They told me that if Prop A passed there would have to be a "special election" if I wanted to build a second story on my house, unless I had a "lien" on my property that said I could go to two stories. All three of the guys were attentive to the conversation when this was said. They also said that the special election would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to the taxpayers.
I did probe them on these statements. First, by asking if they had a copy of the initiative, so they could show me where it said these things. They did not have a copy. They did say there was a copy on their website. They couldn't really explain the "lien" thing, but did confirm they were talking about something that would be officially recorded.
They all said they were volunteers. I asked if they lived in Encinitas. One said yes, the other said he lived down the coast a bit, and the third's response was not clear to me. I asked the one who admitted to living outside the city what his interest was that drove him to spend a weekend in a booth. He said he was concerned about the taxpayers spending so much money on special elections and nothing else.
Wow.
ReplyDeleteSimply the fact that there was a booth, probably paid for by WE THE TAXPAYERS, shows the paranoia and fear of our city hall, our city manager, and our city council. Crap like this convinces me more than ever to vote YES on Prop A.
"A lien"on your property? You gotta be kidding me. These jackasses don't even know what "lien" means?!!?
I'm happy I didn't see this booth...my blood pressure couldn't take it.
Agree with your sentiments, but this wasn't paid for by the taxpayers.
DeleteThis was most likely funded by deep pocket developer interests, who are the council's allies in No on A.
On the city website in the archives: Christy Guerin is listed on the 410 form.
DeleteWCV: Good thing to clarify. Thanks
DeleteWill the Mayor be open about the actual "negative consequences" that she talks and writes about? If she doesn't it makes it easier for people like this to "fill in the blanks".
DeleteKC: did you see the flyer that was being handed out? At th end are listed several non profit groups that allegedly oppose Prop A, among them being The Leucadia, Catdiff, and Encinitas Mainstreet Asciations, the Encinitas Chamber of Commerce, and the Encinitas Preservation Association. Isn't this a violation of their non profit by laws? Can we report them for doing this? Considering they get money from our city, I find this highly unethical.
DeleteAt least 4 of those 5 orginzations did NOT give their approval for the use of their logos on that flyer. Will it matter to them? Time will tell.
DeleteThe "volunteers" didn't expect to encounter anyone who would question their limited credibility. Why wasn't Barth there - she is the big proponent. Maybe Barth needs to take advice from
ReplyDeleteGaspar and borrow her Wonder Woman outfit - she could spin a "No on A" sign on 101.
She doesn't want to answer questions. Three other council members will talk with the public about specifics. The Mayor won't state what she sees as "negative consequences, and obfuscates her reasons for not doing so.
DeleteYes, those initiative signers were all well informed too. Most didn't understand it that I encountered.
DeleteI am shocked that this council can condone this outright misrepresentation. It is so sad that they have no regard for those who put them in office.
ReplyDeleteYES on A!!
The council didn't condone this particular outright misrepresentation, though the council arguably makes similar misrepresentations in its own No on A propaganda.
DeleteThe council is allied on this issue with some deep pocket developer interests who have absolutely no shame or regard for the truth.
The Mayor could make is much harder for this to happen if she would list the negative consequences. Is having to have a special election for ME to build a second story one of the negative consequences that she sees?
DeleteI had somebody talk me into actually signing a petition at a store in favor of Prop A. I found out later, after researching it myself, that they told me a BUNCH of LIES. DON'T BE HYPOCRITES!
ReplyDeleteRECOMMENDATION - Don't be lazy, research it yourself.
PROP A is BAD for Encinitas!
That's not cool. I'd like to cover that. What did they tell you? Where were you at? Can you estimate the date this happened? Which store? What did the person look like? Did they give you some written material that also had a bunch of questionable, truthy, and incorrect statements? The guys at the fair did. More on that later when I get time and after I hear back from Mayor Barth. She is now saying she will respond after Wednesday's meeting.
DeletePlease note, what was stated to me at the fair was not a single person's statement. All three at the booth were part of the conversation.
When I supported Barth in her first run I did so because of her position on open gov, borrowing, upzoning voter oversight, and "fair play" at city hall. Fair play means all sides act honestly and openly. I'm for fair play. If the pro-prop A signature gathers mislead you I would like to cover that?
Lastly, did the signature gather give you any literature that was questionable? Did they have a copy of the proposition?
"all sides act honestly and openly" Really K.C.?
DeleteI'm still waiting for drama queen Steve to release the investigative report on the accusations about Muir's tenure of malfeasance while being the Fire Chief.
Bueler? Bueler?
Crickets.
Rubbish!
Who the hell is responsible for our city spending 1/2 of a million dollars on a this stupid proposition?
