I look at Prop A as a referendum on growth in Encinitas. Yes for managed and well thought out plans will community buy-in. No for business as usual with strongholds to developers. Somewhere in between is council who appears clueless in the middle of the storm and wavering on what they should say or do as their support fade away.
I just read an email from Mayor Barth in response to my question about her "commitment" to enact the spirit of prop a. She has no intention of giving the people the right to vote on upzoning and her proposal has gaping holes (aka serious negative consequences). I asked her about this explicitly.
More when I get a chance to write this up on Saturday and after I hear back from the Deputy Mayor. I asked her a similar question.
Council is confused. Barth is presenting herself as the champion of smart growth (Pacific Station), Shaffer lives under an utopist umbrella of sustainable community where people come to the table to design the perfect community in a perfect place, Tony discovered we have specific plans and he is twitchy about Prop A. Gaspar continues to love Encinitas and believe she won't be able to do any remodel to her house, while Muir does not care as long as he continue getting his fat pension. Active people in Encinitas have put a lot of sweat and tears to get this Prop A so far.Go vote on June 18th. Don't get confuse by the EncinitasNoHope.com signs. It's not about preserving Encinitas. It's about protecting their real estate investments.
Maybe out of town developers do know what's best for Encinitas. Maybe the citizens should only be permitted to vote for public officials and not things. Maybe a 3 or 4 person majority at City Hall would best decide who 5 story buildings go next door to here in Encinitas. Maybe it would be better and healthier and cheaper for customers to take buses, walk or ride a bike when shopping Leucadia instead of having a place to park a car. I keep trying to see things their "No on A" way, but it all escapes me.
I am still digging too Fred. I think the idea is to have enough bike racks to justify 4-5 story buildings here, there and everywhere. Biking is great if it weren't for those darn hills all over Encinitas. Maybe the plan is to have a bike tunnel from El Camino Real to 101? Who knows what SANDAG has in store for us?
Hills In Encinitas? You have to be kidding, right? You must be one fat and out-of-shape person not to be able to bike in Encinitas. The highest point is probably only 500 feet above sea level.
You better buck up buddy and start walking and pedaling. Your arteries are hardening, and you look like shit.
I happened to be very fit and an Ironman finisher. I was talking for your average folk, the 99% that do not commute on a bike or haul groceries on a bike.
11:27: That's it! Three macro-tunnels from El Camino Real to the sand at Beacons, Grandview and Moonlight Beach. Problem solver! Quick, someone get Rick Engineering back on the phone....
What I fail to understand is how Kranz and Shaffer seemed so pleased to ride the coat tails of the Initiative when it was convenient for them, then they got into office, they suddenly felt duped.
They changed to No on A, and Shaffer and Barth both complained about the use of their images and their comments out of context. Although it was only one of a number of highly questionable practices by the No on A crowd, the Council still supports them.
No on A is funded by out of town developers, and they have convinced Council of 'unintended consequences.'
Council has said that they will run their own proposition, and it is nowhere to be seen.
On the other hand, Yes on A people have held steady and have said the same thing all the way through. This is not a No Growth Inititive. We want to follow the General Plan and to allow for CITIZENS to determine if projects that request special exceptions for zoning actually are in the public good--not out of town developers, staff members who are looking for funds for job security, Gus Vina, or Council.
By supporting Prop A you are demanding that there are absolutely NO sites or properties in ALL of Encinitas that can accommodate any structure over 30', anywhere, unless the "people" vote? You will also be demanding that any other housing type (apartments, multi-family, cluster villages, mixed use) that require higher density and more than 2 stories (to offer affordability), these will not be offered in Encinitas- PERIOD. You will also be demanding that EVERY commercial zoned property owner that currently is ENTITLED to a 1-2 or 3-story 33' max structure on their property be limited to 2-stories, everywhere in Encinitas. Nothing else. And this has all been decided by? Signers of an initiative with a picture of a high rise tower in your neighborhood who were threatened with....... Five Stories-Coming Soon! Steve Shackelton, Architect
That's correct Steve. Maybe you should travel on ECR at rush hours and ask automobilists what they think about traffic and if we need a lot more people in Encinitas. May be you should try to park in the week-end to Trader's Joes. If Prop A does not pass, will you will probably crazy against council on their watered down right to vote initiate they will present at the Nov 2014 general election.
Sorry Steve, but you are a dinosaur. We're trying to preserve our character, thus be unique and different from all the other cookie cutter communities. Your vision of endless growth and consumerism is extinct, and not viable any longer.
What housing types "require" higher density? New York city is pretty darn dense with high rises, but few encinitas residents can afford to live in parts of new york city. High density doesn't mean cheap, especially if is true that people would pay more to live in high density!
If Proposition A passes, good high density will be offered in Encinitas because the people will vote for it. Bad high density will be shot down.
Upzoning requires a vote of the council no matter how Proposition A ends. All of the points you make can be applied to the council's votes. Are you saying that you know the council will vote for the developers and against the voter's wishes?
Thank you for using your name. It is commendable. I prefer not to, as Mayor Barth, Deputy Mayor Shaffer and the city of Encinitas is keeping a list of the names of people who have an opposing view. In third world countries this is called a 'hit list', in the Nixon White-house this was called 'enemies list' in the Obama white house this is called 'The IRS list'.
Many residents, like me, worked hard, saved their money, relied on their own skills, talents and abilities to buy a house in a small two story beach town. These residents want to protect their property values and their quality of life.
Many residents worked hard to buy ocean view homes- You apparently support government having the right to take away the ocean view. Many residents worked hard to buy country property in Olivenhain, you apparently support government having the right to take away country property feel and increase density.
In Encinitas there are 3 groups. The first are the speculators and profiteers along with the services who will make money by increasing density- like the campaign contributors opposing the citizens right to vote.
Then there are the social engineers who think governments job is to provide affordable housing to all and that everyone should get the chance to live at the beach
Then there are residents who through their hard work and self reliance were able to buy property in a small beach town and want to keep it that way. Which side are you on -are you for self reliance and self determination or for relying on the government to decide your quality of life? What world do you wish to leave your kids- a world where they make their own choices, or one where government makes the choices for them?
Well said Anon 8:45. Does this city belong to developers and speculators, or does it belong to citizens?
On NPR yesterday, there was a story about how the City of Detroit wants to liquidate some of the great art at the Detroit Institute of Art in order to pay the bills for the City. One of the biggest liabilities is employee pensions, and the City is investigating liquidating these valuable pieces that were legacy gifts from the Fords and other wealthy families who wanted to give back to the community.
