We can’t know if that last part is one of the things Mayor Barth sees as a negative because she is keeping her comments vague. She refuses to answer the question: What are the negatives of Prop A? It deeply matters what is on her list. Without that list you don’t know if she is going to give the public the 10% of Prop A that they actually care about, or leave that out, if Prop A fails.
If Prop A fails you might not even get even 10% of what is in Prop A. In fact, you might get a bunch of stuff you didn’t want.
Let’s review. This is what the council committed to in writing:
The Council will propose changes to the General Plan (Land Use Policies 3.10 & 3.12.5) to require zoning changes and General Plan Updates to be approved by a public vote providing the community with a greater voice in our future. This will fulfill the spirit of Proposition A -- the right to vote on upzoning.
The spirit of Prop A was to make it a RIGHT of the voters to vote on upzoning and make that RIGHT irrevocable by council action. It doesn’t look like the council is moving on the second part. The essential part. Without the second part, why bother with the first part? What’s the benefit?
According to one senior city official, what the council will be voting on next week WILL NOT result in the proposed changes going to the voters to be ratified, and thus their changes will not be immune from future council changes (via a 3/5th majority). The spirit of Prop A WILL NOT be fulfilled by the council without the council setting a new course.
Prop A makes a substantive change, in that it cannot be overturned on some random Wednesday night when nobody is watching. You say that won’t happen? How many people know that the council, including Barth, overturned your right to vote on city borrowing on long-term debt? The parallel is somewhat close, because that provision of the city management manual giving you that right was put in as a direct response the last time there was a serious voter initiative put in front of the council. There is widespread support for voter approval for bonding, perhaps even more than for voter approval of upzoning.
Because of all this, I consider what the council is doing next week as no better than symbolic. When Jerome was Mayor I wrote that he should spend his time on substantive changes rather than symbolic changes (ex: eminent domain “reform”), and made suggestions to that effect. To be fair, this council should work on substantive changes rather than symbolic changes that will not keep future councils from changing it back or weaseling in a NEW exception.
Unfortunately, what the city is poised to do may be worse than that. It may open the door for even easier action by the council on upzoning. Instead of affirming the right to vote in clear language the council decided to strike out the 4/5 exemptions from the GP. Why was this glaringly bad, immediately, to many lay observers? If you don’t replace it with language that prohibits NEW exemptions, it opens the door to new exceptions without having to overturn the current council's decision. Oh, this is just chicken little talk? Keep reading.
If you want an example of an exception that could be added that would be consistent with the strikeout of the 4/5th exemption, look at what has been proposed. The staff report for the PC review of the topic recommends the city add in an exemption to voter approval for compliance with state law. Translation: just about any upzoning that contains residential could EASILY be construed to fall under that exception.
THIS IS A BOMBSHELL! It gives a spectacular example of the obvious "flaw" of only striking out the exception.
Again, maybe this is just the way Mayor Barth wanted it. We can’t know if she keeps her list of negatives about Prop A secret.
Here is what people are saying to me: There is no way Encinitas City Manager Gus Vina would have allowed such a bold move without first checking in with Barth. Barth has a long history of "talking" to the CM about things she does and doesn't want to see happen, during her private meeting with him and other staff.
(I’d ask Gus directly but he's not answering questions. Barth isn’t either.)
We can’t know if what we are seeing is consistent with the Mayor’s desires or not, because she has kept her list of negatives secret.
To fulfill the core spirit of Prop A a statement has to be added that states that the VOTERS will get the final say, with no exceptions. That must be set up so the council can’t overturn it on a whim.
I would be satisfied if the council stated clearly what their goals were in creating their version of Prop A (that would sort of require being open about what they see as the negatives of Prop A) AND set a timeline for moving to get their version which gives the voters the last say with no exceptions, submitted to the registrar of voters.
A strikeout version of Prop A doesn't meet the spirit of Prop A. A resolution by the council to change the GP's exceptions doesn't meet the spirit of Prop A. Only a voter approved ballot measure that has language that affirms the rights of the voters meets the spirit of Prop A. If they did that, I would be so satisfied with that I would actively campaign against Prop A.
Don't forget, the Council promised to fulfill the spirit of Prop A, only they might be twisting the meaning of the spirit of Prop A to manipulate the public. We can’t adequately evaluate that until the Mayor tells us what parts of Prop A she sees as negatives, leaving the good parts to be adopted by the council and voters.
Note: I have not decided if I’m going to support Prop A or not. I’m waiting to see the Mayor’s list of negatives. Please don’t be surprised if I agree with the Mayor.
And all of you wanted Barth as the mayor because she was so " open" about what goes on at city hall, lololololllllolololoooololol. Gullible Mayberry voters....
ReplyDeleteLast night's Planning Commission meeting revealed that our new "Murphy," Jeff Murphy, removed the 4/5 required Council super-majority vote needed. This defaults the necessary votes to require a simple majority: 3/5. Only 3 Council members present that night? Not a problem! 2/3 may now decide on major up-zoning.
ReplyDeleteThat means 2 Council members may make MAJOR zoning changes for a city of 60,000 people without checking in with the people.
Murphy2 changed the language from what Council publicly directed him to write in order to, in Murphy2's words "offer an alternative to Council." He did not do this in a vacuum.
Others are in the know. The question was raised at last night's LTC Prop A open debate/discussion and Kranz spoke to the issue as a fully informed individual. He promised in very strong words to demand the removal of Murphy2's language. He seems to forget, though, that he is ONE person on the Council.
How come the public notification of the GPA didn't include the really sneaky part that could allow as few as two coucnil members to make zone changes??? Is that a Brown Act notification violation? Based on what Councilman Kranz said last night I would assume that the council also had the draft staff report that the Planning Commission recieved.
ReplyDeleteI take solace in the fact that the planning commission decided on a 3-2 vote to remove entirely 3.12.5.
ReplyDeleteJeff Murphy seems like a weasel. Welcome to Encinitas, Mr. Murphy!
After the unsolicited recommendation Jeff Murphy made, I can't trust him, either. Gus Vina picked Rutan & Tucker to write that slanted, pro-development impact report. That was a bad choice. Now he's chosen another dept. head who appears to have a pro-development agenda. Does staff think the public is stupid? We can see the loophole a mile away.
DeleteWhy doesn't the City enact another amnesty, as it did back in 1991, to bring a lot more accessory units into the mandated affordable housing "stock?" The city needs to count all "potential" accessory units, just as it would count "potential" affordable units, were zoning to be increased.
http://www.encinitasca.gov/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=1576
Kranz said at last night's Leucadia Town Council meeting in the library that he couldn't support the proposed change in 3.12.5 that opens an even bigger loophole in the General Plan. The PC meeting was going on at the same time at city hall, but Kranz seemed fully informed about its implications.
ReplyDeleteSo he knew about it beforehand.
It strains credibility that the new Planning Director Murphy 2 acted alone after being on the job only about 3 weeks. It would be gross insubordination if he didn't have prior approval. The finger points toward City Manager Gus Vina and Mayor Teresa Barth. Were all the council members aware what was going on? Whatever played itself out, it was a huge betrayal of the "spirit" of Prop. A.
Now we all have a good reason to vote YES on Prop. A.
Jeff Murphy can still recommend his so-called "alternative language" to the Council despite the Planning Commission 3-2 to remove the section. That any of the PC voted to keep it is creepy, underhanded, and shows an ill intent toward residents. Sounds like some cahoots afoot....
ReplyDeleteYou all watch: Murphy, with Vina and others conniving behind the scenes, will find a way to get the language back in...it may not sound the same, but it will have the same effect. They'll just bury it where no one can find it. That is, until it's too late.
Even if Murphy doesn't get his poison pill language back in, the whole thing is completely worthless if the council doesn't put it on the ballot to protect it from future councils.
DeleteIf they don't put it on the ballot, they are acting in bad faith.
You are right W.C Varones. That will be the ultimate test. If adopted by council a right to vote would not even be worth the paper it is printed on. If proposed for a general election it will be something important. I just can't picture Muir and Gaspar truly wanting us the right to vote. I'm sure they will come up with a refresh list of unintended consequences and will jump on the EncinitasHope (should be no Hope)bandwagon. These people are not going away. Their livelihood depends on muzzling the little people.
DeleteA refresh list?? I never saw the first one.
DeleteThat was the Rotten report (sorry misspell: Rutan)
DeleteHi, for all time i used to check web site posts here early in the
ReplyDeletedaylight, since i enjoy to gain knowledge of more
and more.
Feel free to surf to my site :: click this site
What is the election date??
ReplyDeleteJune 18
DeleteWhen is the election date? I am for sure voting yes. The developers, unions, and cronies want us to vote no.
ReplyDeleteJune 18th
ReplyDeleteI think that the reason that the City is fighting this so hard is that it will make the Planning Department a defunct department.
ReplyDeleteEven people in the building industry could get behind that! Our Planning Department is the biggest waste of money in the City. The only thing they are good at is showing up to collect their checks!
YES on Prop A!
Your thinking is convoluted.
ReplyDeleteIf you want the planning dept gone, elect council members that fire their asses.
Fire 50% of the staff, including the fire dept, and reduce pay and benefits by 50% for those that remain.
You don't have to destroy the city with prop A.
Vote NO.
I am voting YES on A because I DON'T want to see the city destroyed. This is not an either/or choice. Vote YES on A and fire the Planning Department's asses and 50% of the other City staff and managers starting with Sacramento Gus and his 'cabinet.'
DeleteFire Norby. He's the 101 Czar, but hasn't walked the length of 101 in years, he can't tell you why there are no flowers on the north end of 101, it looks like hemorrhoids on a pigs butt, nor can he tell you what is the hold up on the streetscape.
DeleteSolona Beach is finishing their streetscape, Leucadia will NEVER see a streetscape.
There, I just saved you a $100K, what else can I do for you today?
The decision maker
To Anonymous at 9:11 AM:
DeleteHow will Prop. A destroy the city?
Really?? You expect someone to do everything for you. Fuck!! Grow a pair and think for yourself. THINK!! Figure it out for yourself, moron.
DeleteFucking public school graduate....
DeleteVote YES on Prop A. It lets the voters decide on major upzoning increases and increased building heights.
ReplyDeleteALERT!!!!!
ReplyDeleteOn Council agenda May 22 agenda item #4--
Major power grab by the Council. Replacement of the 4/5 supermajority vote in the General Plan with an unstated simple 3/5 Council vote. Planning Commission voted 3-2 to remove the new unstated 3/5 vote language.
Read the staff report. Council doesn't want to talk about the power grab.
Now both Barth and Shaffer are whining about the use of their photos and statements in the No on Prop. A mailer. They protest too much. Did they really think that their vote to oppose Prop. A wouldn't be used by other Prop. A opponents? When you sleep with fleas, you wake with bites.
ReplyDeleteVote YES on Prop. A.
Woof woof.
DeleteWhat's down with Leucadia's Webcam at wunderground.com? No images since May 1. Now I have to ride my Harley Hog to the overlook to check the surf. Woe is me. Bring back Leucadia's Webcam!
ReplyDeletehttp://www.wunderground.com/webcams/Leucadia/1/show.html
Now we're told Barth & Shaffer will recommend Council take away ALL time donations for public speakers. What drags on & on are overly long staff & consultant/contractor reports, with no means for public interaction.
ReplyDeleteOnly Council can ask questions, or get answers, directly, from staff, contractors, or public speakers. Barth & Shaffer also want to curtail Council Members from asking questions of the public; that's another tradition they're wanting to limit, to the public's disadvantage, & to the disadvantage of someone like Kranz, who asked a legitimate question of Cameron, who was cut off, by Barth, from answering. Barth doesn't want debate. She's the chair, but someone answering a question isn't debate.
Since incorporation, we've been able to donate time. People complained, advocacy lawyers got involved through Ian Thompson, Maggie's husband, because the City Attorney's partner, Morrison, wanted the City to take away our freedom of speech, by disallowing ALL banners, any kinds of signs, on "public infrastructure," taking away our "limited forum" for Arts Alive Banners, & more. Hanging banners has also been a tradition; & yes, the Artists' Colony does get permits.
Stocks suspended the ordinance & didn't allow any permit applications for any kind of signage on lightposts or any public infrastructure for about 6 months. Finally, after attorneys came forward, the ordinance was revised. But it had been illegally suspended, with the bad advice of our City Attorney.
Now Barth & Shaffer are going to recommend to Council that public speakers, no matter what the Agenda Item, would only be able to speak for 3 minutes maximum, without putting any limitations on the time allowed for special presentations, staff presentations, or contractor/consultant presentations. Staff reports can go on for hundreds of pages.
Public speakers are "too burdensome" for Barth & Shaffer. There's conflicting "word on the streets" that Barth will or will not run again. Perhaps she is acting this way because she is a lame duck, & no longer cares about what her constituents think of her? Perhaps she now only cares about the company of hobnobbing insider "partners?"
Barth & Shaffer both have brains, not sure how savy or intelligent they are. They're administrators, NOT good elected officials, representing those who voted them into office, instead catering to their special interest buddies.
