Much ado about nothing

Last week TMHA unleashed a media blitz announcing to the world (the SLO world) that they had decided to rename their proposed project to renovate and re-purpose the historical Sunny Acres building. It was a continuation of their theme with regard to the project – lots of talk with little content.

First, Jill Boster-White sent a letter to some of the neighbors explaining that TMHA was renaming their project to the Bishop Street Studios project. Second, TMHA enlisted AnnMarie Cornejo to write a fluff article in the Tribune announcing the renaming of the project . However, either AnnMarie was told that this really was a renaming of the building or she made that conclusion herself. Unfortunately, it is not legally possible to rename a building that is owned by someone else. In this case it is the County of San Luis Obispo who owns the building and we have confirmed that the County has not renamed the building. I guess you could say that we, the tax payers of the County, own the building.

So now you are asking “Is this what we consider a media blitz?” No, not really, just a tongue in cheek reference. That is why I named this post “much ado about nothing”.

So, just to be as clear and transparent as possible, we continue to 1) oppose the TMHA project to use the Sunny Acres historical building for a residence for their clients, 2) to work on an alternative use proposal for the historic building and the surrounding property, and 3) to seek alternative approaches and locations to satisfy TMHA’s need for residential housing.

As well, we continue to seek a dialogue with TMHA to understand their project and why they will not work with us to discuss alternative approaches to meeting their needs. And to dialogue with TMHA, the County and the City to create a plan that satisfies the needs and concerns of the neighborhoods, the community in total and the mentally ill in our county. We are focused upon creating a plan that benefits the breadth of the community, not just one small segment of it.

5 Responses to "Much ado about nothing"

Tim says:

December 3, 2014 at 3:21 pm

First, AnnMarie Cornejo is listed as a “staff writer” at the Tribune, and my understanding is that they are not dispatched by non-profits to write “fluff pieces” on the non-profit itself. Maybe I’m wrong, but I doubt it.

In any case, whether the title is a “legal” change or not, TMHA is renaming it’s project “Biship Street Studios”. IMHO, it’s a good move, as many have confused TMHA’s project with Dan DeVaul’s, and the 2 are quite different. Yes, the taxpayers currently own the property, which contains a run-down, hazardous, useless shell of a former building. I’m not aware of any other group proposing to make use of the property, so I am happy that TMHA is preserving this historical building, as well as putting it to productive use.

Anyways, I believe that TMHA’s Biship Street Studios project does benefit the city and county of SLO, as there is massive need for it. It is part of an ongoing and successful series of projects undertaken by TMHA – they have an excellent track record in this area.

Reply
lanny says:

December 3, 2014 at 4:25 pm

Tim,

I certainly did not mean to dismiss AnnMarie’s role with the Tribune. She has been covering many topics on the City for the Tribune and I, for one, have respected her work in those efforts. As to who dispatched AnnMarie to write the “fluff piece”, I can only surmise.

And, yes, I agree that Transitions can name their project whatever they want. Just as I can name my child whatever I choose. However, what I cannot do is name your child whatever I want and tell the world that your child’s name has been changed. And in this case, it appears that the impression was given that Transitions had done so with regard to the Sunny Acres historical building.

Finally, I guess you did not read the post in detail and have not been reading this website for content. We, as stated in the post, are proposing alternative uses of the building and the surrounding property that will benefit large segments of the entire community, not just 13 client residents of Transitions. And we are looking for alternative sites to satisfy the needs of Transitions’ clients for whom we agree there is a need. Not sure about “massive need”, but certainly we agree there is a need.

If you would like to learn more details about our alternative use and would be interested in helping us in that effort and in our effort to find alternative locations, we would love to see you put your efforts where your pen takes you.

As always, thank you for sharing your thoughts.

Reply
1. Tim says:
  
  December 3, 2014 at 5:43 pm
  
  lanny,
  From my reading of your first reply, you appeared to me to be dismissive of AnnMarie’s role with the Trib – how else could your remarks be characterized? I know many journalists, and it’s hard to believe any of them would take the “fluff piece” description of their work as a complement. Again, perhaps I am wrong.
  
  Criticizing the changing of the name to “Bishop Street Studios” seems lacking in substance – again, IMHO. To me, the name change seems like a good idea.
  
  Okay, then let me rephrase: I have not heard of any groups that are currently in negotiations with the county for alternative uses of the site. Since there have been 40 years of vacancy to begin negotiations, it seems unlikely that a group will come forward now, except perhaps those with the goal to thwart the TMHA proposed use?
  
  Yes, there is massive need for the housing proposed by TMHA – I’m sure that TMHA could provide you with some numbers? Also, it could be considered misleading to say that “just 13 clients” will live there, as TMHA has options for additional units in the future. Developing it in stages seems like a wise idea to me.
  
  Yes, I would be interested in learning more details about your alternate uses. Perhaps you could identify where on your web page I might find them. Thanks for your reply.
  
  Reply
lanny says:

December 3, 2014 at 6:40 pm

Tim,

I have communicated my thoughts on her article to AnnMarie. I don’t think we need to belabor that any more.

I am not concerned about Transitions renaming their project. In the same way as a famous quote, “whose picture is on the coin?”. Whose project is it? Transitions. Name it as they wish. But not the building. Only if and when they own it.

I wish we knew the details for the Transitions’ project. Three years of negotiation and 8 months after the option agreement signing and we do not know how many units they plan to build. I believe that if Transitions determines that the project is feasible, it will only be with 35 units. In any case, 13 – 35 is a very small number compared to the population of the county or even SLO. And my original post was about the Sunny Acres historical building.

Finally, I would look forward to sharing our thoughts on alternative uses. I would be happy to meet with you and share those thoughts and plans. I could accomplish that in about 30 minutes of your time.

To get the general concept of our plan, you can view the “Interview with Lanny” which was originally posted on the website in July. The last 5 or so Q & A’ address that topic.

Reply
Tim says:

December 6, 2014 at 4:58 pm

Lanny, in perusing your website, I found this quote: “This website is being created as a vehicle to provide an information source and a place to dialogue on the proposed plans to develop the Sunny Acres Historical Building (SAHB) and the property adjacent to it. Please recognize that this is not Dan De Vaul’s Sunny Acres farm.” Based on this quote, I would think that you would applaud the clarity that is being created by changing the name from “Sunny Acres” to “Bishop Street Studios”. It seems to be a prudent move on the part of TMHA, again, IMHO. Just an observation – no rebuttal necessary.

Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply