Lisa Shaffer has posted her reasoning for voting no on Prop A.
A few preliminary thoughts:
- Kudos to Shaffer for discussing this issue with the public, which the mayor has been running from. Other council members have been radio silent.
- Shaffer seems to back away from some of the more outrageous statements made in the ballot argument (e.g. "Imagine a 30-foot structure five feet from your property line" and "Major land use changes HAVE ALWAYS happened with a vote of the people" Really? When did the public vote for three stories on 101 in violation of the General Plan?). If no one on the council will stand behind the over-the-top claims in the ballot arguments, why did they unanimously approve them?
- Shaffer argues that "the harder we make it for property owners to build within our existing land use policies, the more likely they are to use the Density Bonus law to circumvent our constraints." That seems wishful thinking: if we give them three stories, they won't use the density bonus. Did the North 101 lofts end up any less dense with three stories than they would have been with two stories and a density bonus?
Barth = Stocks in drag.
ReplyDeleteShaffers arguments do not make sense.
ReplyDeleteExcellent points, W.C..
ReplyDeleteFunny as this council keeps talking about the "unintended consequences" of Prop A (It took them $55K to have a list of if, could, might from Rutan & Tucker), but in the same breath promise to remove the 4/5th current land use loophole that allows council to bypass a public vote. Whether the loophole is removed by Prop A or council, or the next general election, there could be unintended consequences irregardless. Personally I would take these unintended consequences, however real they are, over the consequences of growth in the hands of HCD. The last thing Encinitas needs is more traffic and housing density for the sake of bridging the affordability gap (translation: pack them up in 3 to 5 story buildings to squeeze out as much profit as possible)
ReplyDeleteInteresting how Shaffer, Kranz, and Barth are now on the same side of issue than David Meyer, Mike Andreen, BIA and all their cohorts that stand to lose if Prop A passes.
The 4/5 is a red herring, as it applies to density only, and not height, which the council well knows yet refuses to admit.
ReplyDeleteShaffer may back away from the 30' - 5' from property line statement now, but was all too happy to get it on the ballot statement rebuttal when she wrote it with Muir.
ReplyDelete10:15 comment nails it!
ReplyDeleteHint to Council- If Jerome, Mike Asswipe, BIA, David Meyer, the Employees Union, and Sacramento Gus all like it-- You KNOW its bad for Encinitas.
Wake up and amit your mistakes. All of you are losing major credibility over this issue.
At Least Lisa is open to discussing the issue. Come on others, open your ears and minds and don't listen to the lies of the developers special interests.
You are acting know different than Jerome Stocks on this issue. Pehuuuuu! Something sinks.
What housing project in the last 7 or 8 years has not been density bonus?? Our city's use of density bonus has added 30 to 35% more housing than our zoning codes allow and has done nothing but add more traffic and green house gases to the environment. Adding traffic and green house gases to the environment is in direct opposition to two other state laws, SB 375 (passed into law in 2008) and AB 32 that require cities and counties to reduce cars on the road and associated green house gases.
ReplyDeleteShaffer is open to discussion...to an extent. However, she seems not to be either willing or able to learn the facts on some points that have been explained to her, repeatedly. She insists instead on touting the party line in most of her article.
ReplyDeleteRegarding Prop A proponents: "But they also want to impose city-wide development rules that would undo some locally-defined choices made by residents about their own individual communities...." In the next paragraph, she goes on to say “Prop A would override the “Specific Plans” that were worked out by community groups to enable unique zoning arrangements that serve the specific area (Leucadia, Downtown, Cardiff).”
She KNOWS better. She’s been told many times that the individual communities chose 2-story limits, but were overridden at the time by the Planning Commission. She’s seen the minutes from meetings that prove this, yet chooses to spin the opposite.
Next: “I also have concerns about possible unintended consequences of the Initiative.” Does she list them?? No, and why not?
Then: “Prop A is not needed to fix the major loophole in the General Plan. The Council is in the process of eliminating the General Plan provision that allows 4/5 of the Council to approve any change in density by declaring a “public benefit” without a public vote. she states the 4/5 is density, but will most readers catch the unstated “not height,” which is most important to most residents? No: a subtle but not-so-honest attempt to make folks feel safe at the hands of Council.
She says: "We plan to lock down this change at the next regular election in 2014 so it cannot be undone by a future Council.” Have we heard this kind of definitive talk from the others? No, and we won’t. With a year and a half to go until November 2014 anything can happen, and the only way to ensure that residents decide the future of Encinitas is to vote “Yes” on Prop A.
If Lisa is our best bet, we’re in trouble: she's just one voice, and counting on her to get the other four in line would be a foolish gamble that voters should not be willing to take.
Shaffer at least seems to be struggling with the council's precipitous decision to oppose the initiative. If I were in her shoes, I would be embarrassed to have signed off on the ballot argument and rebuttal. But she was in lockstep with Vina's vision of teamwork, not realizing that he had an agenda to push and carefully picked Rutan & Tucker to support what he wanted, which was NOT having the public meddling in any decisions.