Some people have a fear of speaking in public. They WANT to donate their time. They have to be present to donate time. This is taking away another right for the "meek" to be able to speak, through a friend or associate. Even Stocks never made such an outrageous proposal. Barth & Shaffer say they see people getting time donations from strangers. How do they know who knows whom? That statement isn't true, & isn't a reason to change a policy we've had for 26+ years.
Apparently Barth & Shaffer also want to make it so that if a member of the public tries to make a change to the minutes, for example, by "pulling" something from the Consent Calendar, that would now have to be heard at the end of the meeting. That's something else that even Stocks did not try to do, another change from traditional policy, which actually gave the public a slight precedence, over Council. When a council member pulls an item from the consent calendar, it's heard at the end of the Regular Agenda. Barth & Shaffer, consummate control freaks, couldn't have that! They care a lot more about control than encouraging public participation, & showing respect to the electorate.
Don't hold your breath waiting for Barth to answer your questions, K.C. When I consider our new council, in whom we put our hopes & trust, which have been crushed, I can't help but think of the tried & true phrase: Careful what you wish for!
Vote YES on A!
This proposal to limit public input even more is shocking. They have now fully embraced the old Council's comments and position about efficiency in government. Traslation: They get to drone on and on about nothing, praise the staff who do substandard work, and let 'consultants' sit up there and lie with no public input. Well, democracy is not efficient! It is requires a lot of work and a willingness to listen to the people who they represent.
DeleteIt seems that this council is only interested in making it easier for themselves and Guss. At least pretend that you know what your jobs actually are and stop acting like 3rd world dictators!
Mayor Barth and Deputy Mayor Shaffer:
ReplyDeleteWhat are you thinking? Has the power of government so bloated your brains that your ethics has decayed?
Word is the battery "died" during the subcommittee meeting, so no recording of what was said except for notes take by the city clerk. That seems to happen a lot at city hall, especially when the public might most want to hear what was said. Not the first time, won't be the last. Odd.
ReplyDeletePlease explain how it is you claim the council proposes doing away with time donations and limiting agenda item speakers to 3 minutes? Thank you
ReplyDeleteThat is what Teresa Barth and Lisa Shaffer are recommending to Council through their subcommittee on administrative policy.
DeleteMost of the meeting was recorded, as the batteries were replaced. The Clerk is good; she took extensive notes.
Flaming torches and pitchforks !!!whats stopping you?? What's holding you back?? What is your fear?? The jails are full, at most you will be cited and released. Then pay a fine of a couple of hundred bucks ... Big deal. Strike, revolt, rise up !! Demand account tability!!!
ReplyDeleteYes, time for pitchforks and flaming torches.. LOL!
ReplyDeleteHysteria from the myopic lunatic fringe. Three minutes only?Please get a life.
No one wants to hear the same five people constantly droning on and on, rambling on mostly off topic from on an item that's actually on the consent calendar that night.
It's not debate when you go on to lambaste and berate those on the dais that do not agree with your point of view about how you think our government should operate, or what rules are to be followed that you don't seem to know or follow either.
The public speakers are at the dais too, loser.
DeleteYost and Ziegler? Really?
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you put up one of your own like Lynn to run for you in the next election.
She's your expert and champion defender of our little democracy you know.
loser,
DeleteYou work at city hall. R U getting points at work for flaming and diverting?
Name 3 people who you think has Lynn for their Champion?
No. I don't discuss or share my political views or observations of the blogging community with my fellow staff members.
DeletePS: The last comment was in jest. I could not give you three people who care about Lynn or what Lynn thinks.
And who's flaming and diverting here? Certainly not me.
Delete"...my fellow staff members..."
DeleteYou work at Walmart, of course.
Well ,,, Some would like me to be making Wallmart wages with no benefits, that's for sure. Staff is thrown around pretty loosely on this blog so what's the correct term? Government slackers? Tit suckers? Co conspirators?
DeleteNot everyone wants to run. We have a right to demand respect, courtesy and integrity by our elected representatives, without some loser saying, if you don't like it, run for office.
DeletePeople will step forward, and those who betray, will be voted out of office, or maybe will decide it's best for them not to run again.
With her ethics background, why won't Shaffer suggest an ethics and open government commission? Is that giving away too much control/authority/power? Some commissions could be temporary. Or a citizen committee could be set up, as an alternative, that does operate under the constraints of the Brown Act. Why do Shaffer and Barth feel the Brown Act is limiting their being able "to get stuff done?"
