"Meep. Meep."
In the council's early opposition to Proposition A, they focused on "unintended consequences" and legal flaws while insisting that they supported the "spirit of Prop A," and promising to provide an alternative that would achieve the spirit.
If that were honestly the case, the council could have proposed a simplified, alternative ballot measure for the November 2014 ballot with the alleged "flaws" stripped out. As we have pointed out before, a ballot initiative passed by voters is the only way to prevent future councils from upzoning without a public vote. The council's theatrics over the 4/5 exemption last week aren't worth the paper they are printed on unless they add a provision that prohibits NEW exceptions being added and this is protected by a ballot initiative. Without a ballot initiative, any future council can give itself any similar exemptions it wants. Without a provision prohibiting new exceptions, they can nullify the Spirit of Prop A with new exceptions so large you can drive a 5 story building through it.
So why does the council refuse to propose a clean, no-loopholes ballot initiative that fixes whatever flaws they see in Prop A? Indeed, both Mayor Barth and Councilmember Shaffer wrote in their latest newsletters that they were committed to a vote on the General Plan Update (which would be completely toothless), but did not even mention sponsoring a better "right to vote" initiative. Other council members have made clear in private conversations that there will be no "right to vote" initiative if Prop A fails.
If it is not clear to you by now, let us spell it out: Your council does not just oppose the details of Prop A. Your council is, apparently unanimously, opposed to the very principle of a public right to vote on upzoning.
UPDATE: Since publication of this post, Council Members Shaffer and Kranz have indicated support for a legitimate, alternative right-to-vote initiative. However, this still leaves them in a 2-3 minority on the Council, meaning for the public, it's Prop A or no right to vote on upzoning at all.
W C I hear a little panic in your voice.Is this best you got. I think your a loser HA HA
ReplyDeleteWhy have a council at all? We can just come to your blog for the wisdom on how to run the city. You might speed things up by including the following after each article:
ReplyDeleteThis is because council/staff are:
A. Tools of the developers
B. Incompetent morons
C. Greedy pension sucking slugs
D. All of the above
Anon 4:47, are you really looking for a sympathetic response on this blog?
DeleteI'm sure that there must be some good people at the City, but with Gus Vina at the helm, why would any of them want to stay? He rewards wasting money and dishonest behavior because that is how he is.
The bloggers (blogger) that try to defend staff may not even live in Encinitas. Most City employees live elsewhere, and I do not agree that they are stakeholders on part with Encinitas citizens. They are supposed to work for us.
Anyone who thinks that we are being unfair to staff needs to attend a Council meeting or start watching them on tv. I would not have had an opinion at all had I and many people I know not had numberous problems staff members in a range of departments. I like to take people to meetings, and beleive me, they catch on fast.
Most are B and C for sure.
DeleteFire the deadwood including Vina and watch the rest come alive.
Wc-I want to learn so please know I am asking a legitimate question and am still searching for answers as to how I will vote. The question is this: Could the City Council have changed any of the language of the Proposition, or if they did, would't it have to get new signatures, as the people who signed it, signed up for what was on the DeLano Prop.? I just don't know the answer to this.
ReplyDeleteHow do you feel about Muir being all cozy with with Glenn Sabine?
DeleteThe language in the initiative reflects our existing General Plan & our existing Encinitas Municipal Code, as it supports the General Plan, & the initiative, Prop A.
DeleteLisa Shaffer has said that language re building heights could have been written in a manner that would be less "risky" with respect to possible lawsuits that could be brought by developers, and that "only a judge could decide," if developers took the City to court.
But because the 30 ft. MAXIMUM cap is also referenced in our General Plan, in the exact way it is referenced in the initiative, that alleged "risk" has been there all along. All along developers could have said that our EMC, setting lower height limits in some residential zones, including for accessory structures, was not enforceable, alleging that Municipal Code is in conflict with our GP.
That NEVER happened, because they were NOT, initially, in conflict. The GP is NOT in conflict with the initiative. Certain parts of our current EMC ARE in conflict with our GP and the initiative because the way height can be measured was later CHANGED after Leucadia Cares brought a lawsuit, against the City for allowing the height to be measured from tentative map elevations for raised pads, rather than from the lower of finished or natural grades, as specified in EMC Chapter 30.04, Zoning definitions.
The City lied, at the trial with respect to the Barratt American development in Leucadia, falsely claiming raising the pads was necessary for sewer flow, when many developments successfully use pumps rather than gravity feed. Moreover, the pads were elevated for views for the new-build, which blocked pre-existing residents' view corridor. According to the 101 Specific Plans, the "viewshed" is to be protected. The development, of La Costa Blvd., went bankrupt, and was a ghost-town, for years. Meanwhile, the residents, of Leucadia, were again discounted and dismissed, because politicians have kowtowed to development and building industry interests, putting short term profits before quality of life and community character.
