≡ Menu

Sometimes news stories speak for themselves. This one from the San Francisco Chronicle almost does that. It’s about a proposed development in our midst called Walden Monterey. A place of peaceful reflection for those with $5 million for a building lot. Here is the San Francisco Chronicle and here is some advertising material in found online. Walden Monterey


From a Walden Monterey ad

Comments on this entry are closed.

  • Alex Hulanicki July 26, 2017, 7:46 pm

    September Ranch?!

  • Celeste Williams July 26, 2017, 8:08 pm
  • david fairhurst July 26, 2017, 8:11 pm

    My guess is the failed project of the City of Salinas and the Mills brothers/Monterra disaster is being reborn. Ah…screams…..visions of vampires….the project that wouldn’t die and bankrupted so many. And of course not providing any public access/parks or roadways over the hill for the peasants. Henry David Thoreau is crying somewhere (in truth Thoreau went to live in the ‘wilderness’ with maid service and all that, like a kid camping in their parents back yard and wring a journal of their adventure, so maybe it is an appropriate name for such an excessive development)

  • Beverly Bean July 26, 2017, 8:30 pm

    Same old question- where will they get the water? Nearby the former Mills property -Monterra- had a tough time with making their wells useable- after Clint Eastwood rushed the development (including his Tehama) through the planning process in record time. If you look at the map in the Chronicle article, this property might even have a Monterey address. Hardly wilderness, being right off Highway 68.

    • david fairhurst July 26, 2017, 9:30 pm

      Their water will come like mana from the heavens (rain) or so they may claim since they appear to be claiming that this development will be “off grid”. Which will raise all sorts of questions about permits and development. I’m sure they will have their own “building inspectors” too, like Bishop Ranch did (with their fantastic ability to anchor foundations into sand). I just the the location by their ad photos.

  • Jean July 26, 2017, 8:30 pm

    Will personal helicopters be zipping into Nirvana?

    • Homerun August 13, 2017, 11:53 am

      I recall someone used to have a personal helicopter in San Benenacio back in the 70’s until they told him it was not possible anymore.

  • Bill Boosman July 26, 2017, 9:42 pm

    Peaceful reflection?!? Across the valley but in between the airport and Laguna Seca? On a race weekend it’s going to be pretty damn noisy!

    • Jeanne Turner July 26, 2017, 10:49 pm

      My thought, precisely. During the last event, there were motorcycles racing until about midnight for three nights in a row and we live clear over in Fisherman’s Flats.

  • Dan Turner July 26, 2017, 10:23 pm

    Water will be no problem. There is always enough water for another 300-room hotel and high-end, 15 acre/lot developments. And they find it in the most unusual places. A codicil in a will of an old woman who died and left it to the city, or the county. Or, some commissioner or councilman is cleaning out his locker and finds a few hundred acre-feet of water that he’d forgotten about. So, don’t worry. Water won’t be a problem.

  • Natalie Gray July 26, 2017, 11:21 pm

    Water won’t be a problem..they have money. So, let there be lots of noise for their $5 million. Let them be stuck in their driveways, wishing they were back in Silicon Valley. Pacific Grove is being taken over by these types. They bring nothing but higher prices for the rest of us.

    • Bob Oliver July 27, 2017, 8:43 am

      Now you’re catching on. Remember what it cost the little guy. He had to move to Salinas in order to afford his water bill. Put the rest of us who stay are “NUMERO UNO” in achieving the highest water costs in the nation. Yes, achieving – even if it was negative achieving we all went to the meetings which “they” provided for us. Just remember, “They is us and we didn’t do right by ‘it’. Better lucj next time.

  • Tom July 27, 2017, 12:50 am

    Big money can buy all the land and water they want. It’s housing for the “little people” who service their needs that is the question….but that’s beside my point here. I’d like to know what everyone who normally responds to issues put forth in the Partisan thinks about California succeeding from the union. The group who wants this just got clearance to collect signatures to put it on the ballot – look for them in front of any Trader Joe’s along with other wacko ballot issues! I think succession would fail in a stunning election defeat, but like prop. 187, that doesn’t mean the “will of the people” can’t be over turned by what ever left coast kangaroo court they can find to hear the case. My question is: What effect would succession or the threat of succession have on property values? The proponents of succession think that California would become some sort of independently-fair-for-all, socialist lollipops & roses nirvana. I think the industries that make California’s economy what it is would pack up and boogie out of here as fast as possible. The question is purely hypothetical as I think this issue will go nowhere, but this opinion site – left leaning as it is, I’d like to know what you think or would do about your own personal real estate if succession were imminent.

