San Diego Registrar of Voters:
Congratulations to the Yes on A folks for what looks like a victory.
The remaining 1800 mail/provisional ballots would have to break about 60/40 to the No side to change the results (in addition to all being ruled valid). This is essentially statistically impossible unless there is some underlying difference in the population of provisional/late mail voters vs. the populations of both earlier absentee voters and voters overall (such as if a large number of the provisional voters are hired No on A campaigners from Lemon Grove, for example).
We'd say that, barring extraordinary irregularities, you can put a fork in this one.
Wow! The electorate wasn't swayed by the distortions and lies from the developer camp! The last minute desperation of money infusion and sign blight didn't fly - the Jerome $tock$ Syndrome! The entire City Council comes out with one big black eye also for not discerning the will of the people. They thought that they could keep crucial community decisions within their little conclave and hob knob with the gentry elite class for the favor of doing their bidding. Congradulations to the acitivists of the community - democracy can work!
ReplyDeleteIn fairness you have to acknowledge there was misinformation whether you call that lies or not on both sides.
DeleteJust proves to me that the majority populace does not understand that in the last election, the good guys won. Barth, Schaffer and Kranz are not, and never have been the evil doers that they have been accused of being.
The cosmic anomaly that brought Barth and Stocks to the same side of A, but for completely different reasons, has closed.
Back to the reality we all know.
It was surprising how misinformed so many activist were.
DeleteDemocracy, the worst form of government, outside if all the rest.
What misinformation are you speaking of on the Yes side? Also, we did not have to get 10's of thousands of dollars from outside of the area--we were boots on the ground.
DeleteCongratulations Yes on A camp.
DeleteIn 10 years voters will be approving 5 story hotels on the coast highway.
What misinformation ?
DeleteFrom just one hand out.
Claim: Recent city council appointed committees proposed increase zoning....
Truth: This was not a recent council decision but a council decision from the old council super majority.
There were not committees there was one committee, ERAC.
Proposition a protection community character.
Truth: It actually puts in the formula that is the same throughout the city not acknowledging the individual community character of the five different areas.
Claim: Does not infringe on existing property rights.
Truth: Sure it does. In a lot of ways. Like it or not, you have 225+ priperties on 101 in Leucadia that could build three stories yesterday and now it would cost an additional $30,000 to $400,000 to do it.
Of course that infringes on property rights.
Claim: Proposition eight helps curb increase traffic and pollution.
Truth: That is a statement that cannot be proved.
Just a few.....
Well prop eight passed and it's not going to be the end of the world.
But don't fool yourself and pretend that both sides didn't stretch the truth in this divisive battle.
The ERAC committee did not mirror the interests of Encinitas citizens. A number of members didn't even live in Encinitas.
DeleteTrue, for land speculators who have been able to get special deals at the expense of people already living in a neighborhood, they might say that THEY lost property value since they would need to develop like everyone else. So because this will force them to be treated equally with no special deals, those few speculators could argue that they lost property value since they will not be as able to stack and pack.
For the rest of Encinitas homeowners who just want to enjoy living in a great community, it makes OUR properties more valuable. Yes on A!
Amen to that!
DeleteClaim: Does not infringe on existing property rights.
DeleteTruth: Sure it does. In a lot of ways. Like it or not, you have 225+ priperties on 101 in Leucadia that could build three stories yesterday and now it would cost an additional $30,000 to $400,000 to do it.
Of course that infringes on property rights.
Claim: Proposition eight helps curb increase traffic and pollution.
Truth: That is a statement that cannot be proved.
Just a few.....
Did you submit this to WC or the LB before the election? In my small pockets of time to work on this stuff I've been playing wackamole and people I spoke to know that the first point is one that concerned me. The second is reasonable to propose. If the UPZONING is done in the full view of the public, with their required participation, we are less likely to see stuff snuck under the public's radar, and massive traffic generating development less likely to approved. Perhaps, now we will see upzoning that is explicitly tied to REQUIREMENTS on future traffic generation. One point I was also including was the point JP was making. He was worried that Leucadia will become the dumping ground. Upzone requests still have to go through the city council and have their review and the council will and should state their positions on particular upzones so they will be on record, which I don't think was appreciated enough.
Who made the claims, btw?
(the other points aren't worth addressing)
The developer camp are the cheaters? You misidentify the majority of No on A, they are private property owners trying to protect themselves and the city's annual income.
DeleteFrom Day One Bruce Ehler's traveling circus claimed falsely that the City was planning 5 story buildings.
That was not true, is not true and will never be true. And Ehlers has admitted it privately. Read his semantics-confused twisted press release from this January about Prop A.
He told a simple scary story and sold it to the unemployed looking for an opportunity to project their fears and strike at someone for their problems.
Tragically, it was ALL a lie.
This will ALL play out in the courts and Ehler's bold-faced lies will cost the City of Encinitas millions of taxpayer dollars before it is evaporated by the Coastal Commission, State Court and HCD.
That will be his legacy" along with his acknowledged behind-the-back illegal loans to Guerin and Houlihan, an acknowledged completely false ballot statement when Ehler's was running for Encinitas City Council in 2004 (perjury?) trespassing (documented) and now his revenge on Stocks for removing him from the Planning Commission for his collusion with Sheila and Dennis and Christy is nearly complete. Edmund Dantes Ehlers.
Get ready, cuz here it comes. When Ehlers tries to rope-a-dope the members of the Coastal Commission, he and Everett Delano will be revealed for whom they really are.
JP is right about The Leucadia-left leadership having created an affordable-housing density-bonus dumping ground of the former Merle along 101.
Kevin, Sheila and Lynn and the Turneys have condemned the 101 corridor because they were too exuberant about 'sticking it to the man' to see the truth.
Why did their handpicked council candidates change their minds on Prop A? Because once they studied it they discovered Ehlers has 'completely' misled them and the public.
Jim Kydd, tell Mr. Demille you are 'ready for your close-up'. Can you spell FPPC?
Round 2 to the uninformed zealots. On the other hand, now prohibitively successful in impinging on commercial property rights. watch the new new newest General Plan go after residential private property rights. You reap what you sow. Invasive plants ordinances anyone?
Ehlers still has his plan from 2000 to turn Encinitas into an HOA because at the end of the day, it is his desperate wish to be recognized that has caused this temporary debacle. He is dying to be the Decider.
Get the popcorn ready for the Coastal Commission hearings. All 30 of them.
10:34 errrrr....... I think you might want to watch the video of Pedr Norby and Rancho Santa Fe developer Dough Harwood recommending 5 story buildings
Deleteehhh......you might also take a look at video of council meetings with Norby making the GPAC and ERAC recommendations for 4-5 story buildings on "Overlay Zones"
It sounds like you have sour grapes after spending $100,000 to keep power in the hands of insiders and cronies only to see a new day in Encinitas where residents have equal footing with insiders with access.
Ah yes, the bogus HCD numbers, the Barth Shaffer Vina regime will have to decide what to do. We all know the SANDAG population numbers are false. We also know that Del Mar negotiated with HCD to only 22 units, and Corta Madera told their group to pound sand bny withdrawing. Our council will either side with the residents they claim to represent or they will engage in more nefarious backroom deals like the 40K they paid to Rutan and Tucker. The choice is theirs.
Hey 10:34 what are you smoking? The developers from LA, Arizona and Chicago spent $70,000 grand to bamboozle an unsuspecting public, it almost worked.
DeleteThe resident's spent $7,000 grand. The majority of NO money came from outsiders and high density builders like Hasrwood who chooses to live in restrictive zoning in RSF while dumping density on others. Hey, didn't RSF recently outlaw roundabouts- just saying
10:34 = Mike Andreen
Deletewho's that? ex-city council person or resident, is he a Norby like faciliator? never heard the name-
Delete8:16
Delete"From just one hand out.
Claim: Recent city council appointed committees proposed increase zoning....
Truth: This was not a recent council decision but a council decision from the old council super majority."
1. The flyer doesn't say it was a recent city council decision. It say "A recent committee at city hall..."
The ERAC decision was last year. That's not recent enough? When do you think would have been a better time for ERAC to recommend 5 stories?
2. For the council's ballot argument against A to claim that 5 story buildings were not on the radar in Encinitas was misleading. Period. To further claim that they would never be built here is not a reliable statement but at best a wishful guess posed as a fact to all voters (and also flew in the face of the Encinitas' ERAC unanimous reccomendation I might add).
3. "There were not committees there was one committee, ERAC"
Again, the flyer did not say committees. It was singular.
4. "Claim: Proposition eight helps curb increase traffic and pollution."
Even if the subject was Proposition 8, I doubt if you could blame the offspring of gay couples for very much more traffic and congestion.
10:34
DeleteIt was only Merle for a decade or so, after it was named Leucadia. But Leucadians liked their roots more so they restored the name that fits.
Of the 1800 votes remaining, the No Camp would need to receive 1080 votes. That is nearly statistically impossible considering the previous results and would scream ballot stacking and fraud.
ReplyDeleteWay to go- Yes on A!!!!
Clearly the voters support you!!!!
Councilmembers take note and listen to the will of the people.
The public is waking up and is not so easily fooled by the big developer money trying to buy election results.
