Tony's comment when asked about it tonight: "It's protected under free speech."
Not "I find that hit piece reprehensible and, while I advocate no on A, do not support that organization in any way, shape, or form."
Either the finer points elude him or the dirty work being done in his name is coming in awfully handy. Remember his comment a couple of months ago at Council in reference to Prop A: "I want to kill this thing."
Banana Republic all over again. Deja vu in Encinitas. These developers will stop at nothing to crush their opposition. Irregardless of my position on Prop A if I were a council member and somebody use my picture and words out of context like that, I would go after the people that put out this flier with a vengeance. I bet they won't do anything about it.
Disgusting mailer, packed full of outright lies. Shameful. When Council took a position, as in writing the arguments and allowing a pro-development firm to write the slanted impact report, it set itself up for this kind of inappropriate advocacy.
Council could have taken no position. Might, as in money, does not make right.
So many of us had our vision for a new Council, with a new agenda, crushed.
At Wednesday's Council Meeting, Lisa Shaffer was openly suggesting ways that committees could be set up, rather than Commissions, in order not to have the complication of having to adhere to the Brown Act.
She is constantly on the defensive, with other Council Members, as well as the public. Perhaps she's the biggest disappointment of them all. But for those who worked so hard to get them elected, Shaffer, Kranz and Barth have been a huge disappointment. We feel betrayed by their "partnering" with economic "stakeholders" and their "teaming" with staff, while leaving "the little guy" out in the cold.
It seems that they(Council)are all being told what to do by a Pimp Named Gustavo, employee unions,and his building industry friends. Why do Council members in Encinitas insist on keeping him when his former Sacramento council lost faith in him and encouraged him to resign? Is this really the type of person that we needed to snag?
What is in it for taxpayers, except to pick up the bills? We never wanted what he is peddling!
Our elected officials and City staff are supposed to watch out for our interests as citizens and taxpayers. Instead, they have waged war on us and spent our money to strengthen their own positions. We have nothing to show for the money that we have been bleeding since Gus has taken over except for higher paid City employees--and more of them!
Kranz and Shaffer acted like they supported the Initiative when we were going door to door and campaigning for them along the way, but once they assumed power, they declared that they had reservations all along. We should have voted for Ziegler and Yost. At least they gathered signatures and didn't change their position on the Initiative.
It gets worse. Next Council meeting is the power grab vote by them. You the voting resident will be allowed to vote once in 20 years on the comprehensive General Plan Update. Big whooping deal.
It appears the council intends to renege on its promise to honor the spirit of Prop A.
There is a giant 3/5 loophole and there is no public vote to make it future-council-proof.
This is a giant betrayal.
The only rational response is to vote Yes on A and then allow the council to craft a follow-up initiative to fix whatever "unintended consequences" there are.
The rats have come out of their hole again. They hide at the office of Scott & Cronin (or is it Stocks & Cronies?) at 330 Encinitas Blvd. # 101. The same people that run a despicable campaign a few months ago to elect Stocks and Muir, are back at it with their lies. Danger: Deep pockets & specials interests ahead. proceed with caution and Votes Yes on Prop A.
I doubt that my response will be well-received but I will offer it anyway. I have renounced the Prop A flyer and the arguments that it contains. I knew nothing of it until it appeared in my mailbox. Why would I want to work with people who actively campaigned against me?
I support closing the 4/5 loophole and I was appalled to read in the staff report for the Planning Commission that a new loophole was being proposed by our staff. That is not acceptable and is not consistent with Council direction. Wait to criticize us about it until we have a chance, in an open, public meeting, to deliberate and vote on the proposed General Plan Amendment. If section 3.12.5 is eliminated in its entirety, we will be acting consistent with one element of Prop A as we said we would. Council is scheduled to take action on this item on Wednesday.
As for commissions and committees, the discussion of changes is not intended to make the groups less open, but more open. It's to enable more wide-ranging discussion with easier public input. People are frustrated by only being able to speak to agenda items and having limited time in commission and council meetings. What we're trying to explore is other formats that would be more open and less constrained. If we are criticized for having an open discussion about new ways of operating, then how is any change possible? Do you think our commissions serve the public interest effectively? I'm trying to find a way for the commissions to be more responsive to publicly initiated topics, and to be able to initiate items themselves rather than just what the Council asks. Is that a bad idea?
