monastery Housing ...":

    If this wasn't in the news everyday...

    November 20, 2013
    Minnetonka priest’s tenant is ex-priest who abused teen

    ReplyDelete
  4. Map: Exploring the Priest Abuse Scandal in L.A.
    The map displays information on all 128 priests whose files were released in January 2013.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You can not walk on the grounds any more they have been fenced in many months ago

    ReplyDelete
  6. The people that want to stop the development can...If the property is for sale, work out a purchase.
    Cheaper than another lawsuit to stop the development. Look where #1 Carter has gotten us. A brunch of empty dusty lots and a road to nowhere.
    The biggest issue will be the City, they want development for a larger tax base. The City does Not support our businesses because the City Manager only feels that with are a property tax base city. That is why Josh Moran has basically stated the seniors are just one foot in the grave, the City just has to wait for old people to die or put into ALF their property is sold and the City will just be fine. That is why the City needs the UUT until 2020.
    It needs to start with the City, tax exemptions for the Monastery.
    It Ends with the City Manager... but again she does need her pension paid and the City needs more money to pay it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Monastery is all ready tax exempt. All land owned by religious organizations is tax exempt. If Congregational and Bethany and Saint Rita's and the Episcopal church were paying property taxes, the town would be in much better economic shape.

      Delete
    2. So 9:59, you support this land being sold so property taxes will be collected? I'm confused.

      Delete
    3. The City wants to collect development impact fees. At this point they're so strapped for cash they'd probably sign off on a trash incinerator. Which, of course, they would tell us is green.

      Delete
    4. 9:59? 9:59? Bueller?, Bueller??

      Delete
    5. January 29, 2004:
      As reported by the Associated Press, Sen. Clinton said, "Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

      Delete
  7. What's going on with the deleted comments this morning?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Wouldn't it be a good idea to get in touch with the arch diocese and communicate with them? The only thing the City can do is control the development ( witness One Carter), not stop it. If you really want to stop it, communicate with the land owner and perhaps start a fund to purchase it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. How can the City even consider another development. We do Not have the Water... All one has to do is drink the crap the City is feeding us. Make an ice cube, drink it if you can. The City raised our rates X 3 now wants to double that rate, when now I have to pay for bottled water, manually making ice, and saving the cold water while waiting for the hot water just to water my plants . Yep excellent City government at its finest.
    When do we finally wake up from this nightmare. Not until we have new management and direction.

    ReplyDelete
  10. no need to waste your time calling the Council, we've got a mortgage salesman with family in the real estate business, which way you think he's leaning?

    ReplyDelete

  11. lol, I saw a sign at a house that when Measure V was going on, the same family said something to the effect that they really didnt worry about downtown development because it wasn't by their house

    payback

    ReplyDelete
  12. It is easy to stop... do not change to zoning.

    ReplyDelete
  13. where is Greg Gantelly when we need him?

    ReplyDelete
  14. except we do know it will be three council members for the development / zoning change and two against

    ReplyDelete
  15. People get involved when it will impact them directly. That's one of the problems here - lots of words about preservation and small town, not so many actions.
    This effort could work, with around 12-15 thousand dollars and lots of foot soldiers carrying petitions door to door.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gosh, not too long ago there was a large multi-story building on this part of the monastery lot. It's not there anymore because of an earthquake. If that very large building and all the folks that used it did not bother the neighbors then, why do you all suddenly believe that that parcel should remain vacant into perpetuity?

      Delete
    2. 1 building versus 40 tightly packed SCAG houses? Big difference, pal.

      Delete
    3. I think people might want to think of what can be built there under the INST. zone , I think the houses are a much better choice

      Delete
    4. Take another look at how large that building was. Convenient memory lapse, tho.

      Delete
    5. I hear it was larger than the World Trade Center. Or even bigger!

      Delete
    6. Minimum lot size for housing on this site is 11,500 square feet. That's 4 houses per acre, maximum. Not exactly "packed in".

      Delete
    7. Most hilarious post today!

      Delete
  16. That's a council decision, and there's nothing easy about getting this council to make the right votes.

    ReplyDelete
  17. It was always the intention to sell that land one day. But maybe the water hook-up made the time ripe for the picking, as well as the market upswing.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Fellow travelers to be treated with equal disdain

    ReplyDelete
  19. My apologies this morning. I deleted a bunch of comments by mistake. I put as many back as I could, but it is pretty jumbled. Yesterday's post fared no better.

    ReplyDelete
  20. To the moderator: Maybe your conscious is bothering you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, saving the monastery would be a very bad thing to do.

      Delete
    2. The Monastery will still be there just on a smaller piece of land

      Delete
    3. It will make a very quaint backyard.

      Delete
    4. The neighborhood kids will swim in the fountain.

      Delete
    5. I believe the monastery is trying to do just that: guarantee a way that they can continue to exist. It is their private property and they have a right to sell it.

      Delete
    6. Dear 12:38
      You're wrong, they aren't allowed to sell it!

      Sincerely,
      Mr. NIMBY

      Delete
  21. This is far from virgin land , No trees will have to be cut, No grading to speak of ,No people to displace,No animals to displace and it has been built on before . The house that are below it were not there when I moved here , they were a development just like the one that is being protested . Sounds like a case of NIMBYism to me

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There will be animals displaced. And the wildlife already lost big at Stonehouse and Carter.

      Delete
    2. Sounds more like a LULU to me, 11:18. Locally Unwanted Land Usage.

      Delete
    3. 11:18 - there has never been a development on that site. just an old building that fell down. Your nose is getting so long you won;t be able to reach your keyboard anymore.

      Delete
    4. I didn't know there's a deal where if your yard backed up to the Monastery, that you were guaranteed they would never build.