Way to Go Encinitas..... The future looks BRIGHT!!!!!
Next up - Fire Sacramento Gus!
He is wasting our precious tax dollars with every ridiculous move he makes.
Sabine needs to go too.
ReplyDelete400 Hundred votes,Very divisive not very decisive
ReplyDeleteSAD ,This city will never be the same
It's awesome! Without corruption and Jerome stocks the future looks bright.
DeleteNew concept, build per general plan.
stocks is gone.
DeleteYou voted against the new fair council, not stocks.
I'm ELATED! Were it not for the campaign of misinformation and manipulation through dirty tricks, causing confusion and fear, YES on A would have won by a much larger margin.
ReplyDeleteIn all fairness, the YES on A proponents were honest and did NOT put out lies. We had to put our trust in the hope that the majority would be sophisticated enough to see through the lies of the NOT impartial analysis, and the Building Industry hype, to take back our power, to decide for ourselves, yes, we can VOTE on whether or not we want to upzone or to increase height limits above those in the General Plan of 30 ft. and two stories.
The "hit pieces" put out by the Anti-A-ites didn't work. Neither did Council's false arguments. They were too willing to rely on their prejudiced consultants and their outgoing, we hope, City Attorney, who never was asked a question he couldn't respond to with a "just depends," EXCEPT when falsely claiming that "lower height limits would be raised." NOT!
Cheaters NEVER prosper. Even when it seems like they make more money off the backs of those who play fair; in the end, money is not the ultimate value. Proponents of Prop A can feel happy knowing we did our best, and accomplished our goal by being truthful, by dint of all of our hard work, the efforts of us, the "little guys." Yes, this is a true David and Goliath victory and we all deserve to celebrate!
Thank you, each and all.
Prop A is a huge victory for the mega developers with money to spend on large projects and media campaigns convincing New Encinitas voters to approve 5 story hotels.
DeleteProp A puts a stop to all moderate development.
The 30 ft residential showdown will begin in 5,4,3,2,1
Great tune, WC. Thanks for all you've done, too, to help us achieve this victory. I feel it's odd that there are so many absentee and provisional ballots still uncounted. If the results don't hold, there definitely should be an investigation of those "provisional" ballots.
ReplyDeleteBut I too feel safe in claiming victory, and offering thanks!
Tonight Barth and Shaffer propose to the council taking away current free speech rights and limiting public participation by suggesting elimination of time donations to speakers.......they seek to muzzle the public and limit input. Last week Barth rudely interuppted an agenda item speaker eventually bullying the speaker to stop. Kranz and the others continue to waste money on hiring a PR person. These are all facts. The only way the three get back credibility is to fire Gus. They have not been demonized, they have been held accountable.
ReplyDeleteLynn and others regularly Speak off topic and waste huge amounts of time and money.
DeletePlease keep rhe meeting orderly and efficient.
This is your opinion, because you do not like what, how or why, they say what they say. However our current rights to free speech are for all. You are suggesting to limit free speech and participation because you disagree with a person?......how arrogant. Encinitas taxpayers pay for city hall.
DeleteThe Barth Shaffer Plan to limit participation and reduce free speech was hatched by Vina, who then got the council to hire a PR person. They are seeking to silence those who shine the bright spotlight on the malfeasance and mismanagement of Vina and their frivolous spending ways. The meetings are efficient and orderly, even Stocks never shut people down mid-sentence or bullied them. A little decorum please.
Stocks never shut people down or bullied them....have you missed the last 12 years of council meetings?
DeleteStocks waited until after speakers finished and then made ridiculous claims to make them look bad knowing they could not respond. Tony did this to some people a few weeks ago
DeleteWhat are provisional ballots? Unverified? Address not matching?
ReplyDeleteProp A "divisive"? No, not at all. This election has been "revelatory". Now we know who and what is against our community and who and what is ALL ABOUT THE MONEY. All the council, staff and civic groups who have been feeding from the trough in our modern day version of feudalism. What should be a government for the people became polluted by a cabal that believes government is for the government employees. Their musclemen are the developers and building industry that have no qualms about exploiting any city in order to sustain a flow of money to a ministry that cares little for the Common Good and Livability of the taxpayers. Say whatever snarky things you want to about Prop A, but you CANNOT deny what I have said is absolutely, true.
ReplyDeleteWhat you are saying is absolutely not true.
Delete9:08 fully understands the big picture.You can take it to the bank that this is just the beginning of a protracted war. Don't be surprized if counter-legislation has already been drafted. Prop A won because the opposition lied,cheated,and repeated.Modern day social networking is putting an end to old school slimeball(andreen/orr) campaining.
Delete9:26 have you looked at the salaries of people working at city hall lately?
DeleteThere is no way that that ANY of them could earn what they make from us unless some other sorry city made the mistake of taking them on. As a rule, they are really poor--especially Planning, Engineering, and some notable examples in other departments.
Delete2:19-read it and weep
DeleteCITY OF ENCINITAS, SAN DIEGUITO WATER DISTRICT AND ENCINITAS FIRE DEPARTMENT
EMPLOYEE'S WITH EARNINGS OVER $100,000 IN 2012
GROSS
NAME TITLE WAGES
ADAMS JOHN FIRE CAPTAIN 146,603.28
ATHERTON SHAWN UTILITY & MAINT SUPERVISOR II 114,764.41
AURORA JOSEPH SUPERINTENDENT 101,644.58
BAREFIELD RONNY PROGRAM ADMINISTRATOR 102,271.30
BARKER RICHARD FLEET MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR 102,323.61
BECKORD THOMAS DEPARTMENT MANAGER II 153,083.65
BLOUGH ROBERT SENIOR ENGINEER 128,198.75
CHIROS TERENCE FIRE CAPTAIN 135,920.65
CURRIDEN THOMAS PRINCIPAL PLANNER II 133,272.87
DAIGLE MICHAEL FIRE DEPUTY CHIEF 154,245.93
DEANE EDWARD SENIOR ENGINEER 129,568.36
DELUDE CHAD FIRE ENGINEER 187,463.85
ELDER RICHARD FIRE ENGINEER 117,429.97
ESSEX CHARLES FIRE CAPTAIN 143,381.74
EVANS DAVID FIREFIGHTER/PARAMEDIC III 119,913.94
FINK PETER FIRE ENGINEER 124,490.27
FLYNN WENDY INFO TECH SUPERVISOR 107,964.92
FODOR JAKE FIRE ENGINEER 117,270.51
FRENKEN JOHN SUPERINTENDENT 114,019.25
GALLUP THOMAS SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST 101,957.17
GARCIA MARCO FIREFIGHTER/PARAMEDIC III 111,612.35
GARGAS TYSON FIREFIGHTER/PARAMEDIC I 124,595.52
GIBSON JAMES FIRE ENGINEER 129,987.55
GILES LARRY MARINE SAFETY CAPTAIN 101,231.57
GONZALES JOHN FIRE CAPTAIN 117,135.54
GORALSKI MICHAEL FIRE ENGINEER 127,538.47
GORDON JOSHUA FIREFIGHTER/PARAMEDIC I 138,455.69
GROCHOWSKI JEFFREY FIRE ENGINEER 117,214.50
HEER ADAM FIRE ENGINEER 118,887.59
HEER THOMAS FIRE ENGINEER 154,646.77
HEFNER KIPP ENGINEER II 106,977.04
HENRY JEFFREY FIRE CHIEF 210,395.06
HOLTEL MICHAEL FIRE ENGINEER 126,453.22
HOSFORD MARK SUPERINTENDENT 105,135.78
KEKS PETER FIRE CAPTAIN 146,956.08
KELLAR STEPHANIE ENGINEER II 112,343.45
KENNEDY MARTIN FIRE CAPTAIN 145,933.83
KLING JOAN CODE ENFORCEMENT MANAGER 100,198.98
KNOLL BLAIR SENIOR ENGINEER 116,270.68
KRONE JORDAN FIREFIGHTER/PARAMEDIC II 111,565.44
KUSIAK KERRY SENIOR PLANNER II 116,244.19
LANGAGER DIANE PRINCIPAL PLANNER I 111,526.51
LEHMAN TOBIAS FIRE ENGINEER 107,549.73
LEMBACH JAY FINANCE MANAGER III 123,555.26
MACABITAS RUBEN ENGINEER I 108,288.17
MAHER MASIH SENIOR ENGINEER 130,920.91
MANGOHIG NESTOR ENGINEER II 101,186.60
MEJIA ANDREW FIRE CAPTAIN 115,411.71
MICKELSON JAMES FIRE CAPTAIN 140,969.93
MILLER JAMES FIRE ENGINEER 123,180.83
MURPHY PATRICK DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR 160,019.26
NELSON JESSE FIRE ENGINEER 104,324.49
NELSON WESLEY FIREFIGHTER/PARAMEDIC I 128,216.57
NOWAK STEVEN ENGINEER I 103,224.90
O'DONNELL WILLIAM INTERIM DISTRICT GENERAL MANAGER 151,036.83
PETERSON JON FIRE ENGINEER 122,411.96
PHILLIPS RICHARD DEPUTY CITY MANAGER 144,464.40
POFF ALEX FIRE ENGINEER 119,690.97
REEVE PAUL FIRE ENGINEER 120,839.06
RUDLOFF LISA DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR 160,446.76
SALMON MAUREEN INFO TECH SUPERVISOR 108,143.40
SANCHEZ JORGE FIRE ENGINEER 118,192.82
SAPAU ROY SENIOR PLANNER I 109,846.86
SAYER CHRISTOPHER FIREFIGHTER/PARAMEDIC I 122,246.56
SCHWARM JACALYN DEPARTMENT MANAGER II 156,213.40
SCOTT ROBERT FIRE MARSHAL 108,798.19
SHAW LANCE FIRE CAPTAIN 136,207.67
SHIELDS PAUL SENIOR ENGINEER 138,459.79
SHOEMAKER THERESA FINANCE MANAGER II 109,061.02
SNOW JEFF FIREFIGHTER/PARAMEDIC I 120,637.55
SPENCER PAUL FIRE CAPTAIN 136,311.19
TEGT BRIAN FIRE CAPTAIN 136,483.85
TERLOUW MICHAEL FIRE CAPTAIN 147,047.33
TINCH MICHAEL FIRE CAPTAIN 123,171.64
TUFTS LYNNE DEPARTMENT MANAGER II 150,981.44
VAN PELT DAVID INFO TECH PROJECT MANAGER 100,459.54
VINA GUSTAVO CITY MANAGER 219,494.61
VOORHEES ROBERT FIRE CAPTAIN 150,405.64
WARD DARRIN FIRE DEPUTY CHIEF 153,565.73
WARNER EDDIE FIREFIGHTER/PARAMEDIC I 111,329.14
WHITLOCK HOWARD SUPERINTENDENT 103,708.05
WILLIAMS ROBERT FIRE CAPTAIN 151,345.29
WILSON BRYCE SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST 119,393.72
Uggg.... that gets me sick.