Maybe a dictatorship would be simplest, in terms of their not having to care about listening to the people, giving time for public input? Why won't Shaffer and Barth allow a real conversation with those whom they have decided are the "usual suspects" according to Gus Vina's assumptions?
We'll see. Time will tell.
With regard to Loser Leucadian's comments--not all City employees are bad. But there are some bad departments where bad performance is ignored or even rewarded. The same managers, employees and the same departments come up over and over again. The same pattern of dishonesty, incompetence, and mismanagement among the same people/departments has been going on for years.
DeleteInstead of looking at ways to limit public participation, why don’t the Council members focus their efforts to make sure that these issues are addressed?
Please elaborate on the "bad departments" and their employees incompetence year after year.
DeleteOnce again you slander staff with a broad brush and do not provide any substance. Just more of the same old generalization and innuendo about perceived negligence and misconduct without mentioning specific factual proof.
Who are these "same managers, employees and departments" that are operating with dishonesty, incompetence and mismanagement of their departments?
Just about every department head has already been replaced in the last two years.
"Please explain how it is you claim the council proposes doing away with time donations and limiting agenda item speakers to 3 minutes? Thank you"
ReplyDeleteHere you go: http://www.encinitasca.gov/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=2802
Council doesn't want to hear from residents, period. None of them, whether the "same five" or Gus "28 identified activists."
make that Gus' "28..."
ReplyDeleteMakes you all warm and fuzzy to know they're keeping track of folks who - gasp! - don't trust them.
How do people break into the 28? Is campaigning or exerting 1st Amendment Rights enough to get people on the list?
DeleteDo Rutan and Tucker qualify since they were hired by Gus to create the appearance of sweeping community support for No on A and to try to derail the desire of citizens to keep community character. Why is this a bad thing, and why did they send us the bill for this unwanted service?
In R and T's own words,
“If passed, the voter approval requirements, extended public notice requirements and absolute height limit would accomplish the goal of voter control, and facilitate the maintenance of community character in Encinitas.”
For every 28 who speak out at meetings, there are many more who post on blogs or talk about it. Sometimes, I have to ask my kid to explain some of the comments on this blog and others because I don't know understand the references. There are people of all ages who are disappointed in what has been happening lately.
ReplyDeleteShame on Gus Vina for being so dismissive of residents who take the time to read the agenda reports and go to city hall to speak. He's angry because those 28 citizens have caught him and the staff in mistakes and irregularities. He thought he could cruise into Encinitas and have his way. He didn't expect a buzz saw of informed citizens. He used to meet with residents and answer email. Now he does neither.
ReplyDeleteUnless the City Council uses their power to get someone new, they will be blamed for what he and all of the people he manages do. For those of us who have seen other city managers over the years, Gus has empowered City staff to be worse than they were under any previous manager.
DeleteAnd yet Gus earns more than any of the other city managers...
Delete28 residents out 64,000, or 0.04375% of the population is taking a disproportionate amount of the council’s time. If it’s the same 28 people over and over again and if they’re criticisms/suggestions/comments consistently do not add to the conversation, issue or debate I can understand why they’re doing this. Let’s face it, 0.004375% of the residents up in arms with pitchforks is hardly an uprising! If you had 500 times that amount you’d have something!
ReplyDeleteStill, how does this thing work? Each time a property owner seeks a chnage in zoning it requires an public vote? How many public votes could we have in one year? If demand is strong will they aggregate the voting? Will we vote on each individual project or pass/fail on the entire slate? Based on how people choose their politicians is it realistic to think that each voter is going to drive by the affected neighborhood and see for themselves? I understand a vote on a very large project, but what if we have 3 lot splits, an additional structure and a change from agricultural to R-4 on the same ballot?
- The Sculpin
Sculpin- you ask hard questions. The question no one answers is... Who pays for the election costs??
DeleteWho are these 28 people? And since when does participation in a democratic process define one as an "activist", (and since when is that term a pejorative?)
DeleteSculpin, if there are really only 28 'identified activists,' why did Gus try to convince the Council to hire a PR firm to try to rehabilitate their (council's and his) public images at the retreat?
DeleteWouldn't it be more productive if they either changed leadership, or if they all started to do their jobs instead of blaming their customers for bad service?
Sculpin, where have you been? Down in the deep? It's sounds like you haven't read the initiative. Even the summary would tell you what you need to know. Any increase over current zoning or the 30-foot height limit would require a vote. The applicant would pay for the election, not the city. The vast majority of property owners would never seek a zoning increase. Only developers looking for a big profit would.