They could not change the language; it is a legal document that may not be changed once folks have signed.
ReplyDelete5:08,
Delete5:11 is correct. The council can't change the language.
What they could have done is propose an alternative for a subsequent ballot. They'd say, "We like the overall idea but need to fix this and this. Please vote no on the first and we'll give you the second version as an alternative."
That they didn't do this speaks volumes about their motivations and interests.
There was a time limit to draft a competing initiative, legally to be added to accompany Prop A on the ballot, from the day they received the confirmation of the signatures from the Registrar's: instead of a competing ballot proposition, Barth chose to take her newly elected buddies to the annual League of Cities retreat rather than address the fact that they had the opportunity to draft a competing initiative. It was Barth's decision, solely.
DeleteKinda sheds new light on that 2010 Lincoln Club hit piece, eh?
DeleteMaybe we owe the Lincoln Club an apology?
WC,
DeleteI see your point about the Lincoln Club hit piece. I am disappointed in Barth and the entire council. What is the next step after Prop A passes?
hide sight is perfect W C and it appears your as well !.
ReplyDeleteWhy do you think this wasn't predicted or foreseeable?
DeleteAnd that the right to vote was not a concern to the council until the petition signatures were certified.
ReplyDeleteCouncil panicked and felt this was the best strategy to take the wind out of Prop A. It was a slimy way to do it. Do you really trust for Gaspar and Muir to care if you have the right to vote? Gaspar is in bed with Andreen and David Meyer. The last things these 2 want is for citizens to get in the way of their grandiose plans.
DeleteThe council has 12 months to produce some watered down version of the initiative.
Over 8,500 people had the same foresight W.C. had - this is not rocket science, although the No folks would like voters to think it is.
ReplyDeleteThe big joke is Sacramento Gus gets Council all cozy with this Strategic Planning BS. Its just a ploy to buy him more time and try and get them to think he has any sort of plan. It get him one year closer to retirement. Lets see is he 52 or 53. He has 2 to 3 years Max. Check out this lame agenda especially the last item. http://encinitas.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=7&event_id=29
ReplyDeleteMaybe staff should do something good for the City, so the City Council and citizens can respect them.
Any Council member that doesn't openly state that they are displeased with the City Manager or pull in closed session to fire him, will not be getting my vote next election. In fact, I will lobby against them very active. Get busy and fire the loser! Its been 6 months of wasted time and money!
RECALL BARTH!!!
ReplyDeleteRECALL GASPAR SHE CREATED ERAC!!!!
ReplyDeleteGaspar was responsible for disbanding GPAC and forming ERAC.
ReplyDeleteWell she followed Stocks's instructions.
she still does, RECALL GASPAR
ReplyDeleteVoting YES on Prop A will eliminate and rectify those parts of our Encinitas Muncipal Code that are in conflict with the existing language of the General Plan. It will also put the will of the people at the forefront, rather than in the wallets of insider "influencers."
ReplyDeleteA public vote is the best "needs assessment," of what residents truly want and need. City rules and regulations are made obtuse and complicated, so that only a Judge or supposedly expert staff and consultants can interpret and apply them. Voting YES on Prop A will simplify, clarify.
Council is intentionally disregarding all the benefits of Prop A, and is purposefully discounting the concerns of the little guy, local residents, who would like to have a say over whether or not we want our city to retain Encinitas' smaller, beachtown character. We would still be able to vote to increase height limits and to upzone for particular developments, as was intended all along by the General Plan!
But Councils past have created too many loopholes, including a loophole for RAISING HEIGHT LIMITS, without residents' approval and without a public vote, through creating Specific Plans, which didn't support locals' expressed desires to keep the height limits at 30 ft., two stories. Loopholes were also created by previous Councils for changing the definition of intensification of use, without a public vote, and for disallowing a public vote on a project under five acres, such as the surplus school site, Pacific View, which is only 2.8 acres.
These loopholes or "exceptions" to the public's right to vote would NOT be corrected by Council's recently proposed ordinance; they WOULD be eliminated by passing Prop A.
Pre-existing development would be grandfathered, so remodels, not considered complete rebuilds, would be protected, with vested property rights. Property value would be retained, because citizens can vote to determine what true value means to us, with respect to community character and quality of life.
Please vote YES for the good of the community, and for all of our neighbors. Let's take back our City from so-called "Stakeholders" that are redevelopment interests, "leveraging influence to be symbiotic partners" with Council, trying to manipulate through fear, confusion and falsehoods.
will the council appoint Peder Norby to the chief misinformation minister position the council is calling communication speciliast? Norby now gets 105,000 annually, last may Jerome stcoks put Mr Norby up for a 25% raise to near 135K. Residents objected and Norby didi not get the raise. Is Barth finding another way to get Norby paid? Mr Norby is on video recommending 5 story building shtrpughout the city. Does Pedr Norby have background as a communication specialist? whta is Mr Norby's education background? The council is hiring a PR spin doctor, will they reward Mr Norby?