ReplyDeleteSend me the person's name who started this fiasco!
the pension fiasco was caused by Jerome Stock and supported by Dalager, Guiren, and Houlihan.
Deletethe sports complex fiasco was started Dan Dalager and supported by Jerome Stocks, Guerin, and Bond.
All these idiots are really bad for Encinitas.
I know that Ehlers was key in this. What part is stupid about the proposition? The part that give the people the right to vote on upzoning?
DeleteAnd what are you going to do when you get this person's name? Kick their ass? Go away troll.
DeleteI think the main person to blame is Gustavo Vina. He is doing everything to hold on to his position until he hits retirement. If there is anyone who wants to keep the status quo it is him. He gets power with no responsibility, and he can send citizens the bill!
DeleteIs the entire council against Prop A? (I THINK SO)
ReplyDeleteIF SO, WHO DID "YOU" VOTE FOR???
Yes.
Delete"WE" voted for people who were for the Right to Vote Initiative before they were against it.
We won't get fooled again.
Mark Muir - conflict of interest. $170,000 retirement benefit. Think he wants to get rid of the 4/5 super majority vote? Or let the residents vote on increasing building height?
ReplyDeleteI don't understand your statement? What does retirement benefits and 4/5 vote or building height have to do with anything?
DeletePensions and development tie in because the only way Encinitas can pay for the outrageous pensions it offers is to expand the tax base with obscene development.
DeleteI get it! Anyone who works or has worked for a public union is tied to developers.
DeleteCan you explain how the city comes up with the $50million (and more likely closer to $100 million but the current council has decided to play dumb) to pay off the current unfunded pension liability? How about the additional liability that comes in underfunded by prescription? It gets paid off with greater revenues or major cutbacks to the city budget, which will cut into staffing levels or pay. Not too hard. So why isn't staff HARD working with the taxpayers to get the pension liability cleaned up? If they have a plan they don't seem like they want to share the plan. Is it because the people won't like the plan?
DeleteCouncilman Mark Muir retired Encinitas fire chief.
ReplyDeleteThe City needs to send a letter of support and push all state legislators to create a state income tax for 50% over $50,000 in Government and 75% tax for anything over $100,000. This will help the taxpayers and the employees that did not earn a reasonable pension. Let anyone pulling down over $50k signifigantly contribute to the broken system that is sending them their money from the tax payers tit.
ReplyDeleteWithout it, I say let the Cities and State go bankrupt and let all the pensions be held up in court.
Vote No on Project P. All those against are just throwing up smokescreens to cloud the issue and continue with overdevelopment to pay for the huge pensions. Its all about the huge pensions.
when is Gus and Mark Muir going to commit 30% of their pensions to Encinitas?
If anyone at the City Hall were marginally concerned about the budget, the first thing would be to stop spending and to get rid of people like any other oraganization would do. They go to foolish extremes to keep themselves in power and do whatever they can to assure continued control. Prop A did not have to cost anything if they would have simply accepted it. At least then would could have understood what the as yet, imaginary, 'unintended consequences' actually were. All I see is a propaganda operation by those few whose lives depend on building and raping this City.
DeleteYes on A!
State law requires a special election if 15% of registered voters sign the initiative. If the council had accepted the initiative, there would be NO special election. After the 15% of the signatures was validated, certain people on the council were making phone calls to "compromise" with the Right to Vote group, not understanding that it was too late, as state law takes over. It was disingenuous that this position wasn't revealed earlier in the signature gathering stage.
ReplyDeleteNow all the council talks about is "unintended consequences," without ever explaining in a factual way what this means. As K.C. says above, we are not getting answers from the Mayor. Is this leadership? Silence is not openness or transparency.
It's really hard to follow all these arguements - especially since they're all attributed to "anonymous"! My take? There is so much confusion about Prop A that the wisest move is to vote it down and start over with something cleaner, clearer and more precise. I would hazard to guess thaty Council would relish the opportunity to make it right. As to the unfunded pension liability - no big deal. Stock market continues to do well, Europe is through the trough and bouncing on the bottom, and all China has to do is keep inflation down while not popping their bubble (easy, huh!). For all those who voted for the current council and now feel betrayed - get over it! Listen to yourselves - as soon as something doesn't go your way you whine and throw a tantrum. Total lack of discipline! Is this how you treat your stock portfolio?!? Transorfmation is a long term proposition. You gave them your vote, now stick with them until it's over. Then you can decided to re-hire them or not.
ReplyDeleteThe Sculpin
Point goes to Sculpin!
DeleteWhat about you? Do you vote?
DeleteYes. I always do. I voted for Barth, Kranz and Shaffer. Shaffer is the only one that disappoints me. Abstaining is cowardly. And her claim of needing to define a 6th community was ridiculous.