ReplyDeleteNo one has mentioned Barth's comments in her newsletter:
"I am often frustrated by the rules that prevent genuine dialog between residents and public officials, and amongst public officials. I am equally frustrated when we try new approaches and are criticized for not sticking to the narrow definitions of "the rules" as the critics perceive them to be. The status quo is not working in this rapidly changing world of technology and social interaction.
Prop A and the limitations imposed on the council in regards to education rather than advocacy is a perfect example. Is my opinion advocacy or education?"
She adds this link:
http://www.zocalopublicsquare.org/2013/03/26/is-civic-engagement-illegal/ideas/nexus/
She is also struggling, but her answer seems to be loosening up the Brown Act to allow more backroom dealing.
It's a rough world for little 'ol Mayberry by the sea.
ReplyDeleteLisa Shaffer is a LIAR! She LIED straight to my face on multiple occasions. I will NEVER support her again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteLisa ShafTER give it to us alright. We gave her a seat on the council and she give us the SHAFTer.
ReplyDeleteAnon trollers, that's kinda empty.
ReplyDeleteLisa has been the most intellectually honest council member we've seen in a generation. She has been open about building height since before she was elected. She has also acknowledged the less than rock solid arguments being presented. Unlike any other council members we've seen in a generation she seems to have taken an active role in challenging her own position. She seems willing to rethink positions.
She's also telling people what her list of negative consequences are, unlike the Mayor whom has been just using vague generalities over the last 6 months.
That being said I haven't been around that much.
5:37 It seems you have been around you talked yourself in circle .
ReplyDeleteProblem is, her "negative consequences" are still half-truths.
ReplyDeleteOr not true at all...her "facts" have been fed to her by "good" developers.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of feeding, we have to get Sabine,Vina, Norby, and the staff away from the feeding trough.
DeleteThe demand for all of the building is NOT population increases! It is pension liabilities at the City and partnership with a few dozen people in the building industry who benefit at the expense of everyone else who just wants to enjoy living here in peace.
They need to do radical cut backs and send Gus's 'cabinet' packing!
7:14- exactly !!! 100% on the money!!!
DeleteSay what you mean?
ReplyDeleteMean what you say?
"I don't have enough data to vote on it" Shaffer.
And you guys have your panties in a bunch about Barth?
Who is responsible for the traffic camera on the west side of Leu blvd and the 5?? City?? State?? Feds?? Why is it there??
ReplyDeleteMore big brother watching his minions?? Why??
Coincidentally, agenda item 4 for tomorrow night's council meeting is a Homeland Security grant.
DeleteI hate to sound so jaded, but it sounds like another revenue stream for the City to use on Revenue Units--sorry, I mean taxpayers!
DeleteHow many council persons will show up tonight for the L101 mainstreet association annual meeting?? I'm guessing ....2.
ReplyDeleteThat would be a party of one: Tony, who sat shoulder-to-shoulder with Norby.
ReplyDeleteNope...wrong. There was Krantz and Cameron. Sheila still thinks she runs the city, telling us tonight how she the "most qualified" for this and that. After seeing this outburst on her part I can understand why the council kicked her out of the mayors role. And when a semi-qualified someone else ran for the council she was shit canned to the sidelines where she has remained since that time.
DeleteYet it's amazing how her minions kowtow to her and set her up to grand stand. L101 let her make her point then cut her off.
Must be hard to be a has been.
Easier than being a never been.
DeleteSheila Cameron is a former councilwoman and mayor. I'm glad she attended the meeting. She takes good notes, and knows what's going on from a perspective most of us don't have. She was replaced as mayor when Jim Bond wanted to position himself as mayor before he ran for State Assembly, and lost. He said back then he would "retire" from Council, too, but apparently he meant only if he won his seat on the assembly, which didn't happen.
DeleteChristy Guerin lined up with developers, including the Eckes, in voting against Cameron, who had helped get Guerin and Holz elected in 98. Guerin, instead voted with the pro-development majority, who wanted, along with Peder Norby, to blight Leucadia. With the help of JP, and the Leucadia Blog, Guerin did later change her mind on blighting Leucadia. She and Maggie voted no on that, and I believe it lost only because it too would have required a super-majority to vote for it, on Council, as a "public benefit." Norby was all for the blighting, and most likely wanted to sit on the Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors.
There was only one current council member present for the L101 Meeting at City Hall, Tony Kranz, who had signed the right to vote on upzoning initiative, along with Lisa Shaffer, got elected, and then "changed his mind." Lisa Shaffer now says she signed the initiative "with reservations," which the RTV committee asked her not to bring up.
If she had serious reservations, Shaffer should not have signed. To get elected, mainly because the right to vote on upzoning committee helped so much to dump Stocks, by word of mouth, thru the RTV group's collecting signatures, then Lisa Shaffer's instead, going along with a pro-development impact report, rather than listening to the public, including experts, shows her lack of trust in both the electorate and her own common sense, her own judgment.
"..who wanted, along with Peder Norby, to blight Leucadia."
Delete"...Norby was all for the blighting..."
More poppycock.
She's an ex ;)
ReplyDeleteFor a good reason- Cameron is a super freak like Lynn Yawn.
ReplyDeleteStill cannot view the last post. I'm not the only one.
ReplyDelete"Barth Afraid To State The Negative Consequences ?"
Try now. There was some weird html formatting in that post. I removed it.
Delete