We do not have Riveras or Van Goghs to sell off. Instead, the developers, in conjunction with our City Planning Department and other staff, want to take our property values and degrade our community character by putting in high density projects in opposition to our own General Plan.
Instead of selling off our community--why not keep our community a valuable place to live by Voting YES on A, and get rid of City staff members and Gus Vina to close the gap?
"Can Detroit sell the art in the Institute of Arts?"
Zelman Development Co. in Los Angeles contributed $10,000 to Doug Long's "Hope" No on A group. Christy Guerin's No on A group received $7,500 from Zelman Development. Zelman Development owns the Encinitas Ranch Town Center.
According to the Zelman Development information they have "...specific expertise in developing properties requiring extensive rezoning or new entitlement."
The Zelman contribution and the $8,000 from Chicago are nothing compared to how Gus Vina has hijacked funds to pay consultants to work against us. Wasn't Rutan and Tucker about $30,000 for the conclusion that if Proposition A passed, then community character would be maintained by voters!! They used our own money to warn that the citizen written-intiative would allow us to keep Encinitas beautiful and in conformance with our current General Plan--which they clearly think is a bad thing.
Any structure exceeding zoning laws can be approved by a vote of the people. A vote by the people is exactly how Home Depot landed where it did, Steve. The General Plan (our constitution) stated you cannot build in a flood plain, nor could you intensify any building on that particular lot creating more than 1,000 average daily car trips per day. The Home Depot Georgia wanted to build there generated up to 10,000 car trips per day. The General Plan said NO, the majority of VOTERS said YES and got Home Depot where they wanted it. And in fact we ARE currently facing the advent of 5 story structures going right next door to people who own and/or live in Encinitas. Our unanimous ERAC committee group vote has recommended to city council that 5 story buildings be permitted here in Encinitas. "Affordability" is a ruse. Proper development is a boon. The new Soltera Winery is only 2 storys and has been an instant success story since the day it recently opened. It's beautiful, people friendly, and creates a connectivity between other businesses that was never there. Had it been a 3 story work/live loft it would probably be in the common 5 year struggle of going bankrupt, like the Lofts and Sawtooth projects did. What's affordable for a developer about that? And is it fair to investors for ANYONE to promote such buildings in places that cannot possibly provide adequate parking when filled to capacity? No. Dos Palmas is also a welocoming looking building as is the Mobil station and it's 2nd unit. Unfortunately, you drive by both of them without seeing them in time. They're not facing southbound traffic and are missing their full potential. The buildings are the show, the southbound cars are the front row audience. No doubt the invisiblity of Dos Palmas is why they cut down the new trees that were in front. Hoping it catches on more now that summer is near and the speed limit is slower - making all businesses more visible. But thank God someone made a poster with "5 stories coming soon next to you!" or by the time most of us knew they were coming, it would be too late. Prop A doesn't prohibit the RIGHT large buildings coming to Encinitas, just the ones voters don't want here. But increasing zoning for an unusually large "affordable" building anyone would like to see built here in Encinitas begins with being a good neighbor and ends with a welcomed and beneficial design. Not the; "I should be able to build whatever I want wherever I want" attitude of entitlement. Fred Caldwell, a 1 story family business manager forever in the shade of a 3 story structure that "the Specific plan promises cannot go next to a one story structure" as you twice assured all at the Prop A debate.
The really is- every square inch that is allowed to be developed in Encinitas will be developed. We live by the coast- The number one desirable place to live.
Do we want 10 story buildings all over, 5 story, 3 story, or 2 story.
I don't like the look and feel of Irvine or Oceanside. I prefer to live in a 2 story version. With special exceptions for 3 approved by a vote.
I voted YES on A and hope you will too.
I also agree to save Encinitas and FIRE Sacramento Gus. He will Bankrupt our City like he did all the others.
Hi Anonymous 1,2,3,4...Fred. My comment at the LTC was entitlement. I am a property rights kinda guy which I feel Prop A burns many many Commercial owners. Nobody will comment on that. A couple other things about me: In the past I helped clarify and enforce our 2-story 22'/26' with the city-which I support. I am still nervous that Prop A will supercede this with 30' homes. The Initiative has really muddied up the waters here with unclear language. How does the new 3-story multi-family on North Vulcan strike you? Notice: The ground floor has garages, bulk and mass seems well proportioned, nice colors and materials,fits in the hood, seems like a pleasant place to live? Built within our specific plan -OR- Is is totally unacceptable only because it is 3 stories? Would this project be ok in another location or mixed in with 1&2 story buildings on a larger open site with other amenities? I am primarily motivated by good design but I recognize that buildings and projects must meet a long list of requirements. I have also spent 10 months of meetings with GPAC to get the facts and discuss possible housing solutions for Encinitas. Just stuff that I am motivated to do.
Earning a living is a strong motivation. Your paycheck comes from developers, so its easy to understand your perspective. Same a Mike Andreens.
The apartments/condos and vulcan would be better if they were two story in my opinion. The 3 story reduces the aethetics and property values for the surrounding community.
I know developers and their cronnies will always try anway possible to maximize profit. Quality of life for the surrounding community is never a concern.
Do you remember a Council appeal in 2003 for a property in Cardiff? The neighboring property owners appealed the Planning Commission approval of a new house and how the height was measured on a slope. The property owners explained in the appeal that serious economic loss in the value of their homes due to significant blockage of ocean views due to the proposed project.
It was a landmark moment in showing how the planning department allowed manipulation of the slope measurement to build a taller house. Steve Shackelton, the project designer said ...the appeal was not credible.
Hi Steve, "In the past I helped clarify and enforce our 2-story 22'/26' with the city-which I support. I am still nervous that Prop A will supercede this with 30' homes."
Maybe you didn't hear Bruce say at the debate that Prop A does NOT supercede lower height requirements already in place? So you can stop being nervous about that. (As hard as your concern about that is for 1:05 AM to swallow).
You feel Prop A "burns" Commercial property owners. I feel the new 5 story buildings in the historic 101 downtown of Oceanside that go striaght up from the sidewalk and push the heritage palm trees out of their way BURN aesthetics in their downtown. Other newer developments like the Regal theater with it's Art Deco designs, tile mosaics, and pleasing articulation add a lot of character to their downtown. Obviously, that exception was the luck of the draw for O'side when looking at other skyscrapers they've approved. And they probably will continue to approve any 5 story brick shape until their crime rate is back to where it was back in the 70's. At least they built a multi-story parking garage to provide some relief, but it's not exactly worthy of a postcard a tourist would want. For a parking garage however it's ocean view is second to none.