DeleteHow do you think the present council members are dealing with issues that concern the "28?" Like drunkenness downtown, red light cameras, wayside horns, sidewalk dining, or a quiet zone in the rail corridor. It seems they have been sitting on their hands.
6:12
DeleteThe current council has to deal with the decisions of the past council. The new council is unfairly paying dues owed by the past council.
Like when Stock and friends took ALL he funds that were set aside for quiet rail crossings/ wayside horns and moved them to the regional sports park.
To 5/20/13 6:12 - You answered the easy questions! Try the harder ones, like multiple requests on the ballot. Frequency of ballots - yearly? Quarterly? Monthly? The economy will get better and there will be more development. As for the issues that concern the "28", they're not entirely the purview of the council - other agencies are involved.
Delete- The Sculpin
I answered the "hard" questions by saying that ballot votes would be very infrequent. Special elections cost around $350,000 to $400,000, so any developer would wait for a general election in the even years to piggyback for a much lower cost of $35,000 to $40,000, like the city did for the elected mayor proposition.
DeleteHow much land to be development do you think remains in Encinitas? Unless we start razing houses to put up condo towers, not very much. Therefore, most developers will go elsewhere to avoid the hassle. Our city has long had the reputation of being "easy."
You dodged my question about how the city council is doing on the other issues, all of which the city has to initiate, even if another agency is involved. That would only be NCTD and the rail corridor. I think you don't want to admit that the council has totally failed so far on these issues.
Have you read the initiative? It still sounds like you haven't.
So what your are saying is Prop A effectively stops the little guy from developing his property, but an out of town deep pockets developer will be able to do what they want since they have all the resources they need. Wow - how populist of you! And yes, the next phase is to aggregate lots, raze structures, and build new projects. Whether it be large homes, condos, commercial or apartments that's the next phase and it will happen. What won't happen is the local who wants to do a lot split, build a 2nd separate structure, or make his existing grandfathered property compliant. Yes, I have read the initiative, and I already mailed my absentee ballot back as a No.
DeleteAs for the other issues - no, the council hasn't failed. They have to juggle competing interests to arrive at a solution. I don't define failure as not implementing your specific solution.
The Sculpin
If 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 ballot for a Special Election?
DeleteCouncil 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, Baratt American.
But if the communities truly wants some high rises, they could so vote! The 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 wouldn't pay for the ballot measures, if/when Prop A passes, and it didn't have to pay for a Special Election. They 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. We'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.
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.
When Home Depot wanted to build a business on the corner of El Camino Real and Olivenhain Rd., it was zoned for a business no larger than would create 1000 car trips per day. The size they wanted to build increased that to 10,000 per day. And that on a flood plain. The General Plan was being ignored and the people who didn't like that made it go to a vote of the people instead of a handfull of Planning Commissioners and/or Council Members. A petition was circulated to make the matter go to the vote of the people and gathered enough signatures to be voted upon. The majority of the people wanted Home Depot to be built where they wanted to and so it was. Likewise, the E Ranch wanted to re-zone their agriculture lots to be residential. It too went to a public vote but was turned down by the majority of voters. Prop A requires structures 3 stories and over or over 30' within Encinitas go to a public vote. Without approval of the citizens, nothing can be built higher than 30' or two stories tall. That does NOT mean where heights are already zoned lower may increase them to 30' under Prop A (as is part of the misinformation No on A folk are circulating).
ReplyDeleteMy first impression of the black and white Yes on A cartoon poster with the skysraper towering over one story buildings looked exaggerated. In fact I was being told by some that NO ONE was suggesting or promoting 4 to 5 story structures here in Encinitas. Then I was sent this video yesterday of the ERAC committee unanimous vote. (I believe the dates are wrong unless I didn't get the memo that youtube has figured out how to access records of future events, but you'll catch the drift. Hello Oceanside.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97Qxmi3_0Ng&feature=youtu.be
Thank you Fred. You get it! We should be very worried about life without Prop A especially with this new planning director and Gus the weasel Vina who are trying to insert language in the general plan amendments so that any up-zoning that would defy State and Federal law (no mention what they mean) would not have to go to a public vote. A simple 3-2 majority from council would suffice. Look at what happened with Desert Rose!
DeleteVote Yes on Prop A because we can't trust that our elected officials , our planning director, and our city manager will do the right thing for us.
Yes on Prop A.
