The Right to Vote people say that upzoning has happened without a vote of the people. Many people don't trust the council now.
There is a real risk and the council and their handlers know the public wants the right to vote on the future of their city. That's why the No on Prop A campaign's tag line is "its not what it seems" or something like that. They have to make people believe that Prop A won't give the people the last word on upzoning. This is probably because a vast majority of the public wants the last word on upzoning. The council also knows this, that is why the council came up with an alternative plan. Unfortunately, their alternative plan does not protect the public from future exemptions, but it sure sounded good until you look at what it is missing in Barth's version. Their version is the one that is not what it seems. After emails from me, Lisa has committed to closing that gaping loophole. After many emails from Tony has also capitulated to the need for closing the gap. That is only two council members and not a majority of the council.
In the ballot statements, SIGNED by the entire council, they write:
THERE NEVER WERE, AND WILL NOT BE, APPROVED PLANS FOR 5-STORY BUILDINGS IN ENCINITAS. Major land use changes HAVE ALWAYS happened with a vote of the people and the Council is committed to codifying this practice.
SANDAG has plans for mid rise buildings along El Camino Real. Those plans were construed in consultation with Encinitas City Staff. Discussions of higher buildings in Encinitas during the general plan update process is what got many of the R2V people motivated to pass Prop A.
The big whopper is the the claim that there "will not be" approved plans for 5 story buildings. No council can command a future councils to do or not do something beyond their tenure, much less forever. None of council majority should have signed that argument and walked away feeling clean. You don't even have to know any history to know that something smelled bad about that statement. They went way too far with that one.
The RTV people have been pointing out that the downtown specific plans added many hundreds of new units to the downtown area and raised height limits from two stories to three stories without a vote of the people. This conflicts with the spirit of the council's statements (unless the council was trying to sneak around this by playing with their words carefully so that they purposefully give an incomplete impression to the less informed public. "Major" is the weasel word used in this case.)
The council has been called out on this. In an EU comment Tony Kranz seems to make a circular argument that none of this stuff was needed to make sure that major changes and clarifies his unfortunate definition of major land use change.
From Council Member Tony Kranz:
Prop A defines any upzoning as a major change, but the definition before was essentially this: if you couldn't get 4 out of 5 votes from the city council, it was major. I actually prefer having a more certain definition of what's major, as well as requiring a vote on any upzoning. That's why I voted to remove the 4/5ths exception.
In Tony's view "major" was whatever the council decided it was? Major land use change had nothing to do with the land use change being proposed and instead it was based on how many council members would vote for it? That's how they defined major land use change when they wrote the argument? Is this what the council said during deliberations (I don't think so)? Tony's statement looks much more like an after the fact attempt to find a way to justify the statement.
What do Lisa and Teresa have to say about this? Is it worse that they haven't defended these statements (to my knowledge).
Tony also points out that Prop A does defines major, as upzoning, period. He doesn't address the fact that his statement was made in the context of Prop A. Shouldn't they have been using the same definitions Prop A when making arguments about Prop A? Wouldn't it be misleading to have different definitions being used without telling the public this?
I know that at least one council member thought upzoning had not happened AT ALL without a vote. This person did not purposefully lie or weasel. The action was enabled by a deficiency of effort to check staff and willingness to go along with a much stronger argument against Prop A that sounded good.
I have almost no time to write or review any of this, but the circular logic takes no time to figure out. It was so obvious and strong I got a couple emails about it. Do your own fact checking, questioning of council, and post responses to comments section (I'm hoping that WC can follow up if I can't get to it).
How is it that the Barth Shaffer and Kranz who said they were for trust and transparency would allow what looks like a bald faced lie to be on the actual voting ballot of all things! All 5 council member need to get let go. Vote yes on A
ReplyDeleteWCV if you could please post Mr. Kranz's faulty explanation on the Coastal Commission post on June 8 at 2 pm-
ReplyDeleteIt would be of benefit for the public to see the spinning, parsing of words, and deceptiver nature of Kranz and the council when they write on the Ballot no Major land use vote has happened without a vote of the people. We all know the 101 was upzoned with a vote.
I vote for Tony because I thought he was trustworthy
The 101 was upzoned without a vote of the people. This was a major land-use change. Anyone wondering about this please drive by the high density lot line to lot line building of Pacific Station and then drive by St. Tropez Bakery. Pacific Station is new high density upzoning, St Tropez is our small town zoning.
