It is clear that Very Bad People with Very Big Money will say and do Very Bad Things to defeat Prop A.
If they are successful with the assist from your City Council, what will your City Council do to "honor the spirit of Prop A" and stop Encinitas from turning into Manhattan Beach without voter approval?
Thank you for posting this W.C.
ReplyDeleteThere is actually one person in this list that was actually collecting signatures for the petition for the right-to-vote. You can imagine that person surprise when her name showed up on that mailer.
Other people whose name appeared on that mailer never gave authorization for these bastards to let them use their names.
This is how low they will go these scum buckets.
They may have the money form the Building Industry Assocation and the National Association of Realtors, but the residents of Encinitas can see right through their deceptive tactics.
Protect Encinitas now, don't give more time to collapse under pressure. VOTE YES on PROP A!
Found this flyer in my mail today with my name on it...I'm voting Yes on A...How and why did they do this?
DeleteLast sentence I meant for Council to collapse under pressure..
ReplyDeleteThe man behind this mailer is Doug Long, the owner of Bert's Plumbling who has joined forces with the developers behind EncinitasHope.com. What a slimy character! Boycott Bert's Plumbing!
ReplyDeleteBoycotting businesses is a prerogative of consumers. Bert was a great guy. I liked John Long, too, his other son, who has moved away.
DeleteI don't know exactly what Doug Long's involvement is, but I understand that some of the groups, like Leucadia 101 Mainstreet Association said they didn't give their permission to use their logo on the flyers, publicly, at a Council Meeting, and in a Coast News commentary, and then the same fliers, with the same unpermitted logos, were hand delivered all over town. Dirty tricks abound in politics.
Doug Long is the current president of the Board of Directors of the Encinitas Preservation Association, which rents out the Boathouses and the affordable units behind them? They have been highly subsidized by taxpayers, by affordable housing funds through Moonlight Lofts and direct grants from the City; they are a tax deductible foundation, and shouldn't be taking this kind of highly partisan stand, which goes far beyond "educational outreach." Furthermore, there is NOTHING in Prop A that would threaten any kind of preservation. One of the Boathouses could easily become a museum with a major or minor use permit, granted by the City, without being forced to a public vote to rezone.
Already have. Long sucks as a plumber, and a commisioner, and a candidate and suck as a developer panzy just like Mike Ahole.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to see a brown Long Crack, call Bert's Plumbing.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLynn, Focus on being concise. Quit with the rants.
DeleteHey, if someone doesn't have the attention span to read a longer post, then he or she is welcome to skip them.
DeleteCall it a "rant," if you want, but I appreciate the more in depth posts and comments, myself.
Pam Slater- Price is not opposed to High rise buildings. She worked at the county admin building during her term as supervisor .... A high rise building. Oops, sorry to burst your bubble.
ReplyDeleteWorking in one is not advocating for them - oops! How many folks in our bedroom community work downtown, but don't want to live in a high-rise? Sheesh.
DeleteWhy pick on Lisa, Tony did NOTHING but oppose this Proposition from the beginning (post election). Tony NEVER make a motion to support the Proposition A - ONLY THE OPPOSITE!
ReplyDeleteWe're voting YES. If people are fooled by the deceptive campaign flyers, I will be surprised. They didn't work with respect to the HIT PIECES against Tony Kranz. Kranz, originally had asked that the initiative be adopted outright, with Council's promise to put the measure on the ballot for the special election, saving the taxpayers about $400,000. That was to be "studied" by the City Attorney, but never happened.
DeleteAs for me, my greatest disappointment is with people like Lisa Shaffer, who has turned her back on those who elected her, and in her stubbornness and defensiveness, cannot see the forest for the trees. Maybe she never could; but people who voted for her and don't understand her sudden "turnaround," are confused and/or dismayed. She has sided with her campaign enemies, and against those who campaigned for her.
I'm glad Pam Slater-Price sees the light, and has wholeheartedly endorsed voting YES on A.
Leave Doug alone - he's a good man! If you choose to boycott his business because of this, I will personally identify those (Bruce, Oliver, etc) who supported this stupid initiative and identify their place of employment, so that we boycott their companies or employers...
ReplyDeleteIf you know someone who was very supportive of this, please list their name and business.
ReplyDeleteI agree it is not fair to attack doug long or any individuals because of their support one way or another on this right to vote issue. And to boycott someone's business because of this is ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteUnless you boycott Stocks insurance agency as he was the one who formed ERAC dissbanded GPAC and tried to hijack our general plan update.
I've known Doug forever and had a lot of respect for his Dad. Dismayed to see the last sponsor of the No on A baloney that appeared on the front page of this week's Coast News to have Bert's Plumbing's address as it's anchor. But personal attacks are ridiculous and sound more like someone annonymous on their side posting them here just to make the YES side folk look bad. There's always going to be a few people in town to think more is better. Like the visionaries in Oceanside with their 5 story complexes that butt up straight from the sidewalk crowding out their historic palm trees downtown. We don't have to agree with them, and if there's enough of us we don't have to follow their lofty vision for our quite town. VOTE YES ON A!
ReplyDeleteBelieve the point of this thread is: if your name is on there and you did not authorize it or you see a friend's name on there and know they didn't give it the go-ahead, you should know you/they are being used.
DeleteJust one of many indicators of the complete lack of integrity of the No side. If they had real arguments against, or could articulate just one "unintended consequence" they'd be doing it, and that should tell us all something.
It seems like the No on A people can only offer lies and threats to keep upzoning decisions out of the hands of voters. The Yes on A people are asking to take on the responsiblity of evaluating projects and deciding if they actually provide public good.