The RTV Has absolutely nothing to do with Desert Rose.
Delete35 seconds in to the video you see "neutral facilitator" Norby putting 4-5 story words in the ERAC's eager mouths.
ReplyDeleteWord from folks who were there is that he had a roomful of enthusiastically nodding developers, too many of whom don't even live in Encinitas.
Be very afraid.
The video DOES NOT SHOW THAT.
DeleteThose in the room were there because Stocks disbanded the GPAC and hand picked the people in the room to form ERAC.
Norby DID NOT put any words is any mouths.
I now understand Peter Norby came up with the idea to build 5 story buildings in Encinitas.
ReplyDeleteThat is amazingly completely wrong.
DeleteI've seen the video posted online. Pedr Norby did make the recommendation of 5 story buildings. hmmmm. Maybe that is why Barth, Gaspar and Muir voted to renew his contract lat year for more than $100K- to get the job done. Say no to 'Barth Buildings'- vote yes on A
DeleteHey, I can believe Lisa's comment on the Prop A opposition flyer! She is now owned by the developers!!!
ReplyDeleteYour statement is ridiculous
DeleteHow so? Lisa shaffer failed to oppose density increases in Olivenhain. Lisa Shaffer failed to support the citizens right to vote on proposed land use changes. Lisa Shaffer has sided with developers and special interests seeking to deny citizens the right to vote. Lisa Shaffer is on mailers opposing the right to vote. These are all facts. Shaffer has sided with developers against citizens.
DeleteLisa voted in favor of the density bonus, like the rest of the council, because the state desensitized bonus trumps local municipalities. The city would lose that lawsuit and accomplish nothing.
DeleteLisa, like the entire city council, does not support the RTV imitative , as written. The RTV initiative does address some valid issues that our new council wants to address. The majority council has acknowledged their will to address these issues. The unalterable initiative does not acknowledge the different communities in our city and dictates a one size fits all solution.
To come to the conclusion that Lisa has sided with developers is not substantiated by reality.
So you agree, changing commerical zoning to residential use means giving up local control to developers and Sacramento to control density. Prop A means all residents would have a vote to control the change of zoning.
DeleteDid Shaffer oppose density increaes because they threatned property values and safefty- no she didn't.
Shaffer opposes the citizens right to vote on land use changes that would give away local control and has sided with the developers who profit by taking control of local zoning.
Just the facts. Vote Yes on A- protect your property values!
I don't think it is fair to say that Lisa Shaffer has sided with developers. She did not have anything to do with this deceitful mailer. I think Lisa is very conflicted by this controversy around Prop A. I do agree though that she might get surprised how much people are concerned about future developments. For those of us that have been here for 20-30 years we have seen enough of our open land vanishing, and traffic worsening. She may not realize how much of her election was based on this apprehension about losing grip with our local control. This is why the proposition is resonating so well with residents. It might not be perfect but it sure beats the alternative of loosening the grip and letting state and regional agencies dictate how we need to growth. There needs to be a balance that Prop A, if passed, will provide.
DeleteJust the facts. Shaffer, Barth and Kranz along with Muir and Gaspar have all sided with special big money development interests to defeat the citizens right to vote on land use changes and to keep the power to change zoning in the hands of the council and Sacramento bureaucrats.
DeleteJust the facts: Shaffer, and the council, could have sided with Residents in Olivenhain and sided with the Planning Commision in denying density increases in Olivenhain based on safety, she didn't.
Just the facts- Shaffer, Barth and Kranz could have 'abstained' from voicing a public poition on Prop A. Instead they voted to oppose A with Muir adn Gaspar.
Just the facts- Shaffer, Barth and Kranz could have voted to oppose paying $50,000 to the Orange County law firm that is now being used in mailers- they didn't.
Just the facts- What is fair is that residents have the right to vote on proposed land use changes in the city.
The bottom line is do you want Encinitas to have 3 stories all over the place like Manhattan Beach, and Huntington beach or do you want a nicer more relaxed surf town like Encinitas or Leucadia.
ReplyDeleteI like Encinitas and Leucadia better than Manhattan Beach and so do a lot of people who moved from LA beach communities. They suck.
Vote yes on Prop A and stop the LAification of Encinitas.
Everyone lose Encinitas as it is. How would intensifying land use benefit anyone except for developers and City staff?
DeleteVote YES on A
So your real problem isn't with the council nor Gus, but with the people that have moved here from LA.....another reason to vote no. Because yes on A doesn't send Angelenos back to LA.