All 5 of these council members are not trustworthy.
Mr. Kranz-
ReplyDeletePlease explain. I understand the 101 was upzoned to all for increases to height and tripling density of square footage, floor area ratio. Yes?
Additionally did the change in zoning include changing buildings from commercial to residential- yes?
I understand a land use change from commercial to residential means the state laws now take control over local laws- yes?
I also understand that an upzoning change from commercial to residential means possible state increases to density and size yes?
Please correct me where I am wrong. If the answers to all of the above are yes, it your contention that none of these changes that the council voted on and that the council did not allow a public vote on, are major land use changes- yes?
Thank you for a prompt response.
Has anybody seen the email from the high density lawyer Marco Gonzalez going around town supporting Kranz and Shaffer? Gonzalez got paid by developers to get the council to give high density increases at Desert Rose that residents and the planning commission say threatened personal safety and the environment - Kranz and Shaffer voted for Gonzalez and against residents.
ReplyDeleteI heard Gonzalez was an environmental attorney. Often these types of lawyers sue cities and towns over so called environmental issues and have city's settle under threat of lawsuits. These types of environmental attorneys are really just ambulance chasers filing nuisance suits that in the end cost taxpayers millions.
I wonder of this is good for the community? When so called Environmental lawyers file expensive nuisance suits hoping towns and cities settle and taxpayers pay the bill. If there are affordable housing bullies, and regional trend bullies, then there are probably environmental lawyer bullies.
Interesting that Barth, Kranz and Shaffer all voted to award the developer and now high density lawyer Marco the density increases for profits.....and oh yea, the social engineering of affordable housing Shaffer's favorite- not only did Marco threaten to suit the city but he supported Kranz and Shaffer as well.
It looks to me like the same old thing at city hall, just a new council of cronies with some new insiders. Wouldn't be surprised to learn Gonzalez is giving Kranz the ridiculous legal words on what is or is not a land use change.
Hey, know the difference between a rat and squirrel? a better outfit, but both are rodents.
Marco's firm is also representing for free the parents of the kids who want to keep Yoga in the elementary schools. His firm has also ton a lot of pro bono work for other things in the Cit. Yea, he's a real son of a bitch.
DeleteOn Prop A and Desert Rose - let's stick to those very tied-together issues - there is a real stink of one hand washing the other.
DeleteWhy would Barth, Shaffer, and Gonzalez all come out with kumbaya emails within a day of one another, all saying virtually the same things?
If Barth/Shaffer/Kranz think they can mend fences after Prop A, they'd better think again. They've chosen their new friends and, like it or not, are stuck with them.
2:48 does that mean the law firm is suing the school district?
Deletehey 2:48 I am curious to, is the Marco guy's law firm suing the school district? Isn't that forcing the school district to spend money that should be going to our kids to pay for some lawsuit?
DeleteNo Marco's firm is representing the 100 plus parents who want to KEEP YOGA in the schools. And his firm is doing it for FREE! Why don't you all read the paper, and get a clue. Amazing!
DeleteYou are correct although igiven the case has national coverage it is sure to bring alot of positive attention to the firm in some circles.....but what does yoga have to do with the council overiding the planning commissions decison to protect residents safety by allowong a developer to upzone? It is ok if you think this was ok, but you might find it interesting to know that residents have had to suit the city to protect their safety......now that is amazing as well.
DeleteYou prop A people are working very to deliver your tainted message.It's starting to sound shrill.Ranting and raving ,name calling very little real content
ReplyDeleteYou're all beginning to sound like losers
I am new to this, I am concerned about insiders at city hall. I thought we got rid of that by voting out that Stocks guy. What is this about a lawyer who supported 2 council members getting a favorable vote from the council on a land use issue? Was that this year?
Delete3:06, you should be concerned. The Desert Rose issue is just months old, with a suit filed by residents...that's how fishy the whole thing is.
DeleteSorry 2:56 if the truth sounds "shrill" to you, but the Prop A folks IMO are doing a fine job getting out specifics, references to documents at city hall, and linking to video/other materials.
The No side, on the other hand, is now resorting to claiming you can't put in a pool or new patio...that goes beyond shrill. I challenge them to find any such language in Prop A. Their other favorite claim is that elections over major upzones will "cost the city millions." They know better: the developer pays, and the cost of an election is a drop in the proverbial bucket to the windfall they stand to make.