ReplyDeleteWhat about the Paula person who just retired from Main Street 101? Is she being prepared as Gus' official cheerleader?
DeleteHe certainly seems insecure to want a $130,000 PR person, when he blames the 28 or 8 people for his woes. Also, someone mentioned that he was escorted to the last community meeting by a police officer.
More and more, he has the trappings of a 3rd world, banana republic dictator. I hope that he won't force others to prepare for a yearly tribute performance like Kim Jung Il in N. Korea. Maybe he will strike a coin with his image. The sky is the limit for what Gus can do with OUR money!
Paula is not the person. Maybe Peder. Better suggestion- Put peder in as the City Manager and fire the deadwood Sacramento Gus. Peder knows much more than Sac will ever dream. Peder is a positive brain and momentum for Encinitas. Sac is just a sack of shit..... waiting for retirement.
DeleteBetter suggestion: get Norby out of the mix altogether. That guy has his nose in more Encinitas business than is healthy for us and he's proved he will do the developers' and Gus' bidding without blinking.
DeleteCaught lying on video and leading the ERAC to recommend 4-5 stories to the council, he is no friend to residents.
It is amazing how misinformed so many of these comments are. Norby never recommended 4-5 stories or lead ERAC to recommend that.
ReplyDeleteThe video does not show that he lied.
The video proves that YOU lied in your comment.
The camera does not lie. Watch the Cardiff video, watch the Council video. There's your proof.
DeleteDid we watch the same video? Norby definitely led the committee members. He facilitated their decision in only one direction. He knew it would be easy as the members were selected for their real estate and development interests.
DeleteLet's be clear. A communications specialist is just another name for a public relations flack. The city has a problem because it has now put into the General Plan Land Use Element Section 3.14 a guarantee for voter approval of a comprehensive General Plan Update. This means the city needs a "facilitator" to push this through. The city might betray the citizens and bifurcate the updates into small pieces to avoid a public vote. Another possibility is to propose a "soft" update, get it approved by the voters, then add the onerous stuff afterwards by simple majority vote of the council. Whatever happens, Peder Norby is the man being considered to convince the public to approve the update.
ReplyDeleteRealistic scenarios? With Generalissimo Vina is the driver's seat of the council bus, the answer is affirmative. The way to prevent this is to vote YES on Prop. A and let the voters decide on increases in density and heights.
So he/she is just the latest stage of the failed GPU caper, Norby's 'facilitation,' which has been a flop, and now a PR person to try 1 last time to push it through.
ReplyDeleteVina seems intent on wasting our money to hire people to work against the wishes and needs of Encinitas Citizens.
So he wastes millions of our dollars to assure that millions more of OUR tax dollars go into his pocket. Why can't our Council see this?
Check this out, if you have any doubt who is behind the No on Prop A campaign. Here is the money they have received so far:
ReplyDelete-Homeowner to Preserve Encinitas No on A (this is the Doug Long group)
*Gary Levitt Real Estate Development/Sea Breeze: $1,500
Mr. Levitt has an interesting website describing his projects and how they were accomplished ---
http://www.seabreezeproperties.com/pages/residential.html
*Dealy Family LLC : $2,500
The Dealy Family (Ecke member)
*Robert Echter: $2,500
Greenhouses
*Douglas Harwood (Developer/broker, member of ERAC
pushing for higher densities): $2,500.
*Encinitas Town Center/Ecke: $10,000
Encinitas Town Center is owned by the Zelman Development in Los Angeles.
According to the Zelman Development information they have "...specific expertise in developing properties requiring extensive rezoning or new entitlement."
-Encinitas Residents, Businesses and Taxpayers Opposing Prop A (Principal Christy Guerin)
*North County Taxpayers for Responsible Government $2,500 (This is the group that supported Stocks and Muir for the last election and sent out the “We Love Encinitas” mailer during the last election. They donated $2,500
*National Association of Realtor Fund: $8,250
*Encinitas Town Center, LLC/Ecke: $7,500
Encinitas Town Center owned by Zelman Development in Los Angeles
So about $38K so far with more to come for sure. Any doubt still who is behind the NO on Prop A?
In contrast the Yes on Prop A represents many small donations from concerned residents. The $4,000 donated by North County Advocates from Carlsbad, actually has a lot of residents that are from Encinitas. This group is dedicated to protect our precious natural habitats and fight against development that do no enhance community character and quality of life in North County.
Prop A is a David and Goliath story with the Prop A folks being your average folks, while the No are the realtors, brokers, developers, and large property owners.
Choose your camp wisely!
Barth has sold out - she is a mutated Jerome Stocks. The voters will remember her treachery next time around.
ReplyDelete