It's hard to figure out how to be open and explain my positions when such behavior is characterized as defensive. I'm using my own name and speaking for myself in response to others who post as Anonymous. ...
That's it, attack concerned citizens who post anonymously, many of whom make valid, well-reasoned points. How about instead of blaming constituents, many of whom here not only voted for, but campaigned for you, you listen for a change?
Lisa Shaffer, your comments are characterized as "defensive," because you are making up excuses for "changing your mind," saying you signed the petition with "reservations," that you were asked not to share. Whether you signed or not, and wither your election campaign benefitted from your having signed, is not up for debate. To sign something, and not express any "serious reservations," shows a lack of integrity. You must accept responsibility for your own actions, judgments and decisions.
When people carefully and truthfully explain why your arguments against the people's right to vote on upzoning, and raising the height limit don't stand up to logic and the facts of our current General Plan, you seem to latch on to some new excuse why you oppose Prop A. The Encinitas Preservation Association's logo on the lying No on A Flyers, Peder Norby, Doug Long and Paul Ecke's involvement in that Board of Directors, and your false statement that a museum could not be built at the Boathouses (one certainly could with a minor or major use permit WITHOUT upzoning) is just another example of how you are only listening to the arguments of expansionist interests, not the "little guy," the general public man or woman, on the streets . . . You are siding with the "monied interests," and against the average Joe, or Josephine.
Did the flyer actually quote what you said or did they make it up? If they quoted you, what are you running away from? What other statements did you say, but, really didn't mean??? If they made it up, you should write an editorial stating that this is a lie. If not, your worst then them.
The City Council is under the sway of their hired staff, who direct the special interest requests thru the underground pipeline. It is also a control trip, where they figure they don't have to comply with the wishes of the electorate. Flashy slogans and glossy mailers substitute for the facts, as most citizens don't vote nor care what goes on in government. The Union Tribune, that conservative pro-development slander sheet, endorses a NO vote on A. That assures it - VOTE YES ON A!!!
These are the people elected in a town like Mayberry by the Sea. Sad but true...
ReplyDeleteTony's comment when asked about it tonight: "It's protected under free speech."
ReplyDeleteNot "I find that hit piece reprehensible and, while I advocate no on A, do not support that organization in any way, shape, or form."
Either the finer points elude him or the dirty work being done in his name is coming in awfully handy. Remember his comment a couple of months ago at Council in reference to Prop A: "I want to kill this thing."
Banana Republic all over again.
ReplyDeleteDeja vu in Encinitas. These developers will stop at nothing to crush their opposition.
Irregardless of my position on Prop A if I were a council member and somebody use my picture and words out of context like that, I would go after the people that put out this flier with a vengeance. I bet they won't do anything about it.
I applaud your integrity and agree they won't do anything about it.
ReplyDeleteDisgusting mailer, packed full of outright lies. Shameful. When Council took a position, as in writing the arguments and allowing a pro-development firm to write the slanted impact report, it set itself up for this kind of inappropriate advocacy.
ReplyDeleteCouncil could have taken no position. Might, as in money, does not make right.
So many of us had our vision for a new Council, with a new agenda, crushed.
At Wednesday's Council Meeting, Lisa Shaffer was openly suggesting ways that committees could be set up, rather than Commissions, in order not to have the complication of having to adhere to the Brown Act.
She is constantly on the defensive, with other Council Members, as well as the public. Perhaps she's the biggest disappointment of them all. But for those who worked so hard to get them elected, Shaffer, Kranz and Barth have been a huge disappointment. We feel betrayed by their "partnering" with economic "stakeholders" and their "teaming" with staff, while leaving "the little guy" out in the cold.
I fully agree with the 4:55am post. Well stated.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that they(Council)are all being told what to do by a Pimp Named Gustavo, employee unions,and his building industry friends. Why do Council members in Encinitas insist on keeping him when his former Sacramento council lost faith in him and encouraged him to resign? Is this really the type of person that we needed to snag?
DeleteWhat is in it for taxpayers, except to pick up the bills? We never wanted what he is peddling!
This just gets worse and worse!
Flaming torches and pitchforks .....
DeleteOur elected officials and City staff are supposed to watch out for our interests as citizens and taxpayers. Instead, they have waged war on us and spent our money to strengthen their own positions. We have nothing to show for the money that we have been bleeding since Gus has taken over except for higher paid City employees--and more of them!
