Sunset Center

Editor’s note: Last week the Herald misquoted what Susan Prest, chair of the Board of Trustees of the Sunset Center, said concerning affordable housing in Carmel during a ceremony at the Center. Here is Prest’s full statement on the issue:

“Carmel-by-the-Sea’s City Council voted to adopt the current version of the Housing Element to meet the state’s filing deadline. This version includes the Sunset Center’s north and south parking lots as potential sites for affordable housing.

“We all share a concern about the future of the Sunset Center, the crown jewel of our city. But, if the city had not voted to submit a plan that included the Sunset Center parking lots at this time, the city would have been subject to various fines and penalties from the state, including the Builder’s Remedy provision in which a developer could build affordable housing projects on private property with no input from the city, the Sunset Center, or other concerned citizens.

“Keeping the Sunset Center on the list of potential sites is the only way to protect Carmel-by-the-Sea while the city and its citizens work diligently to find other sites in the city which could reduce or even remove the need for affordable housing at the Sunset Center.

“The city and the Sunset Center will be collaborating with the concerned citizens of our community to protect this unique and special property. We are confident that over the next 20 years and beyond, the Sunset Center will continue to be a vibrant cultural center offering performance, variety, and quality. Our programs will spark economic vitality and tourism.

“We will position SCC as a premiere cultural center for both the Central Coast and the greater San Francisco Bay region. Our programs will contribute to Carmel’s reputation as a must-see destination. I am optimistic about a positive outcome for us all.”

Gas prices

It’s time to phase out California’s expensive “summer blend” of gasoline. When first mandated there were still hundreds of thousands of older cars (1960s & 1970s) on our roads — today those cars are gone and those remaining are owned by hobbyists and collectors and are driven sparingly. Over time new vehicle emissions have become cleaner and the ever increasing numbers of hybrids and EVs on our roads are contributing to a lessening need for this special formulation of gasoline. By the way, we should also rescind the special California-only catalytic converters for the same reason. California motorists pay two to four times the price for replacement catalytic converters than what drivers in other states pay. Let’s get California in step with the rest of the nation and give our income stressed working families a break at the gas pump and at the repair shop.

— Mark Carbonaro, Monterey

Monterey Rec Trail

Hey Recreation Trail users! If you are tired of the chaos on the Wharf to Aquarium Trail section, if using it on busy days scares you and gives you fear of a collision with a bike or surrey or E-Bike or, if you’re a rider, you fear hitting someone, separate lanes for all the wheels could soon end your anxiety there. The Neighborhood-Community Improvement Program (NCIP) is currently evaluating a project proposal to fund re-striping to give pedestrians and bikes their own separate lanes and adding a new side lane without bikes, for pedestrians and disabled folks. If you support this change, speak up, or it may not happen. Message NCIP committee members telling them to vote for separate lanes. Email NCIP at: engineeringadmin@monterey.org

Google NCIP Monterey for their website, and zoom or attend meetings. The vote is at 6 p.m. June 6 at City Hall.

— J D Wachs, Carmel Valley

Government deadlock

I have been following the seeming consternation regarding the state of Arizona accepting an 1864 law regarding abortion which punishes anyone assisting with an abortion with 2-5 years of jail time.

Without taking sides with either the pro-lifers or the pro-choicers, I find it interesting that we seem to have no problem with issues like the Second Amendment which was enacted in 1791. Clearly that amendment pertained more to muskets or flintlock pistols and obviously preceded the invention of automatic and assault firearms.

This country has had multiple references trying to address historically outdated legislation. So why the focus on this one now?

It would likely benefit all of this country’s citizenry if the legislation enacted in remote centuries could be more meaningfully updated to reflect current conditions, but given our current governing bodys’ inability to act, where any form of cooperation and/or compromise are seemingly impossible, rewrites are just not going to happen.

— Bob Cushing, Carmel