“MARLENE BREENE (incumbent)
”Our Parkland is sacred and should never be sold. Parkland areas were actually allocated within PVE before the streets, commercial areas, and building lots were designed. I remember when the MOU transactions went down, the public notifications were very sketchy and confusing. It appeared to be a done deal. Later when studying the MOU situation in detail I was floored that a resident was essentially allowed to buy his way out of encroachments at the expense of our parklands. I commend John Harbison for righting a wrong and setting a precedent for protecting our parklands now and into the future.””

“GAYNE BRENNEMAN
”Absolutely not. I was, and am still, 100% against selling parkland - period. PVE is known for its parkland, and every inch is precious and worthy of protection and supported the fight to protect and reclaim what had been sold.

All current resolutions and any By-Law considerations should only serve to strengthen that position.””

“DICK FAY (incumbent)
”This question to me is somewhat unfair as I was not on the Board and am not privy to the arguments in favor. The City Council and the PVHA Board did vote unanimously in favor so there must have been a strong case in support.

However I am almost certain that I would have demanded more publicity and community input before voting. Not notifying the neighbors of the sold parkland was a complete dereliction of duty on the part of at least the city. I believe that community opposition to the scheme would have defeated it.

When I was aware of what was done and how we were all kept in the dark, I sent a letter to the PVHA Board voicing my opposition and spoke against rezoning the parkland at the Planning Commission and City Council. I also argued at the City and the PVHA against the filing of the losing appeals. I was an early member of the Committee to Enforce Parkland Covenants. Lastly, It is still a mystery to me why the PVHA settled a case they had won in lower court with a settlement that was beyond their authority.””

“JOHN HARBISON
”I would have strongly opposed the selling of any parkland, since such a sale violated the underlying deed restrictions and ran counter to the mission of the PVHA. When I became aware of the sale in January 2013, I organized an effort to reverse the illegal sale; I tried to convince the PVHA and City Council on why the sale violated the CC&Rs and specifically the deed restrictions. In May 2013, having failed to persuade the City and PVHA, I formed CEPC (Citizens for Enforcement of Protective Covenants) and filed a lawsuit. I did not take that action lightly, since it was the first lawsuit I had either initiated or been part of. But I felt it was my civic duty to do so since it was essential to eliminate this dangerous precedent which put all 600+ acres of deed restricted parklands at risk. Over the following five years, I invested over 1000 hours of my time in the effort; but it was worthwhile since the Superior Court ruled in our favor and the ruling was upheld on appeal. Never before had any parkland been sold, and now, as a result of the litigation and settlement, it will never happen again. For more information on CEPC and the case, see www.pveopenspace.com.””

“L. RIED SCHOTT
”No. There was insufficient notice about the MOU in advance. However, when the purchaser of Parkland went to the City Council to change the Parkland zoning from Open Space to Residential, the details and concerns of the MOU became better known. I also became familiar with the deed restrictions on Parklands, and did not understand how a sale of Parkland could occur. When I expressed my concerns to Mayor Byrd, he explained he was simply following the wishes of the PVHA. When I asked the PVHA about this, they said they were simply following the wishes of the City. Neither side wanted to accept the responsibility for the decision to sell Parkland, but each was willing to waste hundreds of thousands of dollars of our money in legal fees to defend both the original litigation, and make an appeal on an act that was illegal. Over the past few years, I supported the efforts against the sale of Parklands. The final settlement agreement, of which I was a part, was not ideal, as seldom are any compromises. However, the important issue is that the agreement should prevent such sales of Parkland in the future, and that several residential lots owned by the City above Bluff Cove were rezoned to Open Space.””

“CHARLES TANG (incumbent)
”If I had been on the Board in May 2012, I would NOT have approved the sale of the 1.7 acres of Parkland to a private resident. The Parklands are essential to the beauty, serenity, and uniqueness of PVE. As stated in the CC&R, the mission of the PVHA is to “preserve the fine views of ocean, mountains, and parks.” Protecting all PVE Parklands is clearly paramount.””