Prop A makes deciding on upzoning a right of the voters, and makes it is so the council can’t take that right away.
The last part is essential to the spirit of Prop A.
We can’t know if that last part is one of the things Mayor Barth sees as a negative because she is keeping her comments vague. She refuses to answer the question: What are the negatives of Prop A? It deeply matters what is on her list. Without that list you don’t know if she is going to give the public the 10% of Prop A that they actually care about, or leave that out, if Prop A fails.
If Prop A fails you might not even get even 10% of what is in Prop A. In fact, you might get a bunch of stuff you didn’t want.
Let’s review. This is what the council committed to in writing:
The Council will propose changes to the General Plan (Land Use Policies 3.10 & 3.12.5) to require zoning changes and General Plan Updates to be approved by a public vote providing the community with a greater voice in our future. This will fulfill the spirit of Proposition A -- the right to vote on upzoning.
The spirit of Prop A was to make it a RIGHT of the voters to vote on upzoning and make that RIGHT irrevocable by council action. It doesn’t look like the council is moving on the second part. The essential part. Without the second part, why bother with the first part? What’s the benefit?
According to one senior city official, what the council will be voting on next week WILL NOT result in the proposed changes going to the voters to be ratified, and thus their changes will not be immune from future council changes (via a 3/5th majority). The spirit of Prop A WILL NOT be fulfilled by the council without the council setting a new course.
Prop A makes a substantive change, in that it cannot be overturned on some random Wednesday night when nobody is watching. You say that won’t happen? How many people know that the council, including Barth, overturned your right to vote on city borrowing on long-term debt? The parallel is somewhat close, because that provision of the city management manual giving you that right was put in as a direct response the last time there was a serious voter initiative put in front of the council. There is widespread support for voter approval for bonding, perhaps even more than for voter approval of upzoning.
Because of all this, I consider what the council is doing next week as no better than symbolic. When Jerome was Mayor I wrote that he should spend his time on substantive changes rather than symbolic changes (ex: eminent domain “reform”), and made suggestions to that effect. To be fair, this council should work on substantive changes rather than symbolic changes that will not keep future councils from changing it back or weaseling in a NEW exception.
Unfortunately, what the city is poised to do may be worse than that. It may open the door for even easier action by the council on upzoning. Instead of affirming the right to vote in clear language the council decided to strike out the 4/5 exemptions from the GP. Why was this glaringly bad, immediately, to many lay observers? If you don’t replace it with language that prohibits NEW exemptions, it opens the door to new exceptions without having to overturn the current council's decision. Oh, this is just chicken little talk? Keep reading.
If you want an example of an exception that could be added that would be consistent with the strikeout of the 4/5th exemption, look at what has been proposed. The staff report for the PC review of the topic recommends the city add in an exemption to voter approval for compliance with state law. Translation: just about any upzoning that contains residential could EASILY be construed to fall under that exception.
THIS IS A BOMBSHELL! It gives a spectacular example of the obvious "flaw" of only striking out the exception.
Again, maybe this is just the way Mayor Barth wanted it. We can’t know if she keeps her list of negatives about Prop A secret.
Here is what people are saying to me: There is no way Encinitas City Manager Gus Vina would have allowed such a bold move without first checking in with Barth. Barth has a long history of "talking" to the CM about things she does and doesn't want to see happen, during her private meeting with him and other staff.
(I’d ask Gus directly but he's not answering questions. Barth isn’t either.)
We can’t know if what we are seeing is consistent with the Mayor’s desires or not, because she has kept her list of negatives secret.
To fulfill the core spirit of Prop A a statement has to be added that states that the VOTERS will get the final say, with no exceptions. That must be set up so the council can’t overturn it on a whim.
I would be satisfied if the council stated clearly what their goals were in creating their version of Prop A (that would sort of require being open about what they see as the negatives of Prop A) AND set a timeline for moving to get their version which gives the voters the last say with no exceptions, submitted to the registrar of voters.
A strikeout version of Prop A doesn't meet the spirit of Prop A. A resolution by the council to change the GP's exceptions doesn't meet the spirit of Prop A. Only a voter approved ballot measure that has language that affirms the rights of the voters meets the spirit of Prop A. If they did that, I would be so satisfied with that I would actively campaign against Prop A.
Don't forget, the Council promised to fulfill the spirit of Prop A, only they might be twisting the meaning of the spirit of Prop A to manipulate the public. We can’t adequately evaluate that until the Mayor tells us what parts of Prop A she sees as negatives, leaving the good parts to be adopted by the council and voters.
Note: I have not decided if I’m going to support Prop A or not. I’m waiting to see the Mayor’s list of negatives. Please don’t be surprised if I agree with the Mayor.
