After a couple weeks of being strung along, Barth is still not willing to
state what she currently sees as the negative consequences of Prop A. She has
made public statements that seem to indicate that she's backing off of some,
but which ones she hasn't stated.
Which consequence is actually an unintended negative consequence?
Which "issue" is genuine, and not manufactured? Which issue is
actually a consequence?
Doesn't the public have a right to know this before they vote?
This council allowed an ambiguous and suspect report on Prop A to become the
official word on Prop A and they signed a ballot statement that they don't want
or can't defend. This does not facilitate an open public dialogue. Instead it
helped kick up a lot of dust.
Was that on purpose? Well, Barth not being
willing to lay it out doesn't give me much confidence that she is going to help
clear out the dust. Is it because she doesn’t want to be open with the public? She
can fix that in five minutes by emailing her list of negative consequences.
So, why won't Barth answer? Right now Barth forces us to guess. Why did Barth
initially offer excuses that were highly questionable and inconsistent? Barth
has been trying to play both sides on this (and many other issues). In this case,
she made the statement in her mass mailing that said that Prop A had negative
consequences. I asked Barth what SHE saw as the NEGATIVE consequences. She
refuses to answer.
I will pay the first person $100 (or donate to a charity on their behalf) if
they get Barth to list the negative consequences of Prop A, in writing, this
week.
Here is her personal contact
info:
/http://barthforencinitas.com/
Don't email her on her city mail. If you correspond on her city email she
will have to restrict responses to being completely factual or risk being
seen as advocating using city resources.
Thanks Kevin,
ReplyDeleteI will match your $100 for a total of $200 for payment or donation to a charity "if they get Barth to list the negative consequences of Prop A, in writing, this week."
Our council and city staff if suffering from serious credibility issues.
So do you Dave. So do you!
DeleteDavid Smith talks about credibility.
DeleteThats like HIlter saying Jesus was his teacher.
I respect David. He was one of the people who identified that the lane diet issue had not gone before the Coastal Commission.
DeleteI am not here to take a position on whether it was a good idea for them to put in the bike lanes or not since I don't live in the area, but the Planning staff have ignored process, and have admitted that they do not consult the Coastal Commission on most issues where they have a right to weigh in. Their excuse is that if it is illegal, "other cities are doing it, too."
These are the same people who scold citizens and claim that 'the State' will sue them if they don't follow process.
David is well meaning and actually cares. Notice too that he is using his actual name...unlike many of the rest of us!
W. C. Great post.
ReplyDeleteTo bad you had a Wacko KLCC member jump on your bandwagon. Any time they support something, the issue becomes negative. They are the most uniformed and misguided group ever in Encinitas. Not one of them has an ounce of common sense.
Your post and intention are good. KLCC is Bad.
These are weird times in Encinitas.
Thank God there are intelligent Leucadian, Cardiffian, and Encinitians citizens willing to speak up and counter all the crap spewed by KLCC. With the intelligent people of Encinitas, Cardiff, and Leucadia, Leucadia will reach its potential to be a True Sheltered Paradise.
That post was K.C. not W.C.
DeleteAnonymous 8:31
ReplyDeleteI believe this post is about holding public officials accountable to their words and actions. In other-words having the moral courage to write it down and put your name on it.
Perhaps you might find some value in this practice.
Yeah we all know how morally courageous you are Dave.
DeleteWhat about your words and actions Dave? It should work both ways.
You make all these accusations and never seem to back it up with any real evidence that sticks.
When you are called out to back up your claims you just disappear under that rock you live under don't you?
When are you and the KLCC going to be accountable for your slanderous and irrational behavior?
I just don't understand why you championed Barth for so long and now jump off like flees and call her a traitor when she is in a tough place and may seem to be on the fence about what you claim is a stand with us or stand against us issue.
DeleteLet democracy work and then we will see where the votes will fall on this issue. Then you can get your pitchforks and have your witch hunt in the sunshine that you seem to crave so much.
How is it "democracy" if Gus Vina unilaterally picks a notorious pro-developer law firm without input from the council or the public to analyze the initiative, and then that report's scare tactics become the basis of Sabine's "impartial analysis" that goes to the voters?