Regarding the new 3 story on Vulcan. Bruce also announced that when the lower level of a development is for parking, it is NOT counted as a three story building. But we are in agreement that the design fits and the colors are great. The other thing that is awesome is that the left the giant Eucalyptus trees in front of it ALONE! They compliment the building so it doesn't stick out like a thumb. (I'd say sore thumb but it looks pretty good. I'll take a closer look next time I go by but that's my first few impressions). Still, parking on Vulcan is already insane and adding more apartments/condos/homes to N. Vulcan doesn't make traffic or tranquility better. The Ashbury/Vulcan project looks like it's beginning to be built. It's HUGE. And unfortunately, they hacked every Eucalyptus tree down in front of it facing Vulcan. Eewwwwww.
If you are a property rights guy then why do you oppose residents seeking to protect the rights they now have? It seems you are more interested in property rights for some then property rights for all.
El Camino Real Properties are all commercial. Under Prop A they keep all current rights and lose nothing. What you favor is giving these people new rights to build residential, which in turn gives control to the state and allows 5 story buildings.
If you were truly for the property rights of all then you would vote yes on A. Let's say a man and his wife work hard, save money, buy an ocean view home- in your world government can take this mans view by changing zoning to allow another new rights to build 5 stories. In another example a man and his wife want to raise their kids on rural areas so they buy in Olivenhain- on your world government can change the zoning that increases density and robs them of their quality of life so another benefits-
Let's be frank- you believe it is ok for the government to take the rights of one man and give them to another.
When some Encinitas developers speak of property rights, they are not only talking about their own property. They are talking about neighbors' properties, and how they can get Planning staff to help them take them over or dump their problems onto others in the name of "public good!"
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:
-Homeowner to Preserve Encinitas No on A (this is the Doug Long group) *Gary Levitt Real Estate Development/Sea Breeze: $1,500 *Dealy Family LLC : $2,500 *Robert Echter: $2,500 *Douglas Harwood (Developer/broker, member of ERAC pushing for higher densities): $2,500. *Encinitas Town Center/Ecke: $10,000
-Encinitas Residents, Businesses and Taxpayers Opposing Prop A:
*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
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 form 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.
Do you remember a Council appeal in 2003 for a property in Cardiff? The neighboring property owners appealed the Planning Commission approval of a new house and how the height was measured on a slope. The property owners explained in the appeal that serious economic loss in the value of their homes due to significant blockage of ocean views due to the proposed project.
It was a landmark moment in showing how the planning department allowed manipulation of the slope measurement to build a taller house.
Steve Shackelton, the project designer said ...the appeal was not credible.
Isn't making the most money possible the real motivation behind Developers. Realtors and Architects wanting to quash Prop A?
1. Developers of course expect to make more money building up to 5 stories (rather than 2) and prefer their projects rely on the fast track decision of merely 3 or 4 council members than needing to go to the extra cost and time needed for a public vote and potentially being turned down. The problem we are faced with is that Developers are not required to care about where they build and few seem to care about the intensity of what they build. No one's saying it's wrong to be industrious or trying to make the most money one can with their time and talent. But over 8000 locals are saying they don't want ALL the stops pulled out and having Encinitas over built.
2. Realtors at the minimum stand to make 50% to 150% more on commissions for each 3 to 5 story building they help sell within Encinitas - than the money they would make helping to sell just a 2 story building.
3. Architects, like Realtors also see the potential of making 50% to 150% more money in proportion to the size of the blueprints they would draw for all 3 to 5 story buildings instead of what might be only a 2 story structure.
The bottom line is those 3 occupations all want to make the most money they possibly can, as do the out of state interests who've donated many thousands of dollars to kill Prop A. While I admire the work ethic of all these occupations and appreciate the many projects they design, build and sell that benefit themselves and a community, when there is a disconnect with a neighborhood it's not being a good neighbor but part of a money making machine that forever changes a neighborhood / business district. So go ahead and love your neighbor instead of a money making machine and vote YES on Prop A. Opps, too preachy?
PS FYI. I was at two differnt Planning Commission meetings in opposition of projects taking away the ocean views of two different friends of mine, one in Leucadia and one in Cardiff. That is the LAST thing the PC cares about. How much less with they care about it if Prop A fails and 5 story buildings are permitted in Cardiff and Leucadia?
Maybe Loser Leucadian is NOT a staff member after all if he doesn't think he knows it all. Your humility is attractive, Loser.
Our Planning staff know it all--at the same time that they claim that the State will sue them and that the whereabouts of critical public records are not known.
Video posted online shows the city facilitator who gets paid $105,000 a year to act for the council recommending 5 story buildings throughout the city. MR. Norby says on the video he made the recommendation. It is posted online for all to see the facts.
It was a final recommendation to council, not just a "discussion". Any way it's a distinct possibility if we have to make things pencil out for developers and get a few affordable units out if it to please the State bureaucrats.
Norby also claimed we already had 5 stories at Pacific Station until corrected by Langager, who reminded him those were levels, not stories. You can hear a developer calling out "but nce try, Peder."
let's see,kevin I think you've cost us 100000 on the road report you wanted so badly and did nothing with rite and it's anther 350000 for a vote on prop A we didn't need.What's next for you and Bruce Ehlers a new car an endowment for your children oh you'll think of something you always do
The City were driving these decisions to waste our tax dollars. They decided to hire consultants, go to court, and to take the initiative to a vote, when they could have avoided ALL of these choices.
They did it in a stupid and political manner so as to hurt everyone. It was a bully little kid approach of. “If you want to make us follow the rules—we will ruin it for everybody!” This is not leadership. This is Romper Room!
They took a page out of Jerome Stock's book when they hired a LA attorney to investigate Teresa Barth's supposed claims of harassment. Then they blamed HER for wasting $15,000 so that they could use it as a campaign issue.
The only thing that Sacramento Gus and his predecessors can do well is to waste our money and claim to be victims. There is no limit to what he will spend or what he will do or say to make sure that he coasts to his retirement. Every month that he works means thousands of more dollars in his pocket now, and many thousands of dollars in his pocket later. He said a few months ago that he would look at pension reform. What ever happened to that?
That's it, 4:00 pm: blame the victim! Scapegoat Kevin and residents who should have been easily allowed to obtain the report!