DeleteShields should pay the City $140,000 a year. He makes about $600,000 in mistakes each year minimum. That guy needs to go along with Gus.
The overpaid fire men get me sick as well. Sweet money for cake job. I better not call for help though, I don't want to interrupt their Movie.
Pay is one thing. Then every other Friday off, medical benefit and a generous pension plan. Try to match that in the private.
DeleteWith Prop A passing somebody will need to start taking a serious look at salary budgets and pension payments. Prop A says: start living your means just like most of us do.
These are last year's rates. They have all gotten a raise! When did the rest of us get on?
DeleteAlso, there are more people on the list this year since some were right under the $100,000 point and Gus has hired some new people at 6-figure salaries. Why on earth do these people hire consultants to do their jobs for them?
Fire engineers and Captains???? How many redundant, over-paid positions does a small city need? 6 figures for a guy that drives around the beach in their trucks, goes to Vons to shop and otherwise snooze.... outrageous!!! Make these $60K/year and the people would circle the block trying to get in.
DeleteThe civic sector appears to have one aim in mind - enrich themselves with over the top salaries and benefits.
9:26 absolutely is off base.
ReplyDeleteInteresting night! I wish the vote had been more decisive either way, but that said history has shown that major decisions have always been close. It also proves my point that money (or signs, legal and illegal) doesn’t influence elections – ideas do. A previous poster wrote that finally, democracy worked! Well, democracy always works – it’s just that it sometimes doesn’t agree with you. During the campaign, the claim of “unintended consequences” was brought forth by the No side to be pooh-poohed (technical term) by the Yes side. Neither side could articulate what those consequences would be, but in the next few years we’ll discover what those are. While the Yes side deserves all the accolades, I fear that is should watch its flank. There appears to be a minority in that camp that feels that the battle has just begun, and that this is just the first of many purges of the unworthy. Barth is a huge target, as is Sabine and Vina. Can’t say it’s undeserved, but the vehemence that these targets bring is undeserved. Democracy has spoken on Prop A – now let representative government handle the rest. Now, query this; if the Desert Rose project has to submit a more thorough EIR, thus negating council’s approval of the project, does this “wipe the slate” and subject it to Prop A? Oh, and sculpins have no tear ducts – they’re fish!!
ReplyDelete- The Sculpin
SCULPIN(Balaast Point Brewery) is also the best damn IPA on the planet!
DeleteWhy would the Yes side articulate "unintended consequences?"
ReplyDeleteThat was a purposely-vague term that the No side could not explain...right up there with "It's not what it seems...." They never did explain that one, either.
Sculpin-
ReplyDeleteTonight the Barth Shaffer plan proposes limiting free speech and reducing public participation. They offer the carrot of increasing oral communications by 15 minutes hoping to hoodwink the public into thinking they are getting something but they then propose to do away or limit time donations on agenda items. Today every resident has the right to 9 minutes if they have 2 time donations from residents in attendance. The Barth Shaffer limiting public input plan suggest doing away with this.
Barth Shaffer then suggest the council encourage a group to select a "speaker" who would get more time. We already have this option, why are they trying to get us to think they are giving us something when they are really taking it away? Then there is the suggestion to let people fill out a form opposing or supporting staff recommendation- how do we know who these people are if they are not identified? The no on A team bussed in hired help from La Mesa to appear as residents at the street fair-
Undeserved criticism of Barth and the council majority? It is well deserved, and what about the 135K PR hire? waste of money. IF this council wants to lead they must get rid of Vina, Sabine and Norby- fire them all and let's start with clean slate.
10:06 - what you describe is not a limit on free speech. Individuals can still address the council, are given adequate time to do so, and are encouraged to present more complex issues to the council by being alloted more time.
DeleteTo clarify, I said that the criticism was not undeserved - that's sorta like saying it is deserved. What is undeserved IMHO is the vehemence in which it is delivered.
- The Sculpin
Sculpin-
DeleteDO you expect us to believe that today each resident of Encinitas has the right to 9 minutes of free speech to address the council provided there are 2 residents in attendance willing to donate time........
And that if the Barth Shaffer suggestion to eliminate time donations is passed tonight that residents will still have the same rights............that's a bunch of hooey.
If Barth and Shaffer were for public input they would take action to encourage it, not stifle and shout down those with opposing views who are shining the bright lights on city mismanagement.
scuplin- are you kidding me? speaker's are encouraged by the council? today speakers have rights, the Barth Shaffer community limitation plan takes away current rights and then puts the power in the hands of the council to decide who they will, or will not, give more time to. It is an attack on reducing current free speech rights and limiting current participation. I am surprised you support such attacks on our liberty and right to participate.
Delete11:17 addressing the council directly before a meeting is not the ONLY way to communicate with the council. Each resident has a "right" to address the council - it does not have a "right" to 9 minutes before every council meeting. Is it your desire to have a permanent 9 minutes to yourself before every council meeting? If that's so, than I understand why you would think this is an infringment. If i needed to address the council on a specific matter, I would do it in writing first, followed by meetings, and if warranted be placed on the agenda. I wouldn't just show up the night of the meeting and make my case. That seems very inefficient and disrespectful of everyone's time.
Delete- The Sculpin
Hi Sculpin- I disagree. Today, every resident has the right to address the council on an agenda item for 9 minutes, provided the resident has 2 time donations from residents who are in attendance. Barth and Shaffer are proposing the current rights be reduced by taking away time donations and making it the decision of the council, not the resident, to decide who does, or does not get, more time. It is like a dictator trying to control speech.
DeleteIf as you suggest Scuplin resident do not have this right, they why did Barth propose changing it?
Also, who are you to decide who does or does not have the right to address the council? and who are you to decide when a person does or does not have the right to address the council ? after all it is we the taxpayers who p[ay the bills. Today all residents have rights to speak on any agenda item as they see fit, you and Barth Shaffer are proposing they only speak as you see fit, will your new rules be residents can only speak once a month, once a quarter , once a year?
How you choose to the address the council is fine for you. I do not propose to take away any of the current rights you now have. Why are you and Barth Shaffer proposing to take away and limit the rights to free speech and public input for the rest of us? In addition to sounding arrogant, The Sculpin and the Council know best, please sit in the back of the bus, it is an attempt to prevent citizens from shining the spotlight on public misuse of funds, wrong headed decision, reckless spending, back room deals and poor leadership.
As an aside I caught your attempt to paint me as a person going to city hall every week speaking on every issue as some sort of malcontent- that is what dictators like Chavez, Castro, Stalin and Marx have always done to silence debate and take away liberty.
As for me, today I have access to 9 minutes if I want it. Barth Shaffer want to take that away - shame on them. That is what is disrespectful, and you should know as much.
12:28 - I wasn't trying to paint you a malcontent - I was merley making the point that if your participation warranted 9 minutes every meeting, then why not try to expand upon that by meeting with council memebers and staff outside the meeting. I would think it would be more efficient. Besides, how can I differentiate between all these Anon's?!?!? As for deciding, I don't decide anything. That's up to the council. I dunno - I don't see rearranging public input time as a violation of free speech, but what do I know - I was on the wrong side of an election!
Delete- The Sculpin
Hi Sculpin
DeleteWith all respect the Barth Shaffer plan is not rearranging public input time it is taking away current resident rights. The Barth Shaffer plan also claims to suggest speakers select a group speaker- but residents already have the right to select a spokesperson if they want to, they don't need a council' "encouraging' them.