DeleteIt's a rigged game.
Wacko says what?
DeleteThis post is not about the problems of streetscape. This is about holding our elected officials accountable, specifically Mayor Barth and Prop A.
ReplyDeleteIn person or in another forum, I would be more than happy to share where Mayor Barth has waffled and grossly neglected policies in the Gen Plan and the Coastal Charter regarding public safety and community character. This is why I support Kevin's post.
Perhaps you can compel Mayor Barth tp "state what she currently sees as the negative consequences of Prop A". and make yourself $200 richer.
Why not this forum then Dave?
DeleteIf you think you can pass the test, then please share with us your proof of gross negligence by the mayor... And please show us ALL of your work!
OK wacko-
DeleteWhat every your mind thinks must be right. Right? Maybe? Hell who knows whats real in a wacko's mind.
Let's see...
ReplyDeleteOur democracy works well as far as I know and understand.
We vote for and elect council.
They have the authority to appoint, hire and fire the city manager and attorney as they see fit.
So if they are not representing only your self interests they should be fired because your constant lack of trust in government trumps all of the rest who voted for this council and feel life is basically just fine in their version of how Encinitas should be now and in the future.
The dissenters in this community always seem eager to bring frivolous lawsuits, recalls or costly special elections and propositions to force their own will on the community when they don't get their way or what they want.
How is that democracy W.C.?
It would be helpful if you provided a list of the frivolous lawsuits, recalls, and costly special elections and propositions that the dissenters have done to force their own will on our community. This is now democracy works. You have the right to do the same.
DeleteWhy not get started yourself?
A list please.
Right, they "should be fired." But we won't have the opportunity to vote them out of office, in the case of Shaffer and Kranz until November of 2016. Barth's up for re-election next year. She most likely will be booted out then, unless she chooses not to run again, which would be the wise choice, especially as she is committed to supporting term limits.
DeleteBarth, Shaffer and Kranz have made the foolish and fatal mistake, to their political aspirations, of alienating their base.
It's unfortunate that a few self-interested commenters are trying to hijack this conversation into one about roundabouts or lane elimination, which they support, using boorish methods.
This post, which we are responding to, is about Mayor Teresa Barth's failure to provide, publicly, or privately, not using her City e-mail (as is her Constitutional right, as Glenn Sabine reminded her), her actual reasons for not supporting Prop A.
Barth's failure to respond is seen as cowardly and devious, because she has "switched positions," from those we were led to believe she held when we supported her and campaigned for her. Mayor Barth seem NOT to trust her own judgment, or the judgment of her electorate; instead she relies on the advice of biased attorneys who are trained to mine the law for loopholes, and to argue any side of any argument, depending upon whom is footing their bill, paying for their contracts. Barth can't follow her own reasoning because the Planning Code is designed to confuse and to make it seem that only the "Intelligencia" of staff and over-paid consultant/contractors can make any sense of it.
Prop A would help to simplify, would help to clarify, and would bring the Specific Plans into consistency with the General Plan and our Zoning Code definitions for how building height is measured. Existing development would have vested rights, or would be "grandfathered," as has always been the case, legally, when laws are changed after something was already built.
Democracy does work well, in theory, Loser Leucadian, but we all know the law, and the intentions of the people can be and have been twisted by corrupt officials.
Base?
DeletePlease.
Such hubris.
There's really not as many of you in your base as you think there is.
Let me see...
Barth is suddenly a coward and acts deviously because she has rethought this difficult issue while navigating uncharted waters with caution and perhaps changed her mind on the issue. Now she is branded corrupt by your little base. Do I have that right?
I had no idea that we let you represent all of us as the city judge. It's a pretty small percentage to get that on a ballet so I hope your base shows up to vote.
What happens to your ego if you lose? More corruption?
It must be so nice to be such a powerful defender of our little democracy. At least your theory of it.
You seem to like absolutes and like throwing tantrums to make us all bow to your will and force a election on us that we don't need because you want it now. Four years is just too long for you.
Some propositions are bound to have negative effects and unintended consequences in the future even if you had the best intentions. The State of California is full of them. This proposition could be one of them.
Have you ever seen the movie Idiocracy?