Never mind that the City illegally withheld the information claiming "it's preliminary information." Never mind that it took a court judge to order the report's release and who basically said to the City: "are you crazy? these are public records - you have to provide them to anyone who asks." It was the City, not wanting residents to know our roads conditions and financials, that cost us the $$$$.
But go ahead, blame the victim/messenger. 4:00, my money bets you are either a) Andreen or b) Stocks.
Kevin a victim ha! He got what he wanted and did nothing with that very expensive information.Kevin is a chicken,he blinked poor Kiven crawl under your rock or go back to academia.
Kevin got the information released to the public, the public learned the erome stocks and Geln sabine along wiht Bond and Gaspar were hiding the fatc that the city does not have money to fix roads becuase of mismanagement. This information and revelation contributed to the public learning the truth and voting stocks out and getting residents to sign prop a. That is alot in most peoples book. Thanks KC
Kevin blinked? That's why he was awarded the $$ and the City chastised by a judge for withholding public information?
Speaking of crawling under a rock, Mike, how about busying yourself in Oceanside. I hear $12K is all it takes to buy a developer out of having to provide affordable housing while taking advantage of the bonus density for providing a unit that will never be built. Surely there's plenty of business in your own town for your...profession.
LL "All I know is a simple majority should be the standard for us all."
Agreed. Even though I'm not always stoked with that. Creature of habit I guess, prefering where I grew up not to become the congeshed place I left at 6 years old. But congestion keeps creeping south, cost of living gets worse and if most people don't mind it, que sera sera. In Glendale on Belmont St. there were 10 awesome homes on each side of our street and one by one they came down making way for 20 and 30 unit apartments. Zero character to it now, feeling and looking more like a place for numbered livestock. (Gotta tell ya though the AIR is much better than it was - and glad at least they could miraculously pull that one off). Feel very blessed to live in Leucadia needless to say so hate to see the same density happen here.
RE Prop A, someone here I think said it best that it was the 5 Planning Commissions who CHANGED the recomendations of the Sparc committee's long work on the Specific Plan from 2 stories to 3 stories. And now Steve Shakelton for one thinks 3 stories are "sacred" (according to someone else's memory of the Prop A debate). If so, they're still an uninspired amendment to the city Bible. What's most significant about that I think is that the jump from 2 to 3 storys was NOT afforded the vote of the public but of 5 people - not unlike the whims of the several ERAC committee who unanimmous hiked Encinitas up to 5 stories as a recomendation to council. What's next? 10 stories? When is enough enough? The old saying doesn't go "Give em an inch they'll take three".
And yes, it is good to see a new 2 story business looking and doing so well here on 101. I only hope an ambitious developer doesn't build a 3 to 5 story building on their block any time soon if Prop A does not pass. Older 1 and 2 storys would be fair game. I guess what I'm trying to say is that if Glendale as designed by it's original architects would have had a right to vote on their future if they could see down the road 40 years, they would have jumped at the chance. You don't miss your water till the well runs dry. And few things quench a parched developer on vacation like our coastal spring of opportunity.
So it only cost us 100000 to find out that bond,stocks et al are jerks WOW something I think we already knew,GOOD JOB KIVEN .You spent our money so wisely maybe you should run for office maybe mayor YEA YEA mayor KIVEN HA HA HA !
Ignoring facts doesn't make them go away. The city hid records from the public that showed because of financial mismanagement the city does not have enough money to fix our roads to the tune of $43M. The city hid these records during the 2010 election period when Dan Dalager was seeking office. Stocks and Bond who supported Dalager voted to hide the report. Dalager later pled guilty to the DA for violations.
Stocks, Bond and Gaspar then voted to spend 100K of taxpayer money to keep the report hidden, to bury it. The court ruled against the three and the report was released. Now we all know the truth about Stocks, Gaspar, Bond and their financial mismanagement of our money. Stocks and Dalager were driven from office when the public learned the truth. Should the council appoint PEdr Norby as minister of misinformation Gaspar and Barth will be voted out in the next election for playing fast and loose with taxpayer money.
I don't believe that Kevin, like most residential homeowners in Encinitas, have plans to upzone their properties. It's the real estate and development vultures who buy up property and aren't content with the vested property rights that go with the property. They want more and complain their property rights are being violated, all to make more money at the public's expense of increased traffic and stressed infrastructure.
Greed has no limits. Prop. A will let the public decide how much of that greed will be satisfied.
One of the problems I'm noticing is that some believe a city cannot be "full grown", but has to continually grow to be viable. That shouldn't have to be.
Like it!
ReplyDeleteI look at Prop A as a referendum on growth in Encinitas. Yes for managed and well thought out plans will community buy-in. No for business as usual with strongholds to developers. Somewhere in between is council who appears clueless in the middle of the storm and wavering on what they should say or do as their support fade away.
ReplyDeleteI just read an email from Mayor Barth in response to my question about her "commitment" to enact the spirit of prop a. She has no intention of giving the people the right to vote on upzoning and her proposal has gaping holes (aka serious negative consequences). I asked her about this explicitly.
ReplyDeleteMore when I get a chance to write this up on Saturday and after I hear back from the Deputy Mayor. I asked her a similar question.
Council is confused. Barth is presenting herself as the champion of smart growth (Pacific Station), Shaffer lives under an utopist umbrella of sustainable community where people come to the table to design the perfect community in a perfect place, Tony discovered we have specific plans and he is twitchy about Prop A. Gaspar continues to love Encinitas and believe she won't be able to do any remodel to her house, while Muir does not care as long as he continue getting his fat pension.
DeleteActive people in Encinitas have put a lot of sweat and tears to get this Prop A so far.Go vote on June 18th. Don't get confuse by the EncinitasNoHope.com signs. It's not about preserving Encinitas. It's about protecting their real estate investments.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMaybe out of town developers do know what's best for Encinitas. Maybe the citizens should only be permitted to vote for public officials and not things. Maybe a 3 or 4 person majority at City Hall would best decide who 5 story buildings go next door to here in Encinitas. Maybe it would be better and healthier and cheaper for customers to take buses, walk or ride a bike when shopping Leucadia instead of having a place to park a car. I keep trying to see things their "No on A" way, but it all escapes me.
ReplyDeleteI am still digging too Fred.
DeleteI think the idea is to have enough bike racks to justify 4-5 story buildings here, there and everywhere.
Biking is great if it weren't for those darn hills all over Encinitas. Maybe the plan is to have a bike tunnel from El Camino Real to 101? Who knows what SANDAG has in store for us?
Hills In Encinitas? You have to be kidding, right? You must be one fat and out-of-shape person not to be able to bike in Encinitas. The highest point is probably only 500 feet above sea level.