    • Tim Smith July 29, 2017, 6:23 pm

      Why do you care, Tom, what others would do with their real estate? Do you have a theory, or are you just fishing for a response that you can then label as dismissively as you have treated those whose causes you clearly don’t find merit in? The internet is full of jerks. Don’t be that guy.

      • Tom July 30, 2017, 12:50 am

        Tim – I don’t care what other people do with their real estate, it’s none of my business, nor the gov’ts, for that matter. In fact, I’d like to develop a half acre I own with several small “granny units” to rent out to college students at a fraction of the cost of what most of them are playing now for rent, but the bone crushing and expensive regulatory atmosphere in the county is prohibitive. I know it won’t happen in my life time, but the original question was about what do you think will happen to property values if California were to be successful in succeeding from the union? Do you really think an independent liberal gov’t, free of the American Constitution, would be friendly to private property? That was the question…..and I don’t think so.

        • Glenn E. Robinson August 15, 2017, 3:14 pm

          — “I don’t care what other people do with their real estate, it’s none of my business, nor the gov’ts, for that matter.”

          I am going to tear down my house in Carmel Valley and put in a toxic waste dump site for anyone to use, as long as they pay me a nice fee. Since it would be nobody else’s business what I do with my property, nor even the government’s, I will expect no objections.

  • Dan Turner July 27, 2017, 12:18 pm

    That depends, Tom. Can we have slavery again?

    • Tom July 28, 2017, 12:24 am

      Hard to detect tone of voice in a written sentence, Dan. Was this comment supposed to be sarcastic, funny, deflect, or what? What ever the intent, it certainly doesn’t seem to address the original question. Want to clarify? Aside from the effect on property values, follow up questions about succession would include; what would an independent California constitution look like? I imagine one of the first things to go would be the ballot initiative!….followed by private property rights – socialists really hate private property. Without federal money, how would all the current nanny state programs get paid for, not to mention what liberal Californians would actually like to provide socially – like a “sanctuary country” with all the social benefits? What about the tax base? If big business left California, as I’m sure they would – where’s the money going to come from to fund the socialist nirvana?…..foreign aide from the United States and/or bone crushing taxes on what’s left of any Californians with a work ethic and who are dumb enough to hang around??

      • Dan Turner July 28, 2017, 6:51 am

        Hard to detect a tone if you’re tone deaf. You won’t be able to understand why a politically progressive humanist might find your arrogantly insulting attitude offensive. Good luck w/your search for dialog.

        • Tom July 28, 2017, 5:57 pm

          “Progressive humanist”. Wow. Now I get it! You can “hear” the written word…that’s amazing. I guess “sarcasm” was the answer to the question, being that slavery had really nothing to do with the conversation. Is that your rusted beat up VW I’ve seen around town – the one with “coexist” written in religious symbols and “envision world peace” bumper stickers?

          • david fairhurst July 28, 2017, 10:02 pm

            Oh……whenever I was hungry my mom always told me to “visualize whirled peas”.
            Ever seem to notice that the people with ‘co-exist’ and ‘tolerance’ bumper stickers are least likely to do so? And if you think you can “co-exist” with Islam, well I suggest that you read the Koran (especially that part about killing all the infidels). I’m voting for the State of Jefferson! No, No No…The State of Jefferson was proposed in early 1940 in reaction to the corruptions of the State of California and Oregon. hence the “double cross” on a gold pan. It was to be comprised of several of the southern Oregon and northern California counties. Del Norte, Siskiyou, Alturas, (I think Trinity and Humboldt too) Curry, Joosephine, Klamath, (maybe Coos and Douglas too) WWII interfered. And the Owens river is a whole different subject (i have photos taken by my grandfather of the “opening” of the ‘cascades’ when Mulholland finished building that engineering marvel…..and not any worse than the “liberal” city of San Fran and their “stealing” of water from others (LA bought their rights) and damming up places like Hetch Hecthey.
            (sorry my family that has been in California since before Statehood let all the libtards in. By the way California was never a slave State, Dan, fought for the Union, so what gives? Are you proposing slavery to pay for all your programs?

          • Dan Turner July 29, 2017, 12:43 am

            Goodness, Tom! Now you’ve really gotten your knickers in a knot!! Sorry, but you’re still batting zero, dialog-wise.