We have a process today that works for everyone except the council it seems. Do some seem to speak too long or too often for my liking, yes, but that is part of democracy. I can not judge who should or should not speak, or what they should or should not speak on.
I know today I have access to 9 minutes if I ever want it. Under the Barth Shaffer plan I would loes my 9 minutes and then 'hope' the council 'decides' to give me more time...............no way.
But overall oral communication time before the meeting is being increased from 15 min to 30 min. It also appears that not everyone gets 9 minutes since there is an overall time limit. It also mentions the possibility of reducing each councilmembers alloted time to 10 minutes. After reading this thing and based on all the different items they're looking at, I'm not sure the entire purpose of these discussion items is to take away any of your rights. I think they just want to get home by midnight!
Delete- The Sculpin
Hello sculpin that is the bait and switc Oral is different then agenda. agenda has staff male a report and speakers can then point out malfeasance, mismanagement, bad policy, poor accounting. agenda item public speakers help inform the pub.ic and the press. Oral and agenda re two different things. Barth shaffer have proposed reducing/eliminating time donations, this reduces my free speech and limit my input. I don't want to take away anyone's rights, I don't want them to take away rights I now have. you keep yours and I keep mine, deal?
DeleteI think prop A was the first battle of A very long war and yes you have won.Now the coastal comm. And the lawyers will have there way.We shall see .Thanks again Bruce Elhers and Kevin Cummins for splitting or city in half GOOD JOB.
ReplyDeleteI agree with 10:09
DeleteGood job EH and KC. Now if you can just educate the other 48%.
DeleteIf anyone has 'split' our city in half it is Gus Vina and the Council. They chose to spend almost $400,000 for the exact same result that we have today!
DeleteCongratulations Leucadia and Olevenhein. You managed to score a coup. Some of us, are not happy, but you did it. You divided the community even better than Jerome Stocks. You can be proud. Just don't expect any help from Cardiff or Old Encinitas in the future. We got screwed.
ReplyDeleteHAHAHAAH only 6,000 Berliners showed up to hear the Prophet, they have awoken when will you??? HAHAHAAH.
ReplyDelete10:16 the battle in this war for local control began during the Cardiff specific plan. City facilitator Pedr Norby who was paid 100K led multiple votes and residents wanted to limit density. The official record of minutes state a committee consensus was reached, Norby then went before the planning commission a year later and said no consensus was reached. You can make of these facts what you will.
ReplyDeleteCity planning staff, Laurie Tremor and Dianne Lannager then went before the council and said "staff would like to note no consensus was reached" even though the official record stated a consensus was reached. Norby, the developers, staff and the council of Dalager, Stocks and Bond then put all the high density back in for an 'open house' these are facts you can make of them what you will. There are official minutes you can review. This is not to disparage anyone.
In Olivenhain residents had to beat back Accredited partners and the plans for high density. Then there was the council forgoing resident safety at Desert Rose and siding with the high density developer attorney Marco Gonzalez who proposed clear cutting 50 mature trees in the name of profits- again, simply the facts.
In Leucadia it is the high density of 3 story buildings towering over residents that led to a wish for local control.
In old Encinitas after the upzoning of the 1010 crime, vagrancy and public drunkenness increased.
Last year the council appointed Norby to lead the ERAC meetings and GPAC. The GPAC had a ridiculous dot exercise intended to bamboozle the public and provide political cover to the council to upzone the city. Video of the ERAC committee show Norby recommending 5 story buildings along with Rancho Santa Fe builder Doug Harwood. Earlier this year Norby presented the results of the GPAC and ERAC meetings he led, no surprise that they both recommended 4-5 story buildings- again, these are all facts.
The battle has been lopsided because developers, insiders, facilitators, and other council cronies had the power at city hall. Today that power has shifted. This is a good thing.
"Video of the ERAC committee show Norby recommending 5 story buildings ...."
DeleteThe video did Not show that because that did not happen. Norby was addressing the what the majority of the Stocks formed group wanted, not what Norby wanted.
Be honest.
And your are not telling the truth, again.
GPAC DID NOT "recommend 4-5 story buildings..".
These ARE NOT FACTS. You are misinformed, believing the misinformed or making stuff up.
dude.....go listen to the video, Norby says I just made a recommendation- these are facts-
Deletewhile you are at it check out the GPAC presentation to the city council this year and their recommendation for 4 story buildings that as we all know with density bonus controlled by the state, which the council admits has the final say, would likely mean 5 story and maybe even 7 story buildings. Don't bring those incorrect and false arguments to this blog - we know the truth and the facts. You sound a bit like Jerome Stocks- nice try running interference for Norby. The council needs to let him go, it will restore credibility for the council. Whether they have the political courage to do so remains to be seen
L word, no one likes a sore winner. Enough already.
Delete12:12 name calling is so unbecoming, do you have an facts please share them.
Delete10:17
Delete"Just don't expect any help from Cardiff or Old Encinitas in the future. We got screwed."
Only if screwed means you can't tear down VG's or SRF now and put up a 5 story office or hotel complex without public approval. And don't kid yourself. The redevelopment agency in the early 90's wanted ALL 12 acres of SRF for the same reason. A new density to create big bucks at the expense community character and hi-jacking the long standing, tax free iconic church, selling it to a private party and sending the congreation and their lotus blossoms to God knows where for "fair market value". They thought the hayseeds of Encinitas were too dumb to see the writing on the wall. We weren't and never will be - to quote a new catch phrase. Second thought, better come up with a better phrase!
I have noticed people using this L word, I am not sure what that means? Loser? anyways it always seems that people who don't have any factual arguments call names, try and discredit the truth tellers
DeleteThe Lword is a for letter word people try to avoid.... It stands for L*nn.... eyw... it felt bad even coming that close.
DeletePoor, poor, Olevenhein. You have never been there to help any of the other communities and you finally have to take some of the heat others have felt for years, i.e.: desert rose. So, Mr, Ehlers, decides and others agree to kick, scream, cry and divide the City to get their way. And they managed to pick up a lot of Leucadians as well. Power has not shifted people, but people have certainly been split apart. I can envision each community now being protective of just their community, and i would not blame them. Thanks for the fun and please continue gloating, as that is all you have at this time. The rest of us will spend big bucks to clean up this mess, starting with the $350,000 this thing cost us.
ReplyDelete10:40 I call BS- Kranz put forth the idea the council accept the prop, and then offer 2014 changes on the 2014 ballot costing only 20K. Sabine called the idea novel. THEn the gang of 5 huddled behind closed doors with Ringleader Vina an the novel idea to save 350K was never mentioned again, it died a slow death in the back rooms because the gang of 5 including the 3 blind mice and pied piper Vina thought the dollar figure would be an electioneering club to beat the public with. Turns out Vina, the gang of 5, out of town developers and insider cronies at city hall were the ones who got beat............were you one of them?
ReplyDeleteI have an idea. All of you who voted of this, when the lawsuits come, if they come, I will send my portion of the bill to Mr. Ehlers who can then distribute it among you. Hope that will be OK because you all wanted this so badly. I can get Bruce's address, so he may be getting a lot of bills in the future. Divide them as you see fit Bruce. Your 15 minutes has now passed and when the first lawsuit hits Encinitas, you will be the first to know.
ReplyDeleteHarmon of Escondido stated zero lawsuits as the result of their version of Prop A when he spoke at a Council meeting the same night the Rutan report was discussed. Ten minutes after Harmon spoke, the Council was right back to yapping about lawsuits.
DeleteTime will tell, but to start up with that "when the lawsuits come" business is just tedious. Whatever.
Great, where should the residents of Desert Rose send their bill to for having to suit the city to protect their safety? Please let us know where residents along the 101 who claim their safety and quality of life have been destroyed by the crime and drunkenness along the 101 send their bill to?
ReplyDeleteIt's a two way street. Yesterday the power was 100% behind out of town developers, high density cronies, over paid city facilitators and an incompentent city manager and staff, today it is even 50-50 with residents having equal footing. Thanks Bruce!
Send your bills to Sacto.
DeleteDesert Rose had NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH A. NOTHING.
Deleteright, the Olivenhain residents bought property years ago thinking it was zoned rural. Then while they went to work hard to pay taxes and raise their families insider developers, land use attorney's unions, city hall cronies and social engineers wrote density bonus laws and passed them in the dead of night that take away local control of zoning and places increased density in the hands of regional un-elected bureaucrats. The developers, for profit land use lawyers, insiders, cronies all make money, the politicians who they back get campaign money and the residents wake up one day and learn the rights they once had they no longer had, and that government is taking away their quality of life so another family can benefit.
DeleteIf you sat thru the Desert Rose hearings you would know this. You would have heard family after family talk of why they bought in Olivenhain and the rights they thought they had until predatory well pad facilitators like PEdr Norby, high density developers like Doug Harwood and out of town builders like Zellman, aided by a crooked council that include Dan Dalager, swept in and took those rights away. Desert Rose opened the publics eyes.