DeleteYou better buck up buddy and start walking and pedaling. Your arteries are hardening, and you look like shit.
I happened to be very fit and an Ironman finisher.
DeleteI was talking for your average folk, the 99% that do not commute on a bike or haul groceries on a bike.
11:27: That's it! Three macro-tunnels from El Camino Real to the sand at Beacons, Grandview and Moonlight Beach. Problem solver! Quick, someone get Rick Engineering back on the phone....
DeleteWhat I fail to understand is how Kranz and Shaffer seemed so pleased to ride the coat tails of the Initiative when it was convenient for them, then they got into office, they suddenly felt duped.
ReplyDeleteThey changed to No on A, and Shaffer and Barth both complained about the use of their images and their comments out of context. Although it was only one of a number of highly questionable practices by the No on A crowd, the Council still supports them.
No on A is funded by out of town developers, and they have convinced Council of 'unintended consequences.'
Council has said that they will run their own proposition, and it is nowhere to be seen.
On the other hand, Yes on A people have held steady and have said the same thing all the way through. This is not a No Growth Inititive. We want to follow the General Plan and to allow for CITIZENS to determine if projects that request special exceptions for zoning actually are in the public good--not out of town developers, staff members who are looking for funds for job security, Gus Vina, or Council.
By supporting Prop A you are demanding that there are absolutely NO sites or properties in ALL of Encinitas that can accommodate any structure over 30', anywhere, unless the "people" vote? You will also be demanding that any other housing type (apartments, multi-family, cluster villages, mixed use) that require higher density and more than 2 stories (to offer affordability), these will not be offered in Encinitas- PERIOD. You will also be demanding that EVERY commercial zoned property owner that currently is ENTITLED to a 1-2 or 3-story 33' max structure on their property be limited to 2-stories, everywhere in Encinitas. Nothing else. And this has all been decided by? Signers of an initiative with a picture of a high rise tower in your neighborhood who were threatened with....... Five Stories-Coming Soon!
ReplyDeleteSteve Shackelton, Architect
That's correct Steve. Maybe you should travel on ECR at rush hours and ask automobilists what they think about traffic and if we need a lot more people in Encinitas.
DeleteMay be you should try to park in the week-end to Trader's Joes.
If Prop A does not pass, will you will probably crazy against council on their watered down right to vote initiate they will present at the Nov 2014 general election.
Sorry Steve, but you are a dinosaur. We're trying to preserve our character, thus be unique and different from all the other cookie cutter communities. Your vision of endless growth and consumerism is extinct, and not viable any longer.
DeleteSteve,
DeleteThose "people" are the voters of Encinitas.
What housing types "require" higher density? New York city is pretty darn dense with high rises, but few encinitas residents can afford to live in parts of new york city. High density doesn't mean cheap, especially if is true that people would pay more to live in high density!
If Proposition A passes, good high density will be offered in Encinitas because the people will vote for it. Bad high density will be shot down.
Upzoning requires a vote of the council no matter how Proposition A ends. All of the points you make can be applied to the council's votes. Are you saying that you know the council will vote for the developers and against the voter's wishes?
Steve, are you against 5 stories in Encinitas?
Mr. Shackleton-
DeleteThank you for using your name. It is commendable. I prefer not to, as Mayor Barth, Deputy Mayor Shaffer and the city of Encinitas is keeping a list of the names of people who have an opposing view. In third world countries this is called a 'hit list', in the Nixon White-house this was called 'enemies list' in the Obama white house this is called 'The IRS list'.
Many residents, like me, worked hard, saved their money, relied on their own skills, talents and abilities to buy a house in a small two story beach town. These residents want to protect their property values and their quality of life.
Many residents worked hard to buy ocean view homes- You apparently support government having the right to take away the ocean view. Many residents worked hard to buy country property in Olivenhain, you apparently support government having the right to take away country property feel and increase density.
In Encinitas there are 3 groups. The first are the speculators and profiteers along with the services who will make money by increasing density- like the campaign contributors opposing the citizens right to vote.
Then there are the social engineers who think governments job is to provide affordable housing to all and that everyone should get the chance to live at the beach
Then there are residents who through their hard work and self reliance were able to buy property in a small beach town and want to keep it that way. Which side are you on -are you for self reliance and self determination or for relying on the government to decide your quality of life? What world do you wish to leave your kids- a world where they make their own choices, or one where government makes the choices for them?
Vote yes on A- control your own future.
Well said Anon 8:45. Does this city belong to developers and speculators, or does it belong to citizens?
DeleteOn NPR yesterday, there was a story about how the City of Detroit wants to liquidate some of the great art at the Detroit Institute of Art in order to pay the bills for the City. One of the biggest liabilities is employee pensions, and the City is investigating liquidating these valuable pieces that were legacy gifts from the Fords and other wealthy families who wanted to give back to the community.
We do not have Riveras or Van Goghs to sell off. Instead, the developers, in conjunction with our City Planning Department and other staff, want to take our property values and degrade our community character by putting in high density projects in opposition to our own General Plan.
Instead of selling off our community--why not keep our community a valuable place to live by Voting YES on A, and get rid of City staff members and Gus Vina to close the gap?
"Can Detroit sell the art in the Institute of Arts?"
Among the big contributors to the No on A groups:
ReplyDeleteZelman Development Co. in Los Angeles contributed $10,000 to Doug Long's "Hope" No on A group. Christy Guerin's No on A group received $7,500 from Zelman Development.
Zelman Development owns the Encinitas Ranch Town Center.
According to the Zelman Development information they have "...specific expertise in developing properties requiring extensive rezoning or new entitlement."
The Zelman contribution and the $8,000 from Chicago are nothing compared to how Gus Vina has hijacked funds to pay consultants to work against us.
DeleteWasn't Rutan and Tucker about $30,000 for the conclusion that if Proposition A passed, then community character would be maintained by voters!! They used our own money to warn that the citizen written-intiative would allow us to keep Encinitas beautiful and in conformance with our current General Plan--which they clearly think is a bad thing.
Vote Yes on A and fire Gus Vina!
The final total for Rutan and Tucker, at least for now is $55,000 of taxpayer money.
DeleteVote Yes on A.