  • Alice July 27, 2017, 3:42 pm

    Interesting to note that the article had no mention of any approval process. None. Does this indicate a done deal or that the developer is clueless or in complete disregard of the process or what passes for it in Monterey County?

  • Jean July 28, 2017, 8:20 am


    On a recent drive to Oregon, I saw several “State of Jefferson” billboards and barn roofs, all on ag land. These people are not socialists. Quite the opposite.
    I couldn’t help but notice the vibrant condition of the orchards north of Sacramento, quite a contrast to the languishing farms of the San Joaquin Valley.
    The Governor’s Delta Tunnels Project is sufficient reason for many Northern California farmers to want to secede. The politicos refuse to acknowledge that Southern California hasn’t had a truly sustainable water supply in eons, and the Governor obviously hasn’t traveled in the Owens Valley lately.

    • Tom July 28, 2017, 5:36 pm

      As I recall, the northern Californians just wanted to create a separate state, the reason being pretty much summed up in your comment. Owens Valley water was stolen out of greed. San Joaquin Valley water, from what I understand, is being cut off by loopy environmentalists. Somehow, protecting the 3 legged spotted burping toad, or whatever the current useless blob of protoplasm is, is more important than the huge ag economy, jobs, and abundant food supply it produces. The delta water and other sources and the systems of aqueducts are already in place. Just release the water!

  • bill leone July 28, 2017, 10:07 am

    This project (Walden Monterey) is Monstrosity Downs in hipster attire; that is, torn jeans & a $3,000.00 Calvin Klein sweater.

    • Dan Turner July 28, 2017, 1:20 pm

      Bill, where can I get one of those $3,000 Calvin Klein sweaters?

      • david fairhurst July 28, 2017, 10:08 pm

        With your “Obama Bonus Bucks” from the great job he did for the less wealthy of our economy!

        • Tim Smith August 2, 2017, 8:32 pm

          You’ve just had an opportunity to watch the architects of our economic policy (or lack thereof), McConnell and Ryan, go down in flames to marginally thoughtful members of their own cabal.
          And you have the temerity to blame Obama for the past 6 years of do-nothing policy? If you had any credibility on this matter, it’s now as dead as Obamacare repeal. Hows that for wasting 7 years and billions of our bucks on partisan pussyfooting? Get real, Dave.

          • david fairhurst August 9, 2017, 11:03 am

            Never said I was a fan of “Republican’ts”. You ASSume wrong.
            So what did Obama do to get Nobel Peace Prize anyways? Yeah all that “stimulate” policy sure got you going. Sir, it was just a joke, now go and hide in your “safe zone” if you are so offended.

  • Tom Moore July 29, 2017, 12:35 am

    Dear Partisan Readers,

    Please note that I am NOT “Tom” the troll who has made the various absurd absolutist assertions that have appeared under the name “Tom” earlier in this particular blog.

    For example, he (or perhaps this person is a she – we have no way of knowing or caring) asserted, “…socialists really hate private property.” Yet he provides no evidence to support his assertion. I also note that a number of folks who post left leaning ideas to Partisan articles are perfectly happy owners of private property of all sorts. I further note that private property ownership has been running rampant for decades in bastions of socialism such a Sweden, Finland and even Russia. Heck, the Russians even let Donald Trump own property there….

    But the real reason that “Tom” quickly gave himself away as an Internet troll wasn’t his absolutist statements or snarky remarks about other people and their opinions, but it was when in his first post he took the topic “Peace and tranquility on a Monterey mountainside, for a pretty penny” and tried to morph it into a riff on, “The proponents of (California) succession…” Discussions and debates go much better for every side when folks stay on topic.

    On multiple occasions I’ve sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitutions of the United States and the State of California. This includes supporting “Tom’s” right to be an Internet troll. I doubt that he can or will change. However, I must point out that he will continue to be ineffective and unpersuasive with his postings (and really wasting his time) unless he provides credible evidence to support his assertions, refrains from pigeonholing, labeling and insulting broad groups of people, and begins writing his blog posts as if he were speaking face-to-face within punching distance of his audience.

