By Pauline Masson –
In the months leading up to the 2023 municipal election, Alderman James Cleeve finds his voice, urging citizens to sign up to run for a seat on the board of aldermen so there are no unopposed candidates on the ballot and reminding fellow aldermen of city action on a controversial subdivision that delivered high voting numbers in the 2022 municipal election.
Cleeve, virtually unknown as a public figure prior to the citizen concens with the subdivision, captured the ward two seat with 74 percent of the votes – 326 against 115 – for Stephen Flannery III, a favorite son, who, as a testament to his integrity, openly and honestly supported the development.
Mayor Heather Filley’s defeat of Herb Adams, the longest serving public figure in Pacific history capuring 68.5 pecrent of the votes – 676 to 305 – is largely attributed to the city’s action on the controversial development.
Cleeve said during the Dec. 20 board of aldermen meeting that the Manors at Brush Creek subdivision on Lamar Parkway should never have been built. Aldeman Andy Nemeth fired back, saying that the comment meant that Cleeve did not want new homeowners in Pacific.
Cleeve, who ran for a seat on the board in opposition to the large number of homes in the development, urged his fellow aldermen to drive down Lamar Parkway and see how the new subdivision was taking shape.
“Every alderman here should drive down Lamar Parkway and see that subdivision that should not be there, regardless of what anybody says.
“The front yards of the houses on the west side of Lamar are concrete. They have to have a turn around to get out of individual’s driveways,” Cleeve said. “And the reason I would ask the councilmen to see it is to see that the new board or any new board does not make a decision like that again.”
Nemeth who supported the subdivision, and organized a presentation identifying other available properties in Pacific where the builder McBride Homes could build other housing developments took issue with Cleeve’s comments, saying new homes mean new residents.
“So you’re saying we should not give people an opportunity to have a home (in Pacific). You’re saying we should have just said no,” he said. “When you’re commenting about these houses, you’re judging. Because they don’t have a front yard, you’re judging these people who are buying these houses.”
In a back and forth that he has previously abstained from, Cleeve responded in his strongest voice to date that he was not judging the people.
“I’m judging the board of aldermen,” he said. “I’m saying if you have to do something like that at that house, that lot is not big enough for that house. I have no problem with the subdivision being there where it is – but 45 houses – that’s my problem. There is no way the houses should be there. That’s my opinion.”
Nemeth said the comment meant that people should not be there.
“So we should go to every resident who buys a beautiful new house in our town and let them know they shouldn’t be here.”Nemeth said.
“It’s not about people,” Cleeve said.
“It has to be,” Nemeth said, “because if you don’t want the house there they (the people) don’t belong there.”
“I’m saying the houses should not be there,” Cleeve said.
Nemeth had the last word, saying, “they wouldn’t be there if it wasn’t for the houses.”
This open exchange of opinions in a public meeting was a breath of fresh air, in the view of this reporter, a step in the right direction for our community. Transparency in government is the most valuable tool that citizens have in selecting their leaders. It’s important to the future of good government for citizens to know where aldermen and candidates stand on issues that affect them.
\
Good open honest discussion. Sometimes those who are opposed to a particular point of view are not willing to accept another point of view. In my view both of these points of view have merit. Fact, People need houses to live in. Fact, government can regulate where those houses can be built along with how they must be built. If you live in the subdivision your point of view prevails. If you plan on moving to Pacific and looking for a house to live your point prevails because the City may require of your developer certain restrictions to build that house in that subdivision where you wish to live.
Nemeth was just twisting Cleeves word. Everybody that opposed that subdivision agreed it was because of the high density of houses. As usual Nemeth is not listening to anyone but himself. The sad thing is the houses in the west side do not even sit as close to their neighbors as the houses on the east side. The subdivision looks totally out of place there. It might as well have been apartments that one homeowner was threaten with to make him accept the subdivision. The only way to get rid of the faulty thinking is this next election. Nemeth and Eversmeyer both need voted out. Eversmeyer voted for this subdivision as well and will still defend his decision to do so.
Vote Eversmeyer and Nemeth out!
I think Andy took James words as a personal attack since he voted for the subdivision. James argument was the amount of houses. They could have built homes there, just not as many to allow the lots to accommodate the homes built on them (logically).
I’ve known James professionally and personally for the last eight or nine years. So, I can say this with great respect. He doesn’t care who you are, he’s going to give to you straight. If you mess up, he’s going to tell you. If he messes up, he’s going to own it. Honestly, this is one of many reasons I feel better knowing he’s a part of the decision making in Pacific. The main reason, he represents the people. If he thinks something is a good idea, but the people do not, he will vote what the people want. He’s done this at least once already that I know of. He understands his duty as an elected representative.
If progress makes sense, let’s do it. But, let’s do it sensibly that’s best for Pacific and its residents. It’s time our elected officials represent the people instead of trying to rule over them.
This housing mess is there and we shall live with it and openly welcome new residents. but that doesn’t justify the mess the previous Board left us to endure.
I am still waiting to hear “the deal that we can’t leave at the finish line” because McBride can’t afford to wait two more weeks, “the homes have to be ready by August”. Since most ‘deals’ have give and take on both sides, what , may I ask, were the take away-es on both sides. Where are the moving vans and all the people?