This is Dr. Lorri. I don't post often these days, but I just posted what I am about to say on the Leucadia Blog as well. Whether you were for or against Prop. A, it did pass and this is a democracy. I have no idea what the consequences, if any will be, regarding the Coastal Commission or lawsuits. I do know that this Proposition has divided our community in a way I have not seen in a very long time, if ever. I would urge both the Yes and No sides to take a breath and begin the process of healing the community. Neighbors were pitted against neighbors, friends against friends. If we don't come together and reach out to one another at this time, I cannot see how this will ever be a good thing, no matter what the intentions. Let the healing begin.
ReplyDeleteHey Dr. Lorri I find it interesting that the city atty Sabine will get to bill the city to fight the lawsuits. Irony no?? As for your hope that we all just get along.... Ahhhhhh..............wait for it..............wait for it......No!! My only consolation is that when prop A really starts to blight the city most of the KLCC will be dead.
DeleteI can only ask WWRD??
Take it easy, Mikey/Jerome. Easy, now.
DeleteWe do need Dr. Lorri's help. How do we get past the deceptions of those people we trusted? How do we get beyond the mistrust and build constructive relationships with people who lied and threatened us? Dr. Lorri?
DeleteI agree with Dr. Lori that the nastiness beds to stop and the healing needs to start. The new council can do a lot do bridge the great divide. To start with they need to get people engaged through town council and start talking about the General Plan. They also needs to rely on staff resources and stop relying on consultant to do the work. Most important engage SANDAG to lower housing numbers.
Delete12:28 want a little whine with that cheese? Groups suing the city will LOSE
ReplyDeleteOk... I'm healed. Now slummy Developers and cronies leave town!
ReplyDeleteThat was simple!
The most ridiculous result of this un needed and very expensive process is that these individuals that you have witnessed offering misinformation are the ones that are going to vote on citizens property rights.
ReplyDeleteYikes!!!
Dipshit- you could try developing per code. Everyone should have the same property rights. There not up for sale. That was the purpose of Prop A.
ReplyDeleteDickhead- A took the right away to build 3 stories on 101 in Leucadia.
DeleteYou mean the 101 upzoning that happened without a vote of the people? You mean the 3 story upzoning that was given by the council to a lucky few that destroyed the quality of life of local residents?
DeleteAnd now A gives all resident the right to vote, not just the council. Yeah, boy everyone can vote just not the lucky insiders seeking access......
So A does require a vote of the people to change the paint color of my house. I thought so.
DeleteRidiculous. A little over 20 years ago, a guy down the streeY who had an old motel on a large lot had me sign a petition because "He wanted to choose the color he wanted to paint his place". The next thing you know he tore the place down and built the Rodeway Inn. At least back then they were hip to what parking provided for businesses. Same old tricks different day.
DeleteHey, The Leucadia blog sure is classy. No wonder no one posts there anymore, and BTW, some of the biggest stoners I know are part of the No on A camp.
ReplyDeleteMany people lacking any integrity were behind the No on A camp. Greedy scumbags that would ruin their mother's property for a little higher profit.
DeleteI have the answer,Teresa,Lisa and Tony should resign.This was a vote of no
ReplyDeleteConfiadence,right.Yes and then GASPAR and MUIR could and would appoint
Their friends. JEROME JAMES AND CHRISTI .What fun that could be HA HA
April Fools!
Well what is WC going to do now that he can't flog Yes on A?? I guess we are back to posting about that damn Kook statue in Cardiff.
ReplyDeleteAt the risk of repeating myself, does anyone have any thoughts on this?
ReplyDeleteNow, query this; if the Desert Rose project has to submit a more thorough EIR, thus negating council’s approval of the project, does this “wipe the slate” and subject the project to voter approval under Prop A?
- The Sculpin
I believe 4:08 is correct. There was no upzoning, only density bonus, so Prop A won't affect Desert Rose.
DeleteThanks to you both!
DeleteThe Sculpin
Hello Scuplin
ReplyDeleteThe desert rose property I believe is zoned already residential. Because it is zoned R the developer can apply directly for density increases that supercede local ordinances, provided those density increases do not negatively impact safety or the environment.
The Desert Rose people and the planning commission ruled the increased density negatively impacted the safety (fire) and environment (Trees and wetlands)
Marco Gonzalez argued for high densities advocating the destruction of 25 feet of wetlands and the clear cutting of 50 tree's.
So, if the EIR shows there is not a negative impact to the environment or safety then the builder can get the increases. If the EIR does show a negative impact the increases might eb stopped. My opinion
So I guess, from what I have read on this post, that no one is really very interested in healing the wounds created by the initiative? Or perhaps no one feels it necessary? What I saw and am still reading is that people who care about our community have been slammed, divided, and devisive on both sides. Let's face it, most people did not vote, and don't even know what Prop. A was. Those of us who take an interest in our future did know and voted the way we felt was best for Encinitas. And now, after democracy has said Prop. A passed, I personally think it would be nice to come together. Maybe after you all think on it, you may come to the same conclusion, or perhaps you won't. I am offering my services pro bono if they are wanted and needed. And if they are not, so be it. What would be ironic is to hire a consultant to come in a soothe the souls of the people affected. If the Council does that, please know that I did contact Mayor Barth and offered her the same thing. Take care.
ReplyDeletehello doctor thank you for your comments I find them helpful. I mean this in all sincerity, isn't that what the council is doing by proposing to hire a PR person for $135,000 ......to soothe the souls of the people as the city continues to spend recklessly, our debt continues to go and the council keeps being led by vina and sabine. Truly my comment is meant respectfully, not to make a derogatory comment.
DeleteA PR person will only further anger, but the council either can't or won't see that.
DeleteDr. Lorri- nothing you say or do will change my mind. But if it makes YOU feel better then go for it. Sure, go for it.
ReplyDeleteI agree. But if it makes you feel good do it. I feel great!
ReplyDeleteDr Lorri, why assume if no one takes you up on your offer, we don't want to "heal?" II didn't realize the only two options were your services or continued divisiveness. You can't force a comng together...it's all very fresh...give people a chance to digest, geez
ReplyDeleteNo problem. I respect the last comments. Certainly no one NEEDS my services, it was just an offer. Whatever works for each person is also fine with me. I make a great deal of money by helping people that want to be helped. Enough said. I offered, and that was all. I don't really care one way or the other. It did make ME feel better to offer pro bono services. So, if nothing else, I soothed my soul.
ReplyDeleteHi doctor good for you soothing your,soul, very healing and. Very encinitasy
DeleteDr. Lori- I, for one, appreciate the offer. If others don't, it further emphasizes the point that the gloaters think they have won a victory. Trouble is, they did not win the war. I imagine Cardiff will try to secede and go to Solana Beach if possible. At least I hope we will. I am sick of this crap. Olevenhein and Leucadia can have the community. I hope Bruce Ehlers is really proud because as soon as the lawsuits come I will also send my bill to him, as another person said. He loves the glory and he and Cameron, who was outsted from the City Council for being so wacko, put their heads together and this is what they came up with. God help us all.
ReplyDeleteI too appreciate the offer AND am pro prop A and think gloating is the last thing we should do
DeleteMy point being: don't generalize!
DeleteI would love for Olivenhain to secede. We can go back to being unincorporated and not have to worry about density bonus, which only applies to incorporated cities. Further, I would like to slip out the back door before the real pension liabilities crush Encinitas. Please let us secede!
DeleteMan, you guys kill me. Someone who is a professional offering free services and you treat her like shit. Maybe our new PR guy who will make a hell of a lot of money can do it. And, just to let you know Dr. I did vote for Prop. A and I do appreciate the offer. Wish the City would take you up on it but I am sure you would somehow become the devil for doing it. Some of you are just plain mean and it doesn't matter how you spin ,it all of you who think you are so cool and don't see an opportunity when offered, SUCK big time. This community does need to heal and even me who is not a professional shrink can see that. Makes me wonder if I should have voted NO just because of the gloating you are doing. So much for a peaceful city. I have seen better in less affluent places.
ReplyDeleteDr. Lorri- I've never read or seen a blog that doesn't eventually attract negativity, so don't take any of this personally. I know a lot of people, both sides, and everyone is being civil. Blogs are a flip o' the coin. Your offer is a generous gesture.
ReplyDelete11:40 -
ReplyDeleteWhy do you feel we are treating her like shit? I agree with anon 11:40pm. For the most part people are being civil and just presenting their opinions. Besides some dislike for those with no integrity, I see no hate being thrown out.
How the hell soft are you folks and how did you make it this far in your life? Geez - Get a grip and go appreciate your life today. Whether you know it or not, you live in one of the nicest areas of the world. Thats why there is so much pressure to develop the hell out of it.
I think its a great thing Prop A passed. We will have more responsible development and it will be nice enough to were some developers, would even chose to live here. Of course, not Doug Harwood, but we don't want citizens that sell out the community like him anyway!
The City is in financial harm with huge staff costs and what does the City Manager do? Hire a PR bobblehead.
ReplyDeleteGeeze, with that kind of fat, he could have cut two highpaying deadwood positions and both in a PR person with a total savings of $150,000 at minimum. But Gus doesn't think like that.... He only thinks of ways to grow staff and not complete any true value for the City.