    • Tom July 29, 2017, 2:05 am

      OMG….sorry, Mr. Moore, if anyone could have possibly mistaken you, another “progressive humanist”, for me – a common sense conservative. Progressives are thin-skinned and humorless….unless, of course, they engage in snarky, belittling personal attacks on anyone who happens to disagree with their twisted world view. I’m proud to be an “internet troll” (not to mention, a bitter clinging deplorable!). What!? Do you think anyone with a “progressive humanist” opinion somehow owns the internet? Sorry. Read me and weep. David F – your comments are spot on! Meet me at Trader Joe’s and we’ll take on the liberal initiative minions collecting signatures for loopy leftist causes! BTW, Mr. Moore, et al – left to the Monterey Bay Partisan, I doubt the subject of Californian Succession would ever be brought up for discussion. This is exactly why the left gets steamed about FNC and Talk Radio. Topics that would otherwise be ignored are brought to the forefront and force the “progressive humanists” to confront topics that they’d otherwise prefer to ignore.

      • Dan Turner July 29, 2017, 11:21 am

        You are one angry troll, Mr. Tom. I bet you’re just a self-hating progressive humanist at heart.

        • Tom July 30, 2017, 1:21 am

          Oh, please! Dream on. I’m not angry about anything these days. I’m not even angry at the full court press the left (dems & media) is putting on Trump. He’s not cowering in the face of the onslaught of nonsense, and so far, you’re losing. Why would I be “angry”? It’s the left who is angry….ever since Nov. 9th when they woke up to find that shrillary lost the election and put an end to liberal political mission creep. It’s morning again in America!

          • Dan Turner July 30, 2017, 11:25 am

            I hadn’t been aware of this movement to secede Cal from the US but I’m in favor of it if it would get you to move out, Trolly Tom.

  • Joanna Greenshields July 29, 2017, 11:37 pm

    Can you please refrain from using the word ” Libtard ” David Fairhurst?

  • Joanna Greenshields July 30, 2017, 12:00 am

    I have spent many nights driving to and fro from The Santa Lucia Preserve. It has many Silicon Valley executives as full time and part time residents. The homes are all spread out and mountain lions, foxes, pigs, turkeys, etc. add to the wilderness feel. Do we need yet another housing development for a few millionaires? In the article it states the community will be gated, within hiking distance to a golf course but will give residents the feeling of isolation. Really? I agree with the other posters. It might get a little crowded and noisy up on that hill.

    • Tom July 30, 2017, 1:07 am

      Here’s a suggestion, Joanna – get rid of “rent control” in the bay area. Nobody wants to build new housing if the moronic local gov’t is going to tell them how much rent they can charge. Rent control limits new development and mobility of renters. Yes, it will mostly have to be high rise, but that’s OK in an urban setting. If you don’t want the sprawl and hours of commute traffic choking here, and who does, then get rid of rent control!!! Pretty simple. There’s no getting around competitive pricing vis à vis demand for housing unless you can unleash new housing to alleviate the “demand”. Common sense economics.

      • Tim Smith August 2, 2017, 8:24 pm

        I still think you’ve constructed some kind of straw man here, Tom. Not sure what your argument really is. You don’t like regulation? Ok. That has little to do with the constitution or secession from the Union.

  • bill leone July 30, 2017, 9:22 am

    For those contributors, to the Partisan, like Dr. Dan, interested in purchasing a $3,000.00 sweater, I refer you to the Saks Fifth Avenue website:


    Feel free to order one for me too, Dan. My 77th birthday is coming up in October.

  • Dan Turner July 30, 2017, 12:15 pm

    I light my cigars w/$300 sweaters.

  • bill leone July 31, 2017, 7:37 am

    So did Bob Dylan.

  • Luke Coletti July 31, 2017, 11:49 am

    Project Bella II

  • bb August 4, 2017, 8:22 am

    Assuming 40 lots and a taxable value of $10 mill per lot that would add $400,000 a year to the tax base before counting the sales tax on what these multi millionaires spend locally and possible wage and employment gains during construction. Historically gated communities place less demand on local services. These 40 families will only be around part time and won’t put much strain on water, police, fire, roads or other infrastructure.

    I can see it being an annoying reminder that the system is unfair but this is not I don’t see anyone being better off if it gets cancelled.

  • Frank Schiavone August 4, 2017, 4:38 pm

    “San Joaquin Valley water, from what I understand, is being cut off by loopy environmentalists. Somehow, protecting the 3 legged spotted burping toad, or whatever the current useless blob of protoplasm is, is more important than the huge ag economy, jobs, and abundant food supply it produces.”
    Tom, I’m one of this loopy environmentalists you speak of. Would you be so kind as to give your full name so I can use your quote? It’s a beauty.