DeleteKranz and Shaffer acted like they supported the Initiative when we were going door to door and campaigning for them along the way, but once they assumed power, they declared that they had reservations all along. We should have voted for Ziegler and Yost. At least they gathered signatures and didn't change their position on the Initiative.
It gets worse. Next Council meeting is the power grab vote by them. You the voting resident will be allowed to vote once in 20 years on the comprehensive General Plan Update. Big whooping deal.
ReplyDeleteIt appears the council intends to renege on its promise to honor the spirit of Prop A.
ReplyDeleteThere is a giant 3/5 loophole and there is no public vote to make it future-council-proof.
This is a giant betrayal.
The only rational response is to vote Yes on A and then allow the council to craft a follow-up initiative to fix whatever "unintended consequences" there are.
The rats have come out of their hole again. They hide at the office of Scott & Cronin (or is it Stocks & Cronies?) at 330 Encinitas Blvd. # 101. The same people that run a despicable campaign a few months ago to elect Stocks and Muir, are back at it with their lies. Danger: Deep pockets & specials interests ahead. proceed with caution and Votes Yes on Prop A.
ReplyDeleteI doubt that my response will be well-received but I will offer it anyway. I have renounced the Prop A flyer and the arguments that it contains. I knew nothing of it until it appeared in my mailbox. Why would I want to work with people who actively campaigned against me?
ReplyDeleteI support closing the 4/5 loophole and I was appalled to read in the staff report for the Planning Commission that a new loophole was being proposed by our staff. That is not acceptable and is not consistent with Council direction. Wait to criticize us about it until we have a chance, in an open, public meeting, to deliberate and vote on the proposed General Plan Amendment. If section 3.12.5 is eliminated in its entirety, we will be acting consistent with one element of Prop A as we said we would. Council is scheduled to take action on this item on Wednesday.
As for commissions and committees, the discussion of changes is not intended to make the groups less open, but more open. It's to enable more wide-ranging discussion with easier public input. People are frustrated by only being able to speak to agenda items and having limited time in commission and council meetings. What we're trying to explore is other formats that would be more open and less constrained. If we are criticized for having an open discussion about new ways of operating, then how is any change possible? Do you think our commissions serve the public interest effectively? I'm trying to find a way for the commissions to be more responsive to publicly initiated topics, and to be able to initiate items themselves rather than just what the Council asks. Is that a bad idea?
It's hard to figure out how to be open and explain my positions when such behavior is characterized as defensive. I'm using my own name and speaking for myself in response to others who post as Anonymous. ...
That's it, attack concerned citizens who post anonymously, many of whom make valid, well-reasoned points. How about instead of blaming constituents, many of whom here not only voted for, but campaigned for you, you listen for a change?
DeleteLisa Shaffer, your comments are characterized as "defensive," because you are making up excuses for "changing your mind," saying you signed the petition with "reservations," that you were asked not to share. Whether you signed or not, and wither your election campaign benefitted from your having signed, is not up for debate. To sign something, and not express any "serious reservations," shows a lack of integrity. You must accept responsibility for your own actions, judgments and decisions.
DeleteWhen people carefully and truthfully explain why your arguments against the people's right to vote on upzoning, and raising the height limit don't stand up to logic and the facts of our current General Plan, you seem to latch on to some new excuse why you oppose Prop A. The Encinitas Preservation Association's logo on the lying No on A Flyers, Peder Norby, Doug Long and Paul Ecke's involvement in that Board of Directors, and your false statement that a museum could not be built at the Boathouses (one certainly could with a minor or major use permit WITHOUT upzoning) is just another example of how you are only listening to the arguments of expansionist interests, not the "little guy," the general public man or woman, on the streets . . . You are siding with the "monied interests," and against the average Joe, or Josephine.
Dear Councilperson Shaffer,
ReplyDeleteDid the flyer actually quote what you said or did they make it up? If they quoted you, what are you running away from? What other statements did you say, but, really didn't mean??? If they made it up, you should write an editorial stating that this is a lie. If not, your worst then them.
Dale
The City Council is under the sway of their hired staff, who direct the special interest requests thru the underground pipeline. It is also a control trip, where they figure they don't have to comply with the wishes of the electorate. Flashy slogans and glossy mailers substitute for the facts, as most citizens don't vote nor care what goes on in government.
ReplyDeleteThe Union Tribune, that conservative pro-development slander sheet, endorses a NO vote on A. That assures it - VOTE YES ON A!!!