Which council/person created the 4/5 exception? We can once and for all find out who was the council or person behind this scheme...
ReplyDelete2:57 - Jerome is that you back to trolling in hopes of throwing mud at the graceful, beloved and respected Pam Slater?
DeleteIf it is you Jerome then you know it was the council of 1991-1992 that introduced the 4/5th majority vote. This of course was a trusted council that earned that trust by representing residents not insiders.
Of course during the time of Stocks, Dalager, Geruin, Bond, Gaspar and Muir the public lost that trust. Dalager got 100K loans from developers and pled guilty to DA- and Stocks got caught violating election ordinances on video-Muir gets a 170,00 pension, Gaspar's aligned with the Eckes and Meyers
So, residents got 8,000 signatures for the right to vote ballot, and the people love it, it gives people not the council and insiders control.
So what gives with this Desert Rose issue? Is there more cronyism going on at city hall? No wonder everyone is voting yes on A
Councilman Kranz got tripped up in his use of the word "major" in explaining things. The General Plan talks about major and minor amendments to the General Plan, but is unclear about exactly what distinguishes the two kinds of amendments. This is why the initiative only talks about major amendments and carefully defines those that require a public vote. Anyone can read Section 4 of the initiatvie to see what they are.
ReplyDeleteThe upzoning itself in neither major or minor, it is simply upzoning. It makes no difference whether it's one acre or forty. Kranz seem to think that a vote only applies to bigger (major) upzoning under the current GP.
The beauty of Prop. A is that it not only gives the right to vote on upzoning, but also the right to vote on increases in height above 30 feet. And the right to vote can't be undone by the whim of a future council, only by another vote of the people. Kranz misses this totally. Does he do it intentionally?
Vote YES on Prop. A.
Prop A is about money and profits over community character, and so called state affordable housing for a few at the expense of the existing, Barth has let it be known she wants a Regional Encinitas Serving SANDAG and regional goals, Shaffer is for the council handing out 4-5 story affordable housing projects, whatever those are because developers just pay in liu fees and no affordable housing gets built- it is more mumbo jumbo legalese written by self serving lawyers to benefit lawyers- like the state law that lawyers argue and threaten to suit cities over.......
ReplyDeleteThe council has sided with developers and out of town groups from Chicago that want a different Encinitas not the Encinitas of today. This is a fact.
Did this Marco person ask for density increases from the Encinitas council over affordable housing and threaten to suit the city like 2:43 claims ? Did he support Shaffer and Kranz and then have Shaffer and kranz vote in his favor? If anybody knows please post, this is all new to me.
Density bonus is a state mandated law. It takes precedent over local laws. Simple!
ReplyDeleteThat is why we need the right to vote. As soon as the council changes a property from commercial to residential it gives away local control to the state. The council wants to rezone the whole city for 5 story buildings
DeleteDesert Rose was actually an issue of safety and the environment not density bonus- the council sided with the lawyer Gonzalez who supported them in the election and ruled against residents and the planning commission.
This is why we need to vote yes on A, the council can not be trusted.
Commercial zoned land is much more valuable than residential. No one rezones to residential.
Delete5:51 with all do respect what planet are you living on? Getting an upzone from commercial to residential is like winning the lottery.
Delete4:51 and 7:50,
DeleteMost valuable of all is mixed-use: put two or three stories of apartments on top of Ralph's and Trader Joe's and it's a gold mine.
Somebody paid $78 million for that strip mall possibly expecting to be able to do exactly that.
the company that paid $78 million for trader joes has an owner lived carlsbad, that owner was appointed to erac by stocks
DeleteDensity Bonus does not apply when the environment is impacted or resident safety is threatened. The Encinitas Planning Commission rules against Marco Gonzalez clients due to safety and the environment and sided with residents to protect quality of life-
ReplyDeleteThen Shaffer and Kranz get elected, Gonzalez files an appeal and argues to the new council he helped elect that the planning commission and the residents are wrong and that he and his high density developer client will suit the city if they are not allowed increased housing density that residents say threaten the wetlands and safety.
Word on the street is Marco is now helping the developer pay an in liu fee to avoid the social engineering affordable housing unit-
The Desert Rose case was about Safety and the Environment.
4:19
ReplyDeleteProp A would have not saved desert rose.the courts have always supported the density bonus law.this issue is now in court .