Any structure exceeding zoning laws can be approved by a vote of the people. A vote by the people is exactly how Home Depot landed where it did, Steve. The General Plan (our constitution) stated you cannot build in a flood plain, nor could you intensify any building on that particular lot creating more than 1,000 average daily car trips per day. The Home Depot Georgia wanted to build there generated up to 10,000 car trips per day. The General Plan said NO, the majority of VOTERS said YES and got Home Depot where they wanted it. And in fact we ARE currently facing the advent of 5 story structures going right next door to people who own and/or live in Encinitas. Our unanimous ERAC committee group vote has recommended to city council that 5 story buildings be permitted here in Encinitas. "Affordability" is a ruse. Proper development is a boon. The new Soltera Winery is only 2 storys and has been an instant success story since the day it recently opened. It's beautiful, people friendly, and creates a connectivity between other businesses that was never there. Had it been a 3 story work/live loft it would probably be in the common 5 year struggle of going bankrupt, like the Lofts and Sawtooth projects did. What's affordable for a developer about that? And is it fair to investors for ANYONE to promote such buildings in places that cannot possibly provide adequate parking when filled to capacity? No. Dos Palmas is also a welocoming looking building as is the Mobil station and it's 2nd unit. Unfortunately, you drive by both of them without seeing them in time. They're not facing southbound traffic and are missing their full potential. The buildings are the show, the southbound cars are the front row audience. No doubt the invisiblity of Dos Palmas is why they cut down the new trees that were in front. Hoping it catches on more now that summer is near and the speed limit is slower - making all businesses more visible. But thank God someone made a poster with "5 stories coming soon next to you!" or by the time most of us knew they were coming, it would be too late. Prop A doesn't prohibit the RIGHT large buildings coming to Encinitas, just the ones voters don't want here. But increasing zoning for an unusually large "affordable" building anyone would like to see built here in Encinitas begins with being a good neighbor and ends with a welcomed and beneficial design. Not the; "I should be able to build whatever I want wherever I want" attitude of entitlement. Fred Caldwell, a 1 story family business manager forever in the shade of a 3 story structure that "the Specific plan promises cannot go next to a one story structure" as you twice assured all at the Prop A debate.
ReplyDeleteThe really is- every square inch that is allowed to be developed in Encinitas will be developed. We live by the coast- The number one desirable place to live.
ReplyDeleteDo we want 10 story buildings all over, 5 story, 3 story, or 2 story.
I don't like the look and feel of Irvine or Oceanside. I prefer to live in a 2 story version. With special exceptions for 3 approved by a vote.
I voted YES on A and hope you will too.
I also agree to save Encinitas and FIRE Sacramento Gus. He will Bankrupt our City like he did all the others.
Steve-
ReplyDeleteWhat the hell is wrong with you? Shouldn't development build within the current zoning code? Catch a clue. We don't want to live and Irvine.
Let's remember folks he gets his paycheck from developers. That's why he will do what's in their best interest not ours,
ReplyDeleteSteve Will sell out our community in a heartbeat.
Stay keep with facts.
DeleteUnfounded, untrue personal attacks from un named sources do not aid the debate.
The above are facts not personal attacks. You need to look at incentive and consideration with any issue. What is people's motivation to act?
ReplyDeleteI'm sure you mean "what ARE people's motivation", don't you? Or perhaps, 'What IS a person's motivation'?
DeleteAnd why did Steve state "three stories are sacred to me" at the LTC debate?
ReplyDelete"Sacred?"
Something to do with the Trinity?
DeleteHi Anonymous 1,2,3,4...Fred.
DeleteMy comment at the LTC was entitlement. I am a property rights kinda guy which I feel Prop A burns many many Commercial owners. Nobody will comment on that. A couple other things about me: In the past I helped clarify and enforce our 2-story 22'/26' with the city-which I support. I am still nervous that Prop A will supercede this with 30' homes. The Initiative has really muddied up the waters here with unclear language. How does the new 3-story multi-family on North Vulcan strike you? Notice: The ground floor has garages, bulk and mass seems well proportioned, nice colors and materials,fits in the hood, seems like a pleasant place to live? Built within our specific plan -OR- Is is totally unacceptable only because it is 3 stories? Would this project be ok in another location or mixed in with 1&2 story buildings on a larger open site with other amenities? I am primarily motivated by good design but I recognize that buildings and projects must meet a long list of requirements. I have also spent 10 months of meetings with GPAC to get the facts and discuss possible housing solutions for Encinitas. Just stuff that I am motivated to do.
Earning a living is a strong motivation. Your paycheck comes from developers, so its easy to understand your perspective. Same a Mike Andreens.
DeleteThe apartments/condos and vulcan would be better if they were two story in my opinion. The 3 story reduces the aethetics and property values for the surrounding community.
I know developers and their cronnies will always try anway possible to maximize profit. Quality of life for the surrounding community is never a concern.
Yes, Steve Shackelton,
DeleteDo you remember a Council appeal in 2003 for a property in Cardiff? The neighboring property owners appealed the Planning Commission approval of a new house and how the height was measured on a slope. The property owners explained in the appeal that serious economic loss in the value of their homes due to significant blockage of ocean views due to the proposed project.
It was a landmark moment in showing how the planning department allowed manipulation of the slope measurement to build a taller house.
Steve Shackelton, the project designer said ...the appeal was not credible.
Hi Steve,
Delete"In the past I helped clarify and enforce our 2-story 22'/26' with the city-which I support. I am still nervous that Prop A will supercede this with 30' homes."
Maybe you didn't hear Bruce say at the debate that Prop A does NOT supercede lower height requirements already in place? So you can stop being nervous about that. (As hard as your concern about that is for 1:05 AM to swallow).
You feel Prop A "burns" Commercial property owners. I feel the new 5 story buildings in the historic 101 downtown of Oceanside that go striaght up from the sidewalk and push the heritage palm trees out of their way BURN aesthetics in their downtown. Other newer developments like the Regal theater with it's Art Deco designs, tile mosaics, and pleasing articulation add a lot of character to their downtown. Obviously, that exception was the luck of the draw for O'side when looking at other skyscrapers they've approved. And they probably will continue to approve any 5 story brick shape until their crime rate is back to where it was back in the 70's. At least they built a multi-story parking garage to provide some relief, but it's not exactly worthy of a postcard a tourist would want. For a parking garage however it's ocean view is second to none.
Regarding the new 3 story on Vulcan. Bruce also announced that when the lower level of a development is for parking, it is NOT counted as a three story building. But we are in agreement that the design fits and the colors are great. The other thing that is awesome is that the left the giant Eucalyptus trees in front of it ALONE! They compliment the building so it doesn't stick out like a thumb. (I'd say sore thumb but it looks pretty good. I'll take a closer look next time I go by but that's my first few impressions). Still, parking on Vulcan is already insane and adding more apartments/condos/homes to N. Vulcan doesn't make traffic or tranquility better. The Ashbury/Vulcan project looks like it's beginning to be built. It's HUGE. And unfortunately, they hacked every Eucalyptus tree down in front of it facing Vulcan. Eewwwwww.