Fire Gus. He is way worse for our City than any issue associated with Proposition A or the General Plan. With no common sense, this man should not be in charge of our staff completing a general plan update. In fact, the last effort fell apart on his watch. He is a nightmare for our town.
At last night's meeting, a number of deserving community orgs applied for grants. Mark Muir asked Gus Vina if he had a few thousand dollars to bridge the difference in order to fund more projects.
DeleteGus Vina seemed very opposed to helping support these worthwhile, causes, yet he signed a $40,000 contract with out of town consultants Rutan and Tucker for the failed advice they gave him on Prop A. He could have fully funded ALL of the projects, and could have benefited hundreds of Encinitas children and and those who work with them while keeping the money in this community.
Instead, he chose to spend money on the consultants to protect his own position. Every decision he makes is predicated on how it will beneftit Gus Vina personally. He is nothing but corrupt! He has GOT to go! Fire Gus Vina!
The council had enough money to hire a $140,000 a year public front man.
DeleteNow let's recall Barth
ReplyDeleteVery close.
ReplyDeleteIn reality, Desert Rose has absolutely nothing to do with RTV. It had to do with State requirements in regards to density bonus allotments.
A lot of people voted for RTV BECAUSE of Dester Rose.
If those voters knew the facts, would the results be different? These ill informed are the ones who will voting on property rights issues in our future.
I would have preferred to have our new trustworthy council proceed with the general plan update with open public input.
I see it slightly differently.
DeleteDesert Rose exposed the council as willing to rubber-stamp staff's pro-development agenda. That woke people up and made them realize we need protection from the council.
WCV
We need protection from the past council, not this one.
DeleteYour rubber stamp statement does not reflect the reality of the opinions of our new council.
I know that you,WC, get all hot and bothered if the mayor doesn't answer your questions as promptly as you want. But your attacks on our new council are mostly unfounded.
The current council so far has not voted differently than the past one, at least not yet. The point of Prop A is to separate ANY council from the up-zoning process. Council bias can flip quickly, and our quality of life should not have to go along for the ride.
DeleteIt was the new council, not the old council, that approved Desert Rose.
DeleteI'd rather see positive action from the council than rapid response to questions.
WCV
Everyone is attacking the new council that is voting to eliminate the 4/5 majority clause and putting it on the balllot in 2014, working to reduce the state required housing requirement and wants to continue with the general plan update in a fair and inclusive manner, establish a more open city government.
DeleteBut there are those who attack them because of the bad taste in their mouth from a PAST council.
And, again, DESERT rose has Nothing to do with RTV and has nothing to do with density bonus state requirements.
9:00 am I disagree. No one has attacked the council. THE council opposed residents on Prop A, they should not be surprised residents then opposed the council. The council approved a luxury PR hire for 135K when the city can't afford to give 5K to the PTA for playground improvements and last night the city manager said there was no additional money to grant to civic organizations. Last night the council sub-committee suggested reducing time donations- fortunately that did not pass- but again, the suggestion opposed current resident rights, the council should not be surprised residents opposed the suggestion. The council would benefit more by following the direction of the many informed citizens who go to city hall then following the directions of a city manager who increasingly is giving them bad and very expensive wrong advice.
DeleteAs for open government is it open that the council let Vina sign a 40K contract with Rutan and Tucker without council approval? Is it good the sub-committee suggested doing away with time donations? -is that open or back room deals and limiting public input?
The public has weighed in on the GPU in a fair and inclusive manner- Pedr Norby, Gus Vina, Doug Harwood, Mike Paescke, and the other developers and builders appointed to the ERAC want one thing and the residents want another. Time to follow the residents -right.
No one has attacked the council, they have held the council accountable. The council needs to stop playing the victim and begin leading.
As for Desert Rose I believe you are 100S% wrong. Density Bonus laws were written by for profit developers and social engineers in the dead of night in Sacramento for create profits and force high density housing on unsuspecting communities. Many Desert Rose people thought that had local zoning protecting their quality of life only to learn that the state had re-written the rules in the dead of night and robbed them of their rights-
The same re-writing of laws was planned for Encinitas. Norby, Vina and Harwood planned to re-write and change commercial zoning not subject to state density laws to residential mixed so that THEY could them profit by taking away local rights and controlling those rights in Sacramento. Now because of PROP A it is the residents who decide what commercial zoning may or may not change and what local rights residents may or may not give up.
7:25 with all respect you are wrong. Density bonus laws are exactly why residents passed prop A. Currently residential zoning in Encinitas is controlled by the state. Desert Rose residents thought that had rights to live in a rural community, only to learn that state density laws written be developers and social engineers passed behind closed doors in Sacramento robbed residents of those rights.
DeleteThe GPU and ERAC were controlled by Norby, Vian and insiders. They proposed re-zoning the entire town and writing a new general plan that would have change current commercial zoning to residential and thereby subject the entire city to state domination.
Prop A very much was about Desert Rose.
None of the bilge immediately above this reply is true.
DeleteIts is the people in the room, Lisa S., Olivier and Sheila C. who absolutely will not report out the truth: you can always listen to the recordings about the Gpac or Erac: those responsible, Patrick and Diane, Ehlers/Bonde or Pam Slater Price: none of whom would recognize the truth if it bit them: they aren't interested in the welfare of the City: they are only interested in taking power. Elect Sheila, Donna and Lynn in the next election and then climb down into your storm shelters.
This is in response to the misinformatio by 12:06 there is video evidence posted online of highly paid facilitator Pedr Norby recommending 5 story buildings throughout the city. We have all seen the video. Everyone is free to go watch the video.
DeleteCARDIFF IS LEAVING THIS TOWN AND CONNECTING WITH SOLANA BEACH. WOW!
ReplyDeleteI would not blame them if they did! Cardiff has provided ongoing leadership in this city, and I feel for them that they are stuck with this sports park nightmare and that Rossini Creek has been placed in jeopardy.
DeleteFirst thing council needs to do now is set up a timeline so that the GPU can go to a vote on Nov 2014. Start negotiating with SANDAG a more realistic number than 2300 units for the next housing element.
ReplyDeleteGereral Plan Updates have never ben voted on.
DeleteDid you think A was going to change that?
And the number is 1300.
1300 is the number of affordable units and 2300 is the total housing units coming from HCD and SANDAG. These numbers can be negotiated. Past councils accepted the numbers to please their supporters.
DeleteThe council recently added Section 3.14 to the General Plan Land Use Element. This gives the public the Right to Vote on comprehesive GP updates. It was done to undercut the YES on A folks. Plus all the council members promised to put the GP update to a vote before the recent GP amendant was done.
You mean 1300 Market Rate Housing - the affordable crap is a ruse and everyone knows it. Now let's consider the state run density laws that can triple and quadruple density- so 1300 becomes 3,900 market rate 'units' with a handful of 'affordable' units that the developer buys out of or sells to a family member to hold onto for 20 years as an investment.
ReplyDeleteConsider- Trader Joe's/Ralphs trades hands 18 months ago for 78M, Stocks appoints the new owner to ERAC and the new owner along with Norby, VIna and Harwood recommend 5 stories. That is a 5x increase in density, meaning 5x78M = $390 million- see how it works?
THE council needs to terminate Vina and Norby if they hope to restore credibility.
Hey Think!
DeleteThe state housing requirements ARE NOT A RUSE.
Stocks is not on council. He lost. He was the one that created ERAC.
NORBY DID NOT RECOMMEND THAT.
And A HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A.
State housing requirements are a sham. Real, but a sham, the laws of which were heavily influenced by developers. Encinitas' own Buddy Bohrer boasts of having had a hand in how the laws were written, so don't kid yourself that the state laws are even close to reasonable or honestly-written.
DeleteStocks was not alone when packing the ERAC: all 5 council members voted to stack the committee in favor of developers, quite a few of whom don't even live here. Norby handed the running of one meeting over to Rancho Sta Fe developer Harwood to run "by per-arrangement." Again, don't kid yourself as to how that went down.
10:26 - when and where does it all stop? The council needs to do this, the council needs to do that, and once it's all done, recall the council! Sometimes I wonder if I blundered into the old testament blog!
Delete- The Sculpin
10:33 state housing mandates are a ruse- they are based on bogus faulty population forecasts. Consider that are own Mayor Barth claimed the fastest growing population in Encinitas was seniors.
DeleteThe council must not be bullied by the state and sandag to accept incorrect data......Del Mar didn't.
Muir, Barth and Gaspar all voted for Norby to head ERAC. This year Shaffer and Kranz have continued to pay Norby is 105K annually to 'facilitate'.
There is video posted online of Norby recommending 4-5 story buildings - the video is proof of Norby recommending 5 story. He needs to be let go, as does Vina.
If you were in the room when the conversation took place you'd know that the video clip was edited to mislead: just like the entire Prop A campaign. See ya in court.
DeleteMost of you people on this blog are called the LUNATIC FRINGE. The very First advice I was. given in political science class was to ignore the LUNITIC FRING.
ReplyDeleteEnough said.
You are the lunatic grinder.
Delete10:43 Please let me know if you have any facts at all to contribute to the discussion? Name calling benefits no one, name calling in all capital letters even less so.