4:43 Desert Rose was not about density bonus. Desert Rose as about the Encinitas Planning Commission ruling the project caused a threat to residents safety and the environment. Mr. Gonzalez then went before the council that he helped elect, and argued the Encinitas Planning Commission and residents were wrong and the developer and Mr. Gonzales were right. The council that Mr. Gonzelez helped elect then voted in Mr. Gonzalez favor and against the residents and planning commission. The result is increased densities, the issues was safety and the environment
DeleteYou are all so amazing to trash Marco's firm. You loved him when he helped Teresa when Glen gave her bad advice. Kind of hypocritical. And, if Desert Rose was anywhere but Olevenhein, this would not be such a big deal. We all know who lives there. Or, in case you don't, try Bruce Ehlers for a start.
DeleteNot hypocritical, just changing with the times....same as Marco.
DeleteTry Buddy Bohrer, for a much more fitting start.
Deletewho is trashign Marcos? Marocs helped elect shaffer and Krantz, Marco works for a high density seeking developer, the encinitas planning commission ruled against the developer, the Marco went before the people he helped elect and they voted for Marcos and overturned the planning commission. Nobody trashed him they just told the truth.......in encinitas city hall insiders and council cronies win. That is why we need to vote yes on a, foruour future
DeleteThe density bonus is a multiplier on the underlying zoning. So if the council upzones an area, it makes any density bonus for properties in that area WORSE.
ReplyDeleteFurther, density bonus doesn't apply to commercial, so when the council wants to change commercial to mixed-use, it opens vast new swaths of density bonus territory.
WC has it right again. WC is one smart cookie.
ReplyDeleteHe is no welfare SOB.
W.c. is K.C. in case you all haven't figured it out. Guess the Leucadia Blog got so trashy he went over to this site. Listen to K.C. and you will see how it all plays out.
ReplyDeleteI am not WC.
DeleteK.C. Is not WC
DeleteScariest of all is Kevin thinking.A vey narrow focus ,self absorbed no room at all
ReplyDeleteFor creative thought.Old style concepts a very old man in a young body
NOTHING STAYS THE SAME. NOTHING KEVIN GET OVER IT
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteExcept Cher.
ReplyDeleteWord.
DeleteThanks to Bob Nanninga for that line he blurted out once at a council meeting in response to someone saying "We all have to die".
DeleteKevin is NOT WC: Kevin is a lot of things but Kevin is NOT a coward.
ReplyDeleteNeither Kevin nor W.C. are cowards, but let's face it: W.C. is a much better writer. You'd never confuse the two.
DeletePerhaps that is a ruse deliberately make you believe differently?
DeleteRemember
DeleteYES on A = residents
No on A = developers
Don't let their deceptive mailings and glossy ads confuse you.
VOTE YES ON A!! We will be making history and the whole nation will be in awe.
As a humble property owner, I would not want the majority of the uninformed posters of this blog to vote on my on my property rights on design of my family's home or business.
ReplyDeleteI do trust our new council.
I do not trust most if you.
No on A and let's continue the general plan update. Fairly.
As will I. I trust the Council much more than I trust most of the folks voting YES on A.
DeleteYes! I'm not ready to give up on this council, and I'm certainly not going to vote for a conceptual framework that is seriously flawed.
DeleteThe Sculpin
Suckers :)
Delete10:59 you mean as a humble commercial property owner you hope prop a loses so the greedy developers can upzone your site for new residential use letting you apply to the state for density bonus laws that allow you to build a lot line to lot line 5 story buildings that blocks the view of residential neighbors who saved their whole life to buy a peace of heaven only to have you take it away...............then you can hire Marco the high density lawyer to argue it's because of social engineering and state affordable housing that your neighbors get screwed. Marco argues the law because he wrote the regional law because Barth and Shaffer brought him inside.
DeleteGood for you, you get the uzpone from commercial to residential and your neighbors get screwed, Good for Barth and Shaffer because they now get donations from the big unions that Marco's sister Lorrenna "Organizes" Good for Marco because he and his firm get paid..............
No wonder you are opposed to A, you're one of the inside cronies.