Mr. Shackleton-
DeleteIf you are a property rights guy then why do you oppose residents seeking to protect the rights they now have? It seems you are more interested in property rights for some then property rights for all.
El Camino Real Properties are all commercial. Under Prop A they keep all current rights and lose nothing. What you favor is giving these people new rights to build residential, which in turn gives control to the state and allows 5 story buildings.
If you were truly for the property rights of all then you would vote yes on A. Let's say a man and his wife work hard, save money, buy an ocean view home- in your world government can take this mans view by changing zoning to allow another new rights to build 5 stories. In another example a man and his wife want to raise their kids on rural areas so they buy in Olivenhain- on your world government can change the zoning that increases density and robs them of their quality of life so another benefits-
Let's be frank- you believe it is ok for the government to take the rights of one man and give them to another.
When some Encinitas developers speak of property rights, they are not only talking about their own property. They are talking about neighbors' properties, and how they can get Planning staff to help them take them over or dump their problems onto others in the name of "public good!"
DeleteBank account, mortgage, car payment: that Trinity?
ReplyDeleteCheck 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
*Dealy Family LLC : $2,500
*Robert Echter: $2,500
*Douglas Harwood (Developer/broker, member of ERAC
pushing for higher densities): $2,500.
*Encinitas Town Center/Ecke: $10,000
-Encinitas Residents, Businesses and Taxpayers Opposing Prop A:
*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
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 form 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!
Yes, Steve Shackelton,
ReplyDeleteDo you remember a Council appeal in 2003 for a property in Cardiff? The neighboring property owners appealed the Planning Commission approval of a new house and how the height was measured on a slope. The property owners explained in the appeal that serious economic loss in the value of their homes due to significant blockage of ocean views due to the proposed project.
It was a landmark moment in showing how the planning department allowed manipulation of the slope measurement to build a taller house.
Steve Shackelton, the project designer said ...the appeal was not credible.
Pity that didn't come out at the Leucadia 101 debate....
DeletePity LTC held the ONLY debate.
DeleteIsn't making the most money possible the real motivation behind Developers. Realtors and Architects wanting to quash Prop A?
ReplyDelete1. Developers of course expect to make more money building up to 5 stories (rather than 2) and prefer their projects rely on the fast track decision of merely 3 or 4 council members than needing to go to the extra cost and time needed for a public vote and potentially being turned down. The problem we are faced with is that Developers are not required to care about where they build and few seem to care about the intensity of what they build. No one's saying it's wrong to be industrious or trying to make the most money one can with their time and talent. But over 8000 locals are saying they don't want ALL the stops pulled out and having Encinitas over built.
2. Realtors at the minimum stand to make 50% to 150% more on commissions for each 3 to 5 story building they help sell within Encinitas - than the money they would make helping to sell just a 2 story building.
3. Architects, like Realtors also see the potential of making 50% to 150% more money in proportion to the size of the blueprints they would draw for all 3 to 5 story buildings instead of what might be only a 2 story structure.
The bottom line is those 3 occupations all want to make the most money they possibly can, as do the out of state interests who've donated many thousands of dollars to kill Prop A. While I admire the work ethic of all these occupations and appreciate the many projects they design, build and sell that benefit themselves and a community, when there is a disconnect with a neighborhood it's not being a good neighbor but part of a money making machine that forever changes a neighborhood / business district. So go ahead and love your neighbor instead of a money making machine and vote YES on Prop A. Opps, too preachy?
PS FYI. I was at two differnt Planning Commission meetings in opposition of projects taking away the ocean views of two different friends of mine, one in Leucadia and one in Cardiff. That is the LAST thing the PC cares about. How much less with they care about it if Prop A fails and 5 story buildings are permitted in Cardiff and Leucadia?
ReplyDeleteWhat did your father tell you. Don't believe all you read
ReplyDeleteHe also told me...
DeleteBelieve none of what you hear, only half of what you actually see, and never ever think you know it ALL!
Maybe Loser Leucadian is NOT a staff member after all if he doesn't think he knows it all. Your humility is attractive, Loser.
DeleteOur Planning staff know it all--at the same time that they claim that the State will sue them and that the whereabouts of critical public records are not known.
Five story buildings are a BIG FAT LIE,it was only part of the discussion.
ReplyDeleteVideo posted online shows the city facilitator who gets paid $105,000 a year to act for the council recommending 5 story buildings throughout the city. MR. Norby says on the video he made the recommendation. It is posted online for all to see the facts.
DeleteIt was a final recommendation to council, not just a "discussion". Any way it's a distinct possibility if we have to make things pencil out for developers and get a few affordable units out if it to please the State bureaucrats.
DeleteThe elephant in the city seems to me to be Scripps Hospital with regard to Prop A and how it is currently written.
DeleteHave you seen the monolith they built in Escondido? Scripps as a business model will have to keep up.
Where are they to go if they can't go up to five stories? There is not enough open space to grow laterally any more on that site.
They are by far the biggest job and tax producer in the city with many other local small business operating and supporting them in the community.
Do we want them to go elsewhere or stay here producing good paying jobs in the future?
Wait a minute.
DeleteThe other No people were telling us the 5 stories was BS.
Now you're telling us to vote No because we need 5 stories? Which is it?
Wcv
I think schools and hospitals are a few of the exceptions to Prop A heights requiring a public vote.
DeleteThanks for the clarification Fred. I still think Scripps would be fought hard to be denied for wanting to do it in that part of Cardiff.
DeleteW.C. I have not decided how to vote on this issue yet, nor have I advocated to anyone which way to vote on it.
I am not fond of propositions generally and don't always vote for them confidently that they are the best way to get to democracy as a whole.
All I know is a simple majority should be the standard for us all.
How we get there sure has been ugly lately for these five little Burroughs.
On a good note folks, Leucadia is the place to be now. It is off the hook right now. Soltera is the place to be tonight!
So many options for great food now in the hood!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThey're big and fat alright. But why would ERAC unanimously recommend them to council if they were lying?
ReplyDeleteNorby also claimed we already had 5 stories at Pacific Station until corrected by Langager, who reminded him those were levels, not stories. You can hear a developer calling out "but nce try, Peder."