ReplyDeleteI have an idea for all of you. Let's just get rid of all government in the City and have anarchy. How would that work for all of you? We will not be able to get out the the Density Bonus issue until someone convinces the State of California that it is not needed. When the lawsuits begin to pile up, there goes the money for anything we might need in this City. Thanks again Bruce and Sheila. Anyone who has lived here for any time know Sheila is not mentally stable, and Bruce is an egomaniac. If you haven't figured that out yet, then you have been sold a bill of goods. So may of you LOVED Lisa when she ran. Now, the tables have turned. Many of us were skeptical of her, but got forbid we said anything when she had dogs running around with "Maggie's choice" on them. You got what you asked for and now you are bitching. I agree with 10:43, and since I live in Cardiff I hope it is true that the community is in touch with Solana Beach. How we can actually leave the rest of you is probably not going to happen. However, another initiative and perhaps it could. Take your offing Park and and shove it. We never wanted it here in the first place. You Olvenhein folks make me want to puke. We get a frigging park that will create huge chaos n our tiny community and you might have to suck it up for some housing. Hypocritical is the first word that comes to mind. Where were all of you when the Park was being put together. Ah-not in your community. So as the great Bob Dylan once said "You who philosophize disgrace and criticize all fears. Bury your heads deep in your face, for now is the time for your tears."
ReplyDelete10:57 - You lost me at the park. You had no choice since it's physically in your neighborhood. A housing development would be better? As a past Cardiffian and a present Olivenhainian, I envy that park! I wanted it, I fought for it, I thought and still think it will make Cardiff shine. Too bad my kids never got to use it due to a minority NIMBY obstrtuctionist movement and clearly incompetent city officials. If we had that opportunity in Olivenhain it would not only be a sports park but an equestrian facility as well - and be built in time and under budget.
Delete- The Sculpin
You state, "Too bad my kids never got to use it due to a minority NIMBY obstrtuctionist movement and clearly incompetent city officials."
DeleteThe planning commission, who heard the ENTIRE COMMUNITY, found that the majority of the community, not 'a minority obstructionist movement', wanted a community park and not a regional sports park. Most of the delays were caused by incompetent city officials.
Most people in Encinitas, not just Cardiff, want what you say Olivenhain would want. More that a sports park. The price for the sports/special use park is in the $70 million range and funds have been stripped from other sources for other projects.
Folks in Cardiff, along with most of Encinitas want a community park.
Is there any truth to the rumor that Costco wanted to purchase the Hall Property and build a warehouse there *and* put three multi-use fields on the property? This was years ago but maybe somebody on the board knows. They met resistance from city officials when testing the waters. The Cardiff Costco, i'm sure that would make some heads spin!
DeleteThe planning commission did not hear from the entire community. There wasn't the public outreach that you may otherwise believe. But when it came time to vote for City Council, the entire voting community had a voice, and they voted for a park with several multi-use fields. It was the most single-topic vote that i can remember, but i'll admit i've only been an Encinitas resident for 14 years.
DeleteWe have miles of beaches, a world class botanical garden, and hopefully soon a beautiful community park. It is not a regional sports park no matter how many times it is said on this board (likely by the same person). If you want a regional park look at the Oceanside El Corazon development, twenty-two soccer fields!
There was an amazing outreach through the ENTIRE city.
DeleteAnd No it is not a community park.
http://encinitascommunitypark.blogspot.com/?m=1
11:35 - I was there - I will have to disagree with you on your use of "majority of the community" in reference to wanting a community park. The "majority of the community" wanted a park that included playing fields, a pool, skate park, youth center, and dog park. Does that mean that our community sports clubs could have games and hold tournaments there? OF COURSE!!!! I remember very clearly those who objected to all of it, and all they wanted was 40 acres of passive trails through natural landscaping. These same people are the ones who fought it through the courts, in the process exposing our corrupt council members (that's always a good thing) and now continue to fight it on financing, pension, environmental impact, whatever sticks arguements adding to the delay, adding to the distraction, and adding to the frustration. Sorry - but that horse has left the barn along time ago......
Delete- The Sculpin
Dude- 3 weeks ago the city manager Sacramento Gus had staff recommend to the council in the budget meeting 2 new things 1. The city create a new fee (tax) on groups using city parks for groups over 25 people and 2. The city raise fees (tax) on youth sports.
DeleteThe two of these new fee (tax) increases are so that Regional Sports tournaments can be held at the park on week-ends that benefit the group putting on the tournament (rotary) and competitive regional sports leagues. The city is looking to generate money from the regional events as they had planned all along.
The park is not a community park. These regional competitive soccer leagues is to serve a regional high density zoning agenda put forth by SANDAG.
The Hall Park always was planned to be, by Dangerous Dan Dalgaer who convinced the council to over pay by millions for the profit and who later pled guilty to the DA, a regional sports mega complex. SO it will be.
1:33 - and I have no problem with that. That's what I want to happen. I want to drive by there and see kids or adults playing sports - dogs running around - skaters going crazy. This is all a good thing!
DeleteIf it was in Olivenhain you'd have barrel racing too.....and "dressage"....
- The Sculpin
The Encinitas Rotary Cup is a once a year tournament that has been going on for over 20 years. It is currently played on fields all over north county. So much so that its hard to justify the Encinitas in the title. It is not a huge money maker, but rather an opportunity to host a decent tournament for mid-level competitive teams. The Surf Cup it is not.
DeleteAssociating the soccer leagues with a SANDAG regional agenda is laughable. The soccer leagues benefit our kids first and foremost.
If our park were built to be a "sports mega complex", it wouldn't have the dog park, skate park, ampitheater and walking trails.
There is no ampitheater or basketball or tennis or pool or teen center. There are 6 or 7 sports fields.
Delete2:02 please clarify. There are 5 fields. If you count half-fields as full fields then you can get twice that many if you want to spin it that way. That's what Maggie did when she came into my New Encinitas neighborhood canvasing before the election. "I'm for four fields" she told me, and when i pressed her to clarify that she admitted it was two full fields. I give her credit for going door-to-door and we had a good conversation. I think that's why she was respected by so many in all the communities.
DeleteThere is a teen center in the plans that i'm looking at, and an ampitheater and a pool. Hopefully those can be built sooner rather than later.
There are also maps that show basketball courts tennis courts amphitheater and a water feature. And if you look at the map that you're looking at you will see three mixed-use feels a soccer field and two small fields in between those and there is going to be a graded area where a field will be where the pool is not going to be.
DeleteAnd what the city is heralding right now is $19.3 million for the complete park. No ampitheater no water feature nol basketball court no tennis courrt no volleyball court.
3:28 - Understood. But i don't think the park is considered "complete". Do you?
DeleteSo if/when the amphitheater and teen center are built, the missing pieces from a community park per the http://encinitascommunitypark.blogspot.com site are ball courts such as tennis and basketball (?). But where is the huge demand for those? We have tennis courts sprinkled throughout the communities (our neighborhood association has four). Indoor volleyball would be nice (see Bressi Ranch community center), but we have easy beach access for outdoor volleyball.
That website says "special use park" like its an evil thing. Its not. Its a classification because of the size of the project. Its not part of some nefarious and coordinated regional plan. I almost Asnered when i read "honed email machinery" of the organized sports leagues.
We should expend as much energy on getting the pool, teen center, and amphitheater funded as we do on this board.
the pool the teen center the ampitheatre the bocce courts the tennis courts the volleyball courts will never be built, the city doesn't have the money to build all the sports fields. To build the fields they had to raid 15 fully funded capital projects of $7 million, there were plans to not even plant the landscaping the city is strapped. add to this that mayor barth told kpbs our fastest growing demographic is seniors,so why are we building sports parks? Look i am all for youth sports and the park, but call it what it is a regional sports park, not what it isn't a community park
DeleteIf its a regional sports park for one weekend out of the year then so be it. I'm with Sculpin on that one.
DeleteThe current master plan includes pool, teen center and amphitheater. I've never seen plans for bocce, tennis and volleyball, but just because i haven't seen them doesn't mean they didn't ever exist. The current master plan deserves distinction from those other elements.
We are in agreement that its a terrible shame that the teen center, pool and amphitheater are not funded. We deserve, and i hope they create, excellent landscaping -- this is Encinitas after all!
One of the benefits of going g to city council meeting is getting the nuances of what the council is planning and why. Sitting thru the budget meeting it became clear the city is in bad financial shape After 10 years of Stocks we have lots of debt and liabilities. The solution raise fees, what was the first thing they discussed charging to use the park and raising fees on youth sports. You read into that what you want. The council of the past really screwed up. There is and never will be money for more at the park. The park was approved as a special use park, not a community park. What is the special use.....regional sports tournaments that the city makes money from and the residents subsidize.
Delete10:57 - what lawsuits are you talking about? The state has never sued a city for non-compliance with its housing element or not meeting affordable housing allocations, so where would these lawsuits come from? If you have an approved building code and limits in your general plan, you cannot be sued by developers over your GP. That leaves me wondering where the lawsuits would come from...?
ReplyDeleteVote yes on GPU.
ReplyDeleteDont print the teeshirts yet. There is no vote on that.