I will tell you why I am voting against Prop. A. I have no intention of wanting to up zone my property. But, as I read some of you, I am convinced that most of you are not totally rational about what is going on. You trash anyone that is against you, you make comments about people like Marco and Lorena, who just got elected to the State Assembly, and I could go on. I know some of you, and I don't trust you. I will put my trust in "Maggie's Choice" as she mentioned over and over again in the election, and I bet most of you voted for her. I know all of the Council members, and I realize this came about mainly because of Jerome and Jim. That's too bad. We got them out, and now this Council has to clean up their mess. Had you waited until the new Council was in before you decided to have a special election and cost us $350,000, I might have a bit more respect. However, you decided to go ahead, not knowing if Jerome would be reelected. So, if you do win, I am going to be really angry at every lawsuit your Proposition will cause and I will hold you, Bruce Ehlers and company responsible. Perhaps, there is a way Marco can even sue you, who knows, since all of the sudden he is the devil himself. As someone else stated, I guess Olevenhein is sacred. Bruce lives out there. Has anyone thought about that regarding Desert Rose? Many of us have had our area already up zoned. But the whiners of Olevenhein cannot let that happen there, God forbid! If you actually had your facts correct, you would know that Marco saved you from an ever worse development. But research does not seem to be your thing. Instead you bitch and moan and it doesn't seem to matter which people are on the Council.
Delete11:53 makes a very good point for 10:59.
DeleteProp A people were at the farmers market telling people that "everything that the No A people say was lies". And then they handed me a flier that said " recent city council appointed committees proposed increased zoning to allow 4-5 story buildings and increase zoning densities..."
Well, that is not really true. The NOT RECENT COUNCIL THAT WAS VOTED OUT OF OFFICE CREATED ONE COMMITTEE, ERAC.
And NO,THE CITY DID NOT ALSO PROPOSE ADDING 1000+ RESIDENTIAL UNITS..."
The general plan update requires, by state requirements, NOT THE COUNCIL, to identify HYPOTHETICAL LOCATIONS, NOT ADD UNITS.
"DIES NOT IINFRINGE ON PROPERTY RIGHTS"
Yes it does. It takes away the current rights of property owners to build over 30 feet to accomadate a flood water containment pool required because the city has not solved the flood problem.
"PROTECTS COMMUNITY CHARACTER"
Well no it does not. It recreates a universal code that does not recognize the past efforts of communities to maintain their unique character.
And this from the YES ON A flier that was handed to me from two ladies that said, "EVERYTHING THE NO ON A PEOPLE SAY IS A LIE."
I also do not want these people to make decisions for our future. They are not telling the truth.
I trust our NEW council and look forward to proceed with the general plan update.
Vote No.
I sense some Jerome's anger
Delete12:50
DeleteThe recent council, till Dec. 2012, that appointed the ERAC members consisted of Gaspar, Muir, Barth, Bond, and Stocks. Only Bond and Stocks left the council. Bond didn't run and Stocks lost the election. Residents are still left with Gaspar, Muir, and Barth on the current council with the addition of Kranz and Shaffer.
And, yes, the city proposal was to add 2300 (increase) dwelling units (apartments\condos) in areas along Encinitas Blvd., Santa Fe Dr., and the length of the El Camino Real commercial corridor. The 1000 units along El Camino were proposed in a draft ordinance that can be found on the city website. The long and wording ordinance also gives the power to the council to increase the number of units above the 1000.
The state requires that a city must upzone within a stated time period properties that have been chosen by the city as properties for increased density.
Prop A doesn't infringe on property rights. If the concern is about a flood water containment pool (which sounds like 101 in Leucadia), how does building height impact the required underground vault to retain storm water so that all the other properties along 101 don't flood? Would you rather have neighboring properties flooded from your property?
1:22
Delete1) Stocks and Bond got gaspar and Muir in for their supper majority. Barth, Schaffer and Kranz do not want what the STOCKS appointed ERAC does.
2) The new council is working to lower the state housing requirements.
3.) 1300.
4) Land owners Now have the right to build tree stories. Like it or not, these property rights that they have now WOULD BE TAKEN AWAY FROM THEM.
1:38 PM
Delete1)Perhaps you have different information, but the ERAC was appointed by the five council members of Gaspar, Muir, Barth, Bond, and Stocks. Check the minutes to see if all council members were present during that agenda item.
2)Who knows what the current council is doing to lower state housing requirements. Residents are left out of the loop on that one.
)1300 dwelling units (apartments/condos) are to be market rate as stated by the city planning department.
4)This is a blanket statement that is untrue. The city maximum height limit is 30 feet or two stories.