DeleteInteresting, LL.
DeleteTo me, Shaffer seems the best of the bunch as she is clearly conflicted about the bad votes and is communicating with the public about it on her web site.
Barth is being secretive about her positions and goals, and Kranz is silently taking orders from Barth and Vina.
And you have verifiable proof of this collusion regarding the trio? A very strong accusation W.C.
DeleteNow that's interesting!
LL: 3:58 anon here..I wuz asking Sculpin if he/she voted. But I'm glad you do. Whatssssss' going on now here in Enci is worthy of a Greek play.
DeleteI didn't mean collusion, LL.
DeleteJust that Kranz isn't thinking for himself and is blindly following along whatever Barth and Vina say is good.
It's a common perception, and none of them has done anything to dispel it.
All council members seem conflicted W.C. They should be. It isn't easy being a politician today.
DeleteThis a difficult thing to do being an elected official. They vote for all of us and not just the ones who claim they got them elected.
Sometimes you can see both sides of an issue and feel conflicted but you need to take a stand. Take your lumps and move on.
They were elected to take a stand and should vote one way or the other. Abstaining counts as a yes vote anyway.
BS W.C.
DeleteThat's not what you said.
You said "taking orders" Own it or you have no credibility.
Common perception? Ha!
There's no common sense in this room if you ask me.
I don't see anything on Shaffer's website about "bad votes" either.
P.S. Shaffer is the only one who is challenging the status quo and has publicly criticized staff, so it's no surprise that staff is turning against her and is supporting the four go-along, get-along council members.
DeleteAs a wise man (woman?) once said, "Who runs Barter Town? Gus runs Barter Town!"
I agree with W.C. that Shaffer is the only one challenging the status quo. However she is handicapped by her inexperience and pressure to be a team player. She has abstained twice. It was only the first time that City Attorney Sabine said it would count as a YES vote. This surprised everyone. It defies common sense and research on the internet. Robert's Rules of Order clearly says an abstention counts as a NO vote. I remember Maggie Houlihan abstaining at least once. It counted as a NO vote. So if there is an abstention and a 2 to 2 tie, the motion fails.
DeleteI love Encinitas and will vote YES on Prop. A
Yes 3:58 anon - I do vote. Every election since I turned 18. I voted for Kranz and Shaffer. It was time for Stocks - up or out. I couldn't vote for anyone else. Barth has had numerous years on the Council to be effective and she just couldn't do it. Yes, she was a guppy in a pool of sharks, but she just wasn't up to the task.
DeleteThe Sculpin
If your going to "challenge the status quo" Then stand up for your principles and vote one way or the other and stand behind what you feel is right.
DeleteAbstaining should not count as any vote yes or no. You might as well stay home and tend to your blog.
We elected are officials to vote not dodge the issue because it's hard or uncomfortable for them politically.
Agreed. So far Shaffer is all talk and no action, but that's more than can be said for the rest of them!
DeleteIronic that you say: "It's really hard to follow all these arguments - especially since they're all attributed to "anonymous"! " when you, yourself are posting as anonymous (as I am, but I'm not the one saying that makes the discussion more difficult to follow).
DeleteYou go on to say: "My take? There is so much confusion about Prop A that the wisest move is to vote it down and start over with something cleaner, clearer and more precise." Again, the wisest move would NOT be to start over, but to "start over" with our General Plan and our existing zoning definitions for measuring building height by voting YES on Prop A. Voting YES would also help to bring our out of compliance Specific Plans into compliance with our General Plan.
Council COULD have adopted the initiative outright; that was an option, initially supported by Tony Kranz. Then, if there were "unintended consequences," Council could have put an additional question on the 2014 General Election ballot, for about $33K, less than $40K, rather than the "up to $500,000" it has given Gus Vina the approval to spend for the Special Election.
If 15% of the registered voters (more than 15% signed the petitions, about 20% of registered voters, but the Registrar of Voters stops counting after 15%) are verified to have signed, then Council had several legal choices: adopt outright, order a report and then adopt outright, order a report, and then hold a Special Election, or simply hold a Special Election without ordering the report.
The City, through our disappointing Council, chose the most expensive option, order a $55,000, pro-development, biased "impact report," and then order a Special Election, allowing the City Manager to spend up to $500K on it. If this came out of their own retirement "savings," Council would NOT have done it, but they have control over the City's pursestrings, and are now asking for a citywide increase in all fees. That agenda item was "continued" because the BIG SAND issue took up so much time at the March 8 Council Meeting.
Why "confusion?" Read the Prop A initiative for yourself and see what you think.