DeleteLawsuits have not taken place in Escondido for 15 years. That being said, and this is what wrong with our legal system, a party does not have to have a financial loss to bring about a lawsuit against a city who does not have a compliant housing element. Low income housing advocates and builders could technically sue. This is ridiculous. It's like Tort law where somebody could sue when they have not had any loss.
ReplyDeleteThat being said there is nothing that prevent the city from having a compliant housing element with Prop A.
1:13- And exactly where will the low cost housing go? God forbid it goes to Olevenhein. It will again go to Leucadia. And, if you read the Sacto information, you will see that Encinitas has been out of compliance with the State low housing folks for a long time. We are now on the top of their list to be investigated. There will be a lawsuit by the State if we don't comply. Do any of you ever follow anything that hasn't got to do with Encinitas? Check the State and find out for yourselves.
ReplyDeleteWe have more than enough 'affordable housing' the state has not counted all mobile homes, accessory units, granny flats.
DeleteA first step might be the council to provide an amnesty for a count.
1:44 PM
DeleteLook in the planning department documents. Leucadia was targeted years ago by the city. Look at the MIG proposed plan. Almost all the "affordable" housing was planted in Leucadia. Now we can fight for Leucadia instead of feeling hopeless.
2:07 Excellent point, except for developers. Remove the quota and it reduces if not completely removes the current urgent need for housing. So that ain't gonna happen.
DeleteThere are a number of options to go with the affordable housing units, including a first step that involves reducing our allocation. Stocks reported late last fall that mobile home units would qualify and we still have uncounted accessory units that could be Section 8 permitted if the city would reinstate the amnesty program that allows property owners to come forward without fear of penalty.
ReplyDeleteIt has been a very pro-development influence and push that prefers large-scale construction over looking into what's under our noses that could go a long way to accommodating the necessary number of units.
I like the Amnesty idea. Has the City done it before?I think that is an excellent idea. One of the problems with Section 8 housing is the rigorous inspection that is done. The places have to have ADA access, heat, a certain size bathroom, and lots of other things. I wonder how many "granny flats" would even qualify. Read the requirements of Section 8 housing to see what I am talking about. That is part of the problem. Most landlords don't want to fix up their "granny flats" to meet all of the requirements and I don't blame them. We need to fix that as well, but Amnesty would be a great start.
DeleteSection 8 housing- look, I think the country, the state and the city are absolutely crazy if they think it is the job of hardworking taxpaying residents to give up their quality of life to have Section 8 housing at the freaking beach- give me a break.
DeleteYou want to live at the beach, or close to the beach, go make it happen, earn it. You want to live in State subsidized section 8 housing- that is ok too, but it shouldn't be at the beach -meaning you live where ever they build it cheaply. You don't want to live there, then go make it happen.
Truly, what are all these freaking handouts the government give to people where they are taking it from others! My health insurance is up 50%, coverage down and my doctor stopped taking my plan...............Pelosi, Sebiellus, Reid, Feinstein all said the opposite- your rates will go down, your coverage will go up, nobody loses their doctor- They lied!
Now this, section 8 housing at the beach! No, I won't be shamed into feeling like I am a bad person. I help the poor, I donate, I give, on my terms, when I want and how I want - I don't need a glorified social justice engineer attempting to bully me into shutting up. Really, low income housing at the beach- please. This section 8 housing at the beach is ridiculous.
4:44 - it's already here - has been for decades.
Deletehere now yes, do we need to build 5 story section 8 housing projects at the beach?
DeleteTHe new results are posted YES on A prevails. Yes on 6671 no on A 6196 no on A
ReplyDeleteTurnout: 12867 out of 39839 registered voters = 32.3%
ReplyDeleteYes: 6671
No: 6196
Gap: 475 = 3.7%
So 565 citizens more for Yes, in a City that has about 63,000 residents. Hardly a mandate, or even close to what Yes predicted. I want a recount.
ReplyDeleteGo for it. 4% is great and the turn out is great.
DeleteActually, a 475 person difference...I suggest you not take part in any recount.
ReplyDeleteWhoops-you are right. Now I really want a recount. Does anyone know how to do that?
DeleteMaybe Gus can help you.
DeleteClose only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.
DeleteWCV
Fire Gus- he should have brought forward all these issues!
ReplyDeleteAmnesty sounds like a great idea. It was done before and could be done again. Also the numbers should be adjusted, or we should drop out of SANDAG.
ReplyDeleteDr. Lorri is swell for offering her services pro-bono.
Ah! Yes, the lunatic fringe in action .BLAH-BLAH
ReplyDeleteSome of my best friends are lunatics.
DeleteThere are lunatics and there are idiots. Big difference.
DeleteYou may be right. I may be crazy.
DeleteBut it just may be a lunatic you're looking for.
We Catholic girls fall hard when we fall.
DeleteThe city should start a dialogue with the new HCD director to brainstorm on possibilities:
ReplyDeleteIs an amnesty program conceivable?
Can trailer parks and mobile homes be included in the affordable unit numbers?
Can granny flats be included in the number of affordable units (existing auxiliary units not future ones)?
Can the housing allocation be re-visited based on the latest department of Finance population forecast?
Question,If you argue with fool does it make you a fool -- or a LUNITIC
ReplyDeleteDepends how you spell it.
DeleteFire the fool from Sacramento that bankrupt their town along with Stockton.
ReplyDeleteTomato -- tomato -- potato -- potato a lunatic is still a lunitic!
ReplyDelete9:14
ReplyDeleteLet's call the whole thing off.
Sacramento Press May 3 2011
ReplyDeleteThe 5th paragraph is interesting.
Former Sacramento interim city manager Gus Vina is headed for the coast.
Vina, who resigned from his post in Sacramento in March, will start a new job on July 1 as the city manager of Encinitas in San Diego County. The Encinitas City Council announced Monday that it chose Vina, 50, for the job.
The city of roughly 60,000 is known for its beaches, surfing and flower-growing operations.
“I’m excited to be able to continue at the city manager level,” Vina said Tuesday, adding that the Southern California city will be a “completely different environment.”
The Encinitas City Council is not facing any budget troubles, Vina said. By contrast, the Sacramento City Council is grappling with a $39 million budget gap for the 2011/2012 fiscal year.
“We are pleased and very fortunate to have Gus join the city of Encinitas and look forward to his leadership,” said Encinitas Mayor Jim Bond in a Monday news release.
Vina earned $225,000 as interim city manager in Sacramento. He said Tuesday that he was still negotiating his salary with officials in Encinitas.
Vina had a 12-year career at Sacramento City Hall, working in a variety of management positions.
When he gave notice to the Sacramento City Council in March, he told The Sacramento Press he did not “have the confidence of the entire council.” Sacramento’s City Council chose not to promote him to the permanent city manager position in a 5-4 vote on Jan. 25.
Vina said he looks forward to working on projects in Encinitas involving beachfront restoration and street beautification on Highway 101. His priorities include updating the city’s long-term development strategy, known as a “general plan,” and monitoring city finances, he said.
The answer to one question remains unclear: Will Vina learn to surf?
“At almost 51, I don’t know,” Vina said, promising that he would be “open-minded” about the possibility.
Kathleen Haley is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.
Thanks for this post about Gus Vina. I had read, in the Coast News,Vina got a vote of no confidence in Sacramento; I asked Teresa Barth why so at the Environmental Day, just before he started his position here, was it two years ago July?
DeleteWCV, this would be a good post for you to make, what with Vina coming up for evaluation and all, along with our factually and integrity challenged City Attorney, Glenn Sabine.
Anyway, Teresa said the vote of no confidence in Sacramento was "just politics." Turns out, in my eyes, he EARNED that vote. His expertise is supposedly in finance, and I feel our City Manager is failing at that and at doing what is right , in general, by the public. He and the City Attorney don't seem to comprehend that their ultimate bosses are we, the people.
We all know at Gus' behest, the City is hiring a PR Communications Specialist to be a spin doctor, another YES man/woman, with which to stack Vina's "Cabinet." My opinion is that Gus Vina has done more than anyone to ruin Teresa Barth's chances for a future in local politics, if she wanted one.
Barth and Patrick Murphy were on the panel that chose Vina. I think Teresa chose him for "all the wrong reasons," and it was more "chemistry" for her, than common sense, which she seems to be lacking. She doesn't truly trust her own judgment, at this point, and puts far too much faith in Vina and her 101 Mainstreet sponsors/subsidiaries.
There he is 2 years later: no General Plan. No 101 landscape beautification, bulging pension problem and compensation budget through the roof. In fairness he is not responsible for all problems but his bureaucratic style does not help.
ReplyDeleteI hope he learned how to surf!
Don't forget that he has hired 4 new people who all in combined have comp that costs more than 1M per year for the Vina cabinet, The council need to let Vina go, stop the Vina experiment.
DeleteWhat were these 4 positions? I am aware of the PR spin doctor.
Delete3 new firemen.
DeleteThe Public Relations flack hasn't been hired yet. Gus has hired Rudloff (head of Parks & Rec), Nash (Financial Director), Pruim (head of Public Works), and Murphy (Planning Director). He also hired the new Human Resources head. That looks like a clean sweep of the the top tier at city hall.
DeleteDid you know Vina makes more than the Governor of California?
ReplyDeleteI know he makes more than the VP of the US.
Delete