      Was that a deed restriction? Wish I'd known about that, I would have bought over there, too. Darn.

      Delete
    5. 11:52 is suffering from Too Many Donuts Syndrome.

      Delete
    6. 11;48 you did not read my post I said the houses below were a development , also it was not a old building that fell down but a very large building damaged in a earthquake that they chose to take down rather than fix up

      Delete
    7. 11:37 what animials Gophers and rodents

      Delete
    8. 1:01 - who cares? You really think your BS matters? Or that it is being taken seriously?

      Delete
  22. Anybody notice that the monastery news came down AFTER the SGVMWD hook up was complete? Coincidence?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow! Captain Obvious what other titillating insights will you bestow on us?

      Delete
    2. No problem. Captain Oblivious.

      Delete
  23. Money, money, money, we're talking about money here. The development industry exists solely to make the biggest profit possible. There is no common good or community well being. There is only money. If the developers cannot build what they want to maximize their profits, they will not buy. Can their well known greed and unscrupulousness can be used against them?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “The common good” is a meaningless concept, unless taken literally, in which case its only possible meaning is: the sum of the good of all the individual men involved. But in that case, the concept is meaningless as a moral criterion: it leaves open the question of what is the good of individual men and how does one determine it?

      (Credit to http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/common_good.html).

      Delete
    2. currently the "common good" is determined by centrally planned governments.

      Delete
    3. True 12:35. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Anything can be abused.

      Delete
    4. The Central Planning Bureaucracy is here to save the world.

      Delete
    5. The UUT is for the common good, too. Pay up. Enjoy your services.

      Delete
    6. "Common good" is just one of those Orwellian terms the planning authorities use. Like "sustainability." means nothing.

      Delete
    7. Welcome to Capitalistic society, democracy went out the window decades ago, wise up!

      Delete
    8. Welcome to the community that shuts down little pissant developers. Go ask your Uncle Bart about Measure V.

      Delete
  24. Anybody notice that a rep from the Monastery was present at most GPU committee meetings? Those who think it would be a good idea to have 40 homes packed into this area should think about what the traffic on Sunnyside will be like and what impact this will be for water (the MWD is already hurting for water and it won't be long before all areas will be on rationing), plus losing some prime open space. This area is supposed to be a retreat, not a facility in the middle of a housing project. Look at the tiny lots at Carter 1 that are practically unbuildable and imagine what it will be if we have two areas like this. If the project was for, say, 20 homes, this would be livable. Forty homes? I think not.
    Or, start a movement for our conservancy to purchase the land. I'm in for a few hundred.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Living at the other end of "developers paradise" we will strongly oppose any development of the Monastary Property. We hope you and all so motivated will confront the development of Stonegate an off shoot of the 1 Carter failed attempt as well. These projects need to be stopped in their tracks before our "shangrala in the middle of LA" is decimated and becomes a nighmare.

    ReplyDelete
  26. We obviously have pro-development posts today. Great! Useful. Can be very informative for the people who are trying to preserve the land. Shows you the thinking of the let's-always-develop folks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Slow day at the realty office I guess.

      Delete
  27. I do not think they are Pro development posts ! It is about property rights , attention Republicans and Tea Party and Libertarians
    who are posting

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Community rights is also a conservative cause. The confiscation of planning rights by the Demmy crooks in Sacramento is a big issue. That's why we have RHNA numbers and SCAG. Keep up with us, Steve!

      Delete
  28. Sierra Madre's lost child.

    ReplyDelete
  29. The property rights issues will be a very important to consider and balance with density, zoning and environment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Property rights always sounds good. Hard working guy gets to do what he likes with his own property. But then it becomes the justification to jam 40 SCAG houses on a small chunk of land.

      Delete
    2. A ballot measure sounds like a good idea if we want to preserve the land. You would have to figure that a developer would pay about 30% on land value. 40 homes at $1.5MM = $60MM

      Delete
  30. Have the property declared "wilderness." Problem solved.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Steve yes the chosen one.December 2, 2013 at 5:30 PM

    John - calling and bothering Bishop Gomez is pointless. He is the Diocese Bishop. The Monestary doesn't answer to him. They are of the Passionate Order. Secondly- if you are taking a walk on the beautiful property enjoying the wildlife and scenery you need to stop. Its PRIVATE property. Third Sierra Madre is not a private community. If you want to make it a private community then you all need to pay HOA dues. It is sad to know that the time has come to sell the property for its best use. Taxes and the high cost of maintenance has pushed it to its end. If you readers and NIMBYS want this property to remain as existing, then get together and purchase it from them and turn it into a refuge or park for all to enjoy. You all had your chance with One Carter but seems as though people here in town don't put there dollars where their mouths are.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Steve is alien to three things:
      1) Reality
      2) A spell check.
      3) 5th grade grammar

      Delete
    2. This is good information, Steve. Open space has no intrinsic value when it comes to the almighty dollar, and owners of properties like this eventually end up subdividing it off, just like all those old estates in England. Nobody can afford it, unless the local folks get together and somehow fund it for park land. Perhaps a Federal or State grant? The land is now documented for a use that will have to change, because it's informed by the General Plan. And a change of that size should involve the community. Unfortunately, the City has been responsible for shafting many of the residents of the community in the chase after the almighty dollar because of insanity in past fiscal management. This is where the community needs to find some "angels" who have Foundations that fund open space startup acquistions. It's a huge amount of work, but you've got a City here that's not interested in the interests of the residents. They need to take it back to protect their homes.

      Delete

The Tattler is a moderated blog. Annoying delays when posting comments can happen. Thank you for your patience and understanding.