ReplyDeleteIf nothing else, consider the sources of opposition that include: the Building Industry Association, out of town developers, and a building industry consultant that specializes in "areas of advocacy on behalf of development industry professionals" to "win approvals for controversial projects."
This consultant claims "if you face real challenges with the public, community groups," they have the "proven track record" to help the client: in this case, the folks behind a recent "No on A" flier.
Do you trust your city with these types of influences? I don't. I'll take my chances with my neighbors and community and will vote "yes" on A.
Thinking is hard.
DeleteIt's easier just to trust the developers on Prop A and Gus Vina on pensions.
Yes, thinking is hard. It has to be done carefully and deliberately. It involves consideration of the short and long term effects of decision making. I've read Prop A. It goes completely against voting in a pro-community council. You put in the people you want and then hamstring their decision making. If you didn't trust them from the outset, why did you bother to vote? I trust this council. They've changed their minds on A and are willing to make it better and clearer. The only way they can do that is if it's voted down. I'm giving them the benefit of doubt. If they mess it up, I won't vote for them again. Seems pretty simple to me.
DeleteThe Sculpin
Sculpin nails it again! Touche' sir!
DeleteI've read the Right to Vote on upzoning initiative, long before it was named, Prop A. I have thought carefully and deliberately. I also know that the "pro-community council" was voted in because initiative proponents, who got about 20% of the registered voters to sign to get the measure on the ballot, were previously FOR the initiative.
ReplyDeleteAfter the bogus impact report by an out of town firm, by a non-expert lawyer in real property law, which includes land use, zoning and initiatives, our newly elected council members "changed their minds" and betrayed their base. They DON"T trust the public to vote. We don't trust THEM, now, to vote to do the right thing. Because they haven't. The ones supporting their poor decisions have ulterior motives.
Fred knows what's going on, and he supports the initiative. Tony Kranz was GONE, in Minnesota, when the SPARC people were asking for two stories and 30 ft., which would have been in compliance with our General Plan. By using the Planning Commission and then a 4 out of 5 vote to override the Community Advisory Boards and SPARC, it was the CITY, that "nullified" what the public, the NEIGHBORS, were actually asking for. They DID upzone with their 4/5 vote, allowing an increase to 3 stories, and in some cases, up to 37 feet, which is NOT consistent with the General Plan, because it was not properly amended.
If Prop A passes, and I am voting YES, along with all my friends and neighbors, these inconsistencies, the unfairness, will be rectified. Our Specific Plans will once more be in compliance with our General Plan. Existing developments will have vested rights. You will be able to paint your house any color you want, unless you live in HOA. The scare tactics are being put out be development and building industry interests . . .
Just look who supports Prop A - residents like you and me, unnerved that the city spent over $1M on a GPU nobody wanted, worried that Encinitas as we know could be changed under the control of HCD and SANDAG, concerned that the New Council could overturn the planning commission's decision on Desert Rose. People who oppose Prop A: Christy Guerin, Doug Long, David Meyer, Mike Andreen and his PEPR spray, The Building Industry Association (and all the powerful development money behind it). It's an easy decision. I will vote Yes on Prop A because we need to restrict density and building height (or a t least vote on it).
ReplyDeleteI forgot to add Jerome Stocks on the No on Prop A campaign as well as John Wainio from the San Diego Group (http://thesandiegogroup.com/land-use.html) who has registered the EncinitasHope.com website). Just look at his client list to see who is behind all this and understand this statement on the website "The San Diego Group has proven that development proponents can win approvals for controversial projects"
ReplyDeletePLEASE VOTE!
ReplyDeleteThankfully, for the first time in years, we have a City Council that is acting like adults and can agree on important city issues..
It is strange that this almost overnight change has been brought about by one of the most recessive propositions ever to make it to the ballot. Proposition A is simply - ":bad law". Perrhaps its intentions are good; but its results will end Encinitas as we know it.
Although its framers would have us believe it creates a more democratic environment for the progress of the city, it is, in reality, a sure impediment to intelligent, well-planned, carefully considered growth. If we fail to keep pace with improvements in the other surrounding cities, Encinitas will become a slum neighborhood for the entire North County with ever decreasing property values and ever increasing attractions for low wage workers. I am very much for thoughtful planning and progress within the guide lines already established but, as written, Proposation B, if passed, will begin an era of zero growth, zero progress and zero improvement within ALL areas of our city. PLEASE consider carefully and VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION B. Join the Council, unanimously agreed, and all intelligent citizens to rid ourselves of this attempt by a group of malcontents who fail to see the error of their thinking and have already cost the City way too much in time and funds
Most important - PLEASE VOTE ... this is NOT an issue to be dismissed lightly .. and please VOITE "NO"