When the city passed its new fire clearance rules in 2007, many community members thought the new rules were overreaching and could be used by the city to force people to clean up bad landscaping. Locals recall Jerome Stocks saying, "We aren't creating the Dandelion Police."
Fast forward to 2011 in Cardiff:
Unsightly? Sure. Bad for neighbors' property values? Undoubtedly. But a fire hazard? Ha!
If you have a neighbor whose landscaping is not up to your standards, call Fire Marshal Robert Scott at (760) 331-7907.
Thanks to Anonymous for the story tip and photos. If you've got an Encinitas undercover story, please send tips to encinitasundercover -at- gmail -dot- com.
The city contracted with Fire Prevention Services (FPS) in 2004 to do the inspecting and citing. It appears that the contract has expired. Ended December 31, 2005 and could be extended for one (1) year by mutual agreement for up to five (5) one year renewals.
ReplyDeleteQuestion - Did the city and FPS extend the agreement in a written form by Dec. 31, 2005?
Question - If the contract was extended for one year, was it agreed in written form for each of the five years? If not, FPS has been citing residents (illegally?) for how many years?
By the way, the agenda report is listed under Open Space Management. Quite a difference from what it really is.
A friend told me about this some weeks ago, and I went to look at it. Unsightly yes, but in NO way a fire hazard. The fines and administrative fees are already up to almost $400.
ReplyDeleteThe most obvious weed is sowthistle. Jerome Stocks may have said he wasn't creating the Dandelion Police. Instead he has created the Sowthistle Police.
No city contract with Fire Prevention Services --- No violation.
ReplyDeleteHave people been paying fines to the City for faux violations? That would be really rotten.
ReplyDeleteThe "past" contract may have the outside contractor collecting the money. If the contractor does the cleaning job and the bill isn't paid, a lien may go on the property.
ReplyDeleteOn next week's Council agenda on the warrants list --
ReplyDeletePaid to:
Fire Prevention Services Inc. -- $6966
These policies are seldom uniformly enforced and merely become an issue of abstract aesthetics, as the article implies. They are tools used for neighbor disputes - eliminate the contract, if one exists and be practical about the matter.
ReplyDeleteThis is also an effective 'tool' to use Jerome Stock's word and personal identity for his contributors, to terrorize enemies. It seems that the Fire Department is trying to even the score by sending out their band of flying monkeys to harrass and intimidate citizens.
ReplyDeleteRemember the time when everyone minded their own business and left their neighbor alone in peace?
ReplyDelete"Flying monkeys" - hilarious imagary! They're also loading up sacks of taxpayers' money for the 6 figure pensions of the fire chiefs. $tock$ is the Silver Back directing the sacking of Oz!
Two checks?
ReplyDeleteCity check 1104037 to Fire Prevention Services for annual weed abatement -- $6966 (2/16/2011 council meeting warrants list)
City check 1106589 to fire Prevention Services for weed abatement -- $6966 (6/15/2011 council meeting warrants list)
Where are Glenn Sabine's checks for his 'serivces' accounted for? There are a lot of numbers being throw around as to how much he is actually charging taxpayers. Does Ms. Smith account for his checks and negotiate the terms of his contract as City Attorney? What criteria is used to determine his continuation as a contractor for our city?
ReplyDeleteI assume that it is Council who votes on this, but the all knowing "staff" has powerful influence on council (they tell Jim Bond what to do because he never reads anything) in terms of their highly professional and authoritative recommendations!
Is Sabine evaluated yearly on his performance? Don't think so. Only when he gets a salary increase or some other perk in his contract and maybe not then.
ReplyDeleteSecretive City Council buries report, Coast News (http://thecoastnews.com/pages/full_story/push?article-Secretive+City+Council+buries+report++%20&id=14028444) sums it up on what the Council majority think about open government.
ReplyDeleteThere should be a full disclosure of all monies tendered to Sabine and whether "overtime" is being paid. And why are there 2 city attorneys?? Maybe this function needs outsourcing on a retainer basis - what does Sabine do other than talk in confusing circles at council meetings? Hopefully the Treasurer isn't involved with any decisions concerning compensation, since it has been alleged that she is or has had a personal relationship with Sabine. The whole thing sort of smells fishy.
ReplyDeleteThere really is the appearance that Finance Director Jennifer Smith and City Attorney Glenn Sabine are conspiring to secretly divert asset from the trusting and misled 1st wife and kids (Encinitas citizens and taxpayers). How do we find out what he is paid and what he is charging for, and how are these rates determined.
ReplyDeleteShouldn't he have given up this job if he and Jennifer have a personal relationship? But how could someone with his losing streak be found to replace him??
Sounds like City Hall needs a banging conflict of interest flow chart..makes Anthony Weiner look tame by comparison.
ReplyDeleteWe have Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Newt Gingrich, various other Republican leaders, Anthony Weiner and Osama Bin Laden living among his 3 wives. What do these stories have in common with the City Attorney story?
ReplyDeleteA friend has suggested that with all of these current stories in the news, both internationally and at the local level, it is time for Lorena Bobbitt to set up shop as a “political consultant.”
This comment is not meant to condone sexual violence towards men or women, but is placed here in the spirit of adding to the collection of tasteless jokes that are already on the site and which I wholeheartedly appreciate!
Rumours are that someone was yelling "Put your habeus in my corpus!" in the back offices of City Hall.
ReplyDeleteIn general,I don't like to discuss people's personal lives, but I appreciate the humorous presentation of this topic on this blog and others since truth be told, the entire situation makes me sick.
ReplyDeleteIs item 14 on tonight's agenda meant as a way to make it OK for Glenn Sabine to stay on, no matter what? Is this updated policy something that has just sprung up on account of the recent lawsuit that he lost that council voted to appeal and as a consequence of the vocal backlash here and other places?
I was less shocked when I found out that Tammy Faye Bakker was using dontations from their church for breast augmentation. At least she made some people happy, and it was a small sum as compared to the amount that people say Glenn Sabine is charging us every year for the small number of people who HE is making happy. Can't we find better legal representation in this town?
Replace Sabine's bosses, the Council majority. However, after the coup pulled tonight where the Council gave up more power, he just became more tightly enthroned.
ReplyDeleteFor years I have been saying how much Sabine makes from we citizens. However, it seems no one cared. In one year we paid him $900,000. When I asked Jim Bond about this, he said he is cheaper than hiring our own City Attorney. When I asked why his contract is never put out to bid, I received no answer. All of his billings can be obtained by a Freedom of Information Request. Since I am not to be trusted, according to a post by Kevin Cummins,, I guess you will all have to ask for his billings and payments yourselves. You will see that he never bills for a paralegal so it is full fee. You will also see it is in his best interest to litigate, as he uses his firm, Morrison and Sabine some of the time. And, I have personally seen Jennifer and Glenn on one occasion holding hands. Perhaps they are just good friends?
ReplyDelete