ReplyDeletelet's see,kevin I think you've cost us 100000 on the road report you wanted so badly and did nothing with rite and it's anther 350000 for a vote on prop A we didn't need.What's next for you and Bruce Ehlers a new car an endowment for your children oh you'll think of something you always do
ReplyDeleteThe City were driving these decisions to waste our tax dollars. They decided to hire consultants, go to court, and to take the initiative to a vote, when they could have avoided ALL of these choices.
DeleteThey did it in a stupid and political manner so as to hurt everyone. It was a bully little kid approach of. “If you want to make us follow the rules—we will ruin it for everybody!” This is not leadership. This is Romper Room!
They took a page out of Jerome Stock's book when they hired a LA attorney to investigate Teresa Barth's supposed claims of harassment. Then they blamed HER for wasting $15,000 so that they could use it as a campaign issue.
The only thing that Sacramento Gus and his predecessors can do well is to waste our money and claim to be victims. There is no limit to what he will spend or what he will do or say to make sure that he coasts to his retirement. Every month that he works means thousands of more dollars in his pocket now, and many thousands of dollars in his pocket later. He said a few months ago that he would look at pension reform. What ever happened to that?
That's it, 4:00 pm: blame the victim! Scapegoat Kevin and residents who should have been easily allowed to obtain the report!
ReplyDeleteNever mind that the City illegally withheld the information claiming "it's preliminary information." Never mind that it took a court judge to order the report's release and who basically said to the City: "are you crazy? these are public records - you have to provide them to anyone who asks." It was the City, not wanting residents to know our roads conditions and financials, that cost us the $$$$.
But go ahead, blame the victim/messenger. 4:00, my money bets you are either a) Andreen or b) Stocks.
Kevin a victim ha! He got what he wanted and did nothing with that very expensive information.Kevin is a chicken,he blinked poor Kiven crawl under your rock or go back to academia.
ReplyDeleteKevin got the information released to the public, the public learned the erome stocks and Geln sabine along wiht Bond and Gaspar were hiding the fatc that the city does not have money to fix roads becuase of mismanagement. This information and revelation contributed to the public learning the truth and voting stocks out and getting residents to sign prop a. That is alot in most peoples book. Thanks KC
Delete+1 for KC who has done far more for open government than any of the politicians who claim to be for open government.
DeleteWcv
Kevin blinked? That's why he was awarded the $$ and the City chastised by a judge for withholding public information?
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of crawling under a rock, Mike, how about busying yourself in Oceanside. I hear $12K is all it takes to buy a developer out of having to provide affordable housing while taking advantage of the bonus density for providing a unit that will never be built. Surely there's plenty of business in your own town for your...profession.
LL "All I know is a simple majority should be the standard for us all."
ReplyDeleteAgreed. Even though I'm not always stoked with that. Creature of habit I guess, prefering where I grew up not to become the congeshed place I left at 6 years old. But congestion keeps creeping south, cost of living gets worse and if most people don't mind it, que sera sera. In Glendale on Belmont St. there were 10 awesome homes on each side of our street and one by one they came down making way for 20 and 30 unit apartments. Zero character to it now, feeling and looking more like a place for numbered livestock. (Gotta tell ya though the AIR is much better than it was - and glad at least they could miraculously pull that one off). Feel very blessed to live in Leucadia needless to say so hate to see the same density happen here.
RE Prop A, someone here I think said it best that it was the 5 Planning Commissions who CHANGED the recomendations of the Sparc committee's long work on the Specific Plan from 2 stories to 3 stories. And now Steve Shakelton for one thinks 3 stories are "sacred" (according to someone else's memory of the Prop A debate). If so, they're still an uninspired amendment to the city Bible. What's most significant about that I think is that the jump from 2 to 3 storys was NOT afforded the vote of the public but of 5 people - not unlike the whims of the several ERAC committee who unanimmous hiked Encinitas up to 5 stories as a recomendation to council. What's next? 10 stories? When is enough enough? The old saying doesn't go "Give em an inch they'll take three".
And yes, it is good to see a new 2 story business looking and doing so well here on 101. I only hope an ambitious developer doesn't build a 3 to 5 story building on their block any time soon if Prop A does not pass. Older 1 and 2 storys would be fair game. I guess what I'm trying to say is that if Glendale as designed by it's original architects would have had a right to vote on their future if they could see down the road 40 years, they would have jumped at the chance. You don't miss your water till the well runs dry. And few things quench a parched developer on vacation like our coastal spring of opportunity.
So it only cost us 100000 to find out that bond,stocks et al are jerks WOW something I think we already knew,GOOD JOB KIVEN .You spent our money so wisely maybe you should run for office maybe mayor YEA YEA mayor KIVEN HA HA HA !
ReplyDeleteThe $100,000 was because Sabine advised the Council to violate public records laws.
DeleteThat is hardly the fault of the public requesting the records.
Wcv
6:58
DeleteIgnoring facts doesn't make them go away. The city hid records from the public that showed because of financial mismanagement the city does not have enough money to fix our roads to the tune of $43M. The city hid these records during the 2010 election period when Dan Dalager was seeking office. Stocks and Bond who supported Dalager voted to hide the report. Dalager later pled guilty to the DA for violations.
Stocks, Bond and Gaspar then voted to spend 100K of taxpayer money to keep the report hidden, to bury it. The court ruled against the three and the report was released. Now we all know the truth about Stocks, Gaspar, Bond and their financial mismanagement of our money. Stocks and Dalager were driven from office when the public learned the truth. Should the council appoint PEdr Norby as minister of misinformation Gaspar and Barth will be voted out in the next election for playing fast and loose with taxpayer money.
WCV the new KIVEN cheer leader that's funny he' ll turn you, he turns on everyone sooner or later
ReplyDeleteI cheer actions and principles, not people.
DeleteAs a lot of Encintans are learning right now, people can let you down.
I'll be on his case if KC tries to upzone his property or do backroom deals with council.
I don't believe that Kevin, like most residential homeowners in Encinitas, have plans to upzone their properties. It's the real estate and development vultures who buy up property and aren't content with the vested property rights that go with the property. They want more and complain their property rights are being violated, all to make more money at the public's expense of increased traffic and stressed infrastructure.
ReplyDeleteGreed has no limits. Prop. A will let the public decide how much of that greed will be satisfied.
Vote YES on Prop. A.
One of the problems I'm noticing is that some believe a city cannot be "full grown", but has to continually grow to be viable. That shouldn't have to be.
ReplyDelete