DeleteOne of the intended effects if Prop A passes is the concentration of state-mandated affordable housing ONLY along Hwy 101 in downtown Encinitas and Leucadia. That means those pesky out-of-town developers you all fear will be able to use state law and density bonus laws to increase density ONLY along Hwy 101. Instead of trying to spread any potential affordable housing throughout all five communities, passage of Prop A forces any future low-income housing along the beach highway: and, oh yeah, it allows 30 foot high Granny Flats in Cardiff-By-The-Sea. So, if you want to stop Encinitas from becoming Orange County then voting 'No'is what the folks who have actually read and understood the poorly-written measure are doing. Something not mentioned on this blog: the plan to build all future affordable along El Camino Real was always under 33 feet, never was there a plan for 5 stories. The Staff plan that focused on El Camino Real was killed outright in Dec. 2011 by the old council. Ehlers/Bonde/Cameron were well aware of this but chose to lie to their ill-informed door-to-door helpers. 8000 signatures based on a bold faced lie. What is ironic is that Lisa is complaining about a flier with her correct quotation when several of the video excerpts being promoted as 'proof' about 5 stories were taken by Lisa herself and forwarded off to Jerry Lewis for his two anonymous blogs.
DeleteNot true. If Prop A passes the 101 zoning will become like the rest of the city zoning in terms of height limits. This means hihg density projects that exceed height will need to be voted on by the people.
Delete3:12 PM. Is that you Andreen? Where have you been? Not that we missed you! The plan to up-zone never died even after the reboot (as you call it the "ugly baby") of the GPU. It morphed with new ugly babies with potential 4-5 story building recommendation really anywhere in Encinitas where planning staff felt it is the more appropriate. While it is true that the new council has ordered a pause, no doubt that the General Plan Update will soon be in full motion again. Time is ticking, got earn an A from HCD!
DeleteYes on A lets newbies stay, No on A sends them back to where they came from.
ReplyDeletePlease elaborate. We are not aware of the deportation aspect of No on A.
DeleteSome seriously stupid comments.
Delete1:25- please explain your comment.
Delete9:33am is a stupid comment that makes no sense. The author is stupid or at minimal provides stupid comments.
DeleteThe reasoning offered by DEMA hold true in Leucadia, too.
ReplyDeleteDon't be swayed by the name.
http://www.encinitas101.com/2013/dema/press-releases/dema-board-of-directors-opposes-prop-a/
I do not agree with your premise of:
ReplyDeleteEncinitas Council Not Poised to Adopt the REAL Spirit of Prop A.
You may not agree, but it's true: http://archive.ci.encinitas.ca.us/weblink8/0/doc/700510/Page1.aspx
ReplyDeleteTomorrow's Council meeting includes this agenda item to remove the 4/5 supermajority exception for "public benefit" and REPLACE IT with language that has the effect of not only requiring only a 3/5 simple majority to "comply with State and Federal mandates," it increases the scope of this exception to include ALL land use designations, not just the current density case.
Gee, how did that happen? You really believe the brand-new Planning Director defied Council direction on his own? No way.
George Orwell is laughing in his grave right now.
ReplyDelete“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”
Delete"Animal Farm", and it certainly is an apt metaphor to describe what's going on in this town. The Beatles "Little Piggies", describes The Building Industry Association to a "T".
DeleteHow brave. How new.
ReplyDeleteThe bigger issue is: Does HCD and SANDAG have any idea what they are doing?. Unless we see a huge economic boom in California I don't see how their population forecast will materialize. No job creation, no population growth. Assuming a new period of growth is upon us eventually there will be limitation on how much more population growth can California absorb. Public transportation is a joke here. No smart growth without improved transportation. Making freeways wider is not a long-term solution. How about water? A few years of drought and we will be going up a dry creek with or without paddle. The Colorado river is already dried out by the time it gets to Mexico. Water from the North is relying on the Sierra snowpack. Let's remember we live in a desert!
ReplyDeleteGo west and look at that ocean. Desal, it works everywhere in the world except California . Why?? Oh yes, idiot environmentalists !!
DeleteRetaining 500 million gallons of rain water from every big storm would also work, instead of letting it go back to sea or fill the park etc.
ReplyDeleteYes it would Fred. Except wacko enviro guys like Bob would oppose any efforts to retain this water for use later. Another idea is to go east and ask our farmer friends in the imperial valley to allow harvesting g of their over supply.
DeleteThere is NO water shortage.