DeleteNo on A supports seem to act like "public good" is defined by how much money the City can squeeze from a neighborhood, how well developers can make a project pencil out. So what if it destroys surrounding home values, privacy, safty and quality of life. What a unreasonable group of people we Yes on A are that we want to define Encinitas by its General Plan and stop the special backroom deals.
Believe the point of this thread is: if your name is on there and you did not authorize it or you see a friend's name on there and know they didn't give it the go-ahead, you should know you/they are being used.
ReplyDeleteJust one of many indicators of the complete lack of integrity of the No side. If they had real arguments against, or could articulate just one "unintended consequence" they'd be doing it, and that should tell us all something.
Put the public trust back in the hands of the people. Vote YES on Prop A; we are!
DeleteIf there are only 28 people who care or are involved, who aren't apathetic, not wanting to talk about politics, or vote, why did well over 8,000 people sign the petition to qualify the initiative for a Special Election? Council could have adopted it outright, as Kranz originally suggested. He was promised by the City Attorney that his option would be studied. Tony said he wanted to adopt outright and put the measure on the ballot in Nov. of 2014, saving the City, us taxpayers, at least $400,000, and a lot of ill will, polarization between the expansionist gang (aka "economic developers) and the guy/gal on the streets, who loves our small beach town feel, with limits of two stories, which other cities have, as well.
Certain people want high rises. When the city runs out of space, and all that's left is infill, then the expansion must go up for certain parties to keep reaping their short-term profits. Development is fueled by cheap credit. Developers have a history of going bankrupt, as what happened with Moonlight Lofts, and, off La Costa, Barratt American. But if community members truly want some high rises, we could so vote!
Ahhh I was just assaulted by a mobile walking palm reader...what's this town coming to....
ReplyDeleteThat happened to my mom in the 50's at a restaurant in LA. The gypsy told her she would always have a sign in her front yard and she would die in her sleep. Both came true. The second too soon.
DeletePS. I predict the palm reader was a man and wore a turban.
DeletePam Slater-Price, Sheila Cameron and Dennis Holz all had their chance as mayor of
ReplyDeletethis fine city to change the 4/5 exception and did nothing. Does this mean they had
sold out to developers? Just a question.
Yes it does, sell outs.
DeleteMight not have been on the radar as important at the time. Neither was Encinitas deficient 2300 low cost housing homes back then nor was there the potential for 5 story buildings on every corner at that time. Just an observation.
ReplyDeleteWould-be developers could stagger their upzoning measures to be on the ballot on even number years, during General Elections, so each ballot measure would then be about $30,000, and if there were several "questions" or different developments, as low as $17,000 per additional question . . . The City (citizens) wouldn't pay for the ballot measures, if/when Prop A passes, and Encinitas didn't HAVE to pay for a Special Election.
ReplyDeleteCertain Councilmembers keep bringing up Pleasanton, where there was a lawsuit for over $100,000, by affordable housing advocates. The City could create more opportunities for affordable housing here, including not getting rid of pre-existing affordable housing for short- term profitable, boom/bust new build. But the City is willing to spend up to $500,000 on a Special Election, that it could easily have avoided! The "Powers that be," as in the City and its "stakeholder, symbiotic partners" don't want to look into another amnesty, to bring all the pre-existing "accessory dwelling untis" onto the state's rolls, for mandated affordable housing. They aren't thinking outside the box of expansion, expansion, expansion, to keep up with the machine's insatiable appetite for more and more money in the General Fund.
Unfunded pension liabilities, bond debt, ever skyrocketing operation and maintenance costs, salaries advertised at the top tier, including a planned new Full Time Employee as "Communication Specialist," at Gus Vina's insistence, and against the public speakers' expressed concerns . . . . all these mount up to a need for more and higher taxes and fees, all passed down to the "little guy." O & M (operation & maintenance costs) are increasing at a much faster rate than inflation. All the while, we keep adding to Capital Improvement Project (CIP) expenditures, as well. This bubble, as all bubbles has to pop. We incorporated to slow growth, take back local control, from the County. Prop A can also help us make decisions, as neighbors, within our diverse communities, not becoming generic, gentrified, "rebranded" "mainstreet associations." One size fits all doesn't work for Encinitas.
That's why we're voting YES on Prop A, so we, the people, can do true "needs assessments" through a public vote!
Evidently, our Mayor has been told what she believes to be true, the following:
ReplyDelete“For example, the Initiative will amend components of the City’s Local Coastal Plan. These provisions must be certified by the California Coastal Commission before they can go into effect in the coastal zone, which is approximately 2/3 of the City. This creates two different zoning regulations in the City during the lengthy Commission review process or is there any clear answer as to what the impacts would be, if the Coastal Commission does not approve the changes. All of this uncertainty opens the door for legal challenges.”
Then there is the following statement by a former Coastal Commissioner:
“Based on my 15 years as a Coastal Commissioner, and twice its Chair, there is no basis for the claim that the Coastal Commission will need to certify or delay the effective date of Proposition A. The Proposition is concerned primarily with how future changes to zoning are made and capping building heights and clarifying how building height is measured. None of these would trigger Commission review. Choosing to lower height and be more restrictive than what is currently allowed is not inconsistent with current Encinitas Local Coastal Plan. The balance of the Proposition merely sets out a process for who and how future zoning changes are approved, requiring public votes and increasing notification requirements. I am not aware of any case law requiring Commission review. More importantly, in my over 30 years of affiliation with the Commission I cannot recall a single case where a Proposition was ever brought to the Commission for review. Changes to a General Plan approved by voters that require a zoning change would not trigger review of the Proposition and would only trigger the need for a Local Coastal Plan Amendment if and only if a specific zoning change were approved by the voters that was less restrictive than what the current Plan allows. “
Sara Wan
Former Chair
California Coastal Commission
Looks like we do note have a bifurcation problem after all.
ReplyDeleteStaff should do its homework before giving dubious advice to council.