Most people in this country are either stupid with short attention spans and vote mindlessly for their base or are so myopic living in their comfortable bubble not caring about anyone else or what could happen in the future.
And where on this post can I see comments about roundabouts and lane eliminations. Certainly not from me.
Hey I love that movie that coupled with Wall- E reminds me of Lynn Braun and David Smith.
DeleteI think the KLCC must think those two movies are their bibles.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThere is good evidence that Barth has not rethought anything nor changed her mind. Nothing changed. She has been vague for over 9 months and was clearly trying to play people.
DeleteIt is my guess that as soon as she states what she sees as negative consequences (disclaimer: don't be surprised if I fail to disagree on all her points) there will be a number worker bees that realize they got played (people don't like to find this out after spending dozens of hours on a project). I could be wrong and as soon as she explains herself it will be much more obvious.
This goes back long before the Encinitas Project's first meeting.
I had lobbied strongly to avoid a special election as soon as I heard they were going for the SE. The Prop A people disagreed. They thought Barth supported their efforts, but she did not and she kept quiet about that. I tried to warn them, but Barth did such a good job that I was broadly dismissed by them.
Barth could have put an end to the Prop A movement with one email from her to her email list. Many now see that she didn't do that for personal political reasons rather than speaking up for good public policy. As much as the prop a team, she bears responsibility for the cost of the election. She could have stopped it.
Barth did not change her mind. LL, send her an email and ask her. She won't lie about that.
K.C. is right.
DeleteIt's pretty clear Barth was against the Right to Vote all along. She didn't sign it and remained silent while her friends Kranz and Shaffer signed it and campaigned on it.
In the absence of Barth's public discussion of the issue, we can only speculate on her reasons. But these are all likely factors:
- Barth believes that City Council is a better judge of development than the voters
- Barth believes that high-density development is good for Global Warming
- Barth wants high-density development to increase tax revenues so she doesn't have to reform city employee pensions
Who Cares what Wacko Smith says..... Wacko is clueless.
ReplyDelete"OMG if the bike lane on Hwy101 is installed, traffic will back up from here to Del Mar!"
UHHHhhhh, well that didn't happen.....
We all no wackos are wackos and don't care about common sense. For that reason I chose not to engage in conversations with them. Its more productive to have a conversation with a wall. or a rock.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteSorry... We all KNOW wackos
ReplyDeleteI wish there were no wackos, but their are..... Mr. Smith is one of several wackos.
You, are a coward to call out anyone, without revealing your name. David Smith is a good guy, and a true public servant. One sure thing, when you turn to bullying and character attack, against ANY individuals, then you don't have facts, you aren't dealing in truth or actually KNOWING. You are dealing in hyperbole and prejudice, which only reveals your own twisted reasoning, and shows the weakness of your arguments, if you offer any other than personal attacks.
DeleteWhatever Wacko No 2....
DeleteGo have a KLCC picnic or something....
Lynn- Get outside, breath some fresh air and clear your head.
You Wackos are stinking up the place.
I read this blog for a range of opinions. Just because I disagree with someone doesn't give me or anyone else the right to label another person a 'wacko.' I am interested in what people have to say, and we could do without the flaming towards citizens who are exerting their 1st amendment rights.
DeleteIn terms of people who are critical of our City staff or elected officials, this is different since they work for us and are paid by us! I respect David Smith and other citizens for trying to hold people to account.
How many times have people I know had to go down and actually do the jobs FOR staff members, or find the code that they are breaking and show it to them? It is not too much to ask that those getting paid 6 figures perform their job better than those of us who show them what to do on our days off. Also, how effective is Gus and all of the other layers of managers when the performance of City staff is so terrible? It is shameful that they are even able to keep their jobs--let alone pull in the pay and benefits they get!
First Amendment Right is right- David, Cameron, Lword and the other KLCC members are wackos. Its not a a flame. Its my opinion after listening to them at Council meetings. They have no common sense.
ReplyDeleteI see nothing in your posts except for personal attacks against people who are trying to participate in the political process. The 3 people who you name have all brought up valid issues that the City was trying to push through under the radar.
DeleteMany thanks to David, Sheila and Lynn! It is hard enough to get up and speak at council meetings--even without being personally attacked later on.