The current council is doing nothing to lower our SANDAG allocation. Ask them, I have. They haven't uttered a peep on our behalf.
DeleteShaffer promised during her campaign that she would ask SANDAG to re-consider our numbers. Never happened.
anon 12:50
DeleteThat is unfortunate. Should the prop A people and that person be accountable in some way for not playing fair? We should want the voters to be able to apply their value judgement based on the facts. Correct facts.
How should we respond to that situation?
12:50
Delete"And then (Prop A proponents) handed me a flier (at the Farmers Market) that said " recent city council appointed committees proposed increased zoning to allow 4-5 story buildings and increase zoning densities..." Well, that is not really true."
Let's let the reader decide which is true. The ballot statement by city council, or the transcript of the unanimous vote at the 5-24-12 ERAC committee's meeting; both cited below for your review.
CITY COUNCIL BALLOT REBUTTAL TO PROP A STATEMENT EXCERPT:
"THERE NEVER WERE, AND WILL NOT BE, APPROVED PLANS FOR 5 STORY BUILDINGS IN ENCINITAS."
VS
Element Review Advisory Committee (ERAC) 5-24-12 MEETING TRANSCRIPT EXCERPT:
ERAC Facilitator:, "....right now words are important. Right now the limit is 2 stories and in some cases 3 stories. If the committee desires, it can send it's committee opinion up that we should consider going higher and should identify sites where that can happen - going 4 and 5 stories.
I feel bad, I just made a recommendation trying to summarize your opinions."
ERAC Board Member: "Can we use your words? Cause I think you actually did a good job there!"
ERAC Facilitator: "Oh, thank you, I don't know what I said. Currently there is restrictions to 2 or 3 stories. But with your consensus which we'll get to, would the committee like to advise council to go higher? Perhaps 4 or 5 stories? In appropriate locations and to identify those locations.
ERAC Board Member: "To consider it?"
ERAC Facilitator: Yes. OK, so that's a suggestion. We probably violated some facilitator's rule, but all of you in favor of that suggestion?.....So once again all in favor of that suggestion? OK, then that carries unanimously. ......The committee was going to recommend to the council that they consider sites that are appropriate to go more than 3 stories to 4 or 5 stories. .... no, we're not specifically identifying sites, it's just a recommendation to council that we want it be considered to go up higher and for COUNCIL to decide vis-a-vis staff and planning, each of these sites and the process to identify each of these sites."
unbelievabke and Bart Shaffe and Kranz keep Nor by on the payroll, they can not be trusted, they are misleading the public
Delete1:38 what r u smoking? . All 5 council members have sided with out of town builders and developers who want to profit by up zoning. They have spent close to 100K to defeat the publics right to vote. With all respect you are either one of them seeking profit or not inforned
DeleteTo answer 1:22
Delete1)How would we know what Kranz and Shaffer when all they have done is received the GPAC, ERAC, and public workshops reports without debating what was in the reports? I know Shaffer is nor opposed to higher density (4 stories) if it's done right, meaning fitting the surrounding community character (whatever that means)
2) I have not heard anything about what the new council is doing to lower state housing mandate. If you know something, please share it with us.
3) 1300 is the number units to be zoned for R30 and above, but it is true that our next housing element needs to show the capacity for a total of 2300 units (including 1000 detached regular housing).
4) Unless you leave in certain areas of certain specific plans, you have the right to 33 ft or 40 ft. Most residential areas are limited to 26ft. No change there.
I am voting YES, not because while it not the best crafted document ever made, it's still better than relying on council to do something right I also think that there could be some fiscal challenges and potential litigation. A lot of the claims by the NO camps are over the top: you will able to remodel, build a patio and even expand your house. There is mos likely no bifurcation to worry about. The clintcher for me is what could happen to Encinitas if we do pass Prop A and that seems a lot worse. Drive up to coast from Newport Beach, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach,Long Beach. I'd take funky Leucadia anyday over these soulless communities to the North.
Hey 12:50, 6/11
DeleteThe No on A people are all about lies.
I would agree with the Farmer's Market people.
All the NO campaign is full of lies. If you are so hot in the pants saying they are telling the truth, then I challenge you to come up with stuff they are saying that is true. You won't be able to. Either you are in a building related business with a profit in it if no passes, you are drinking the developer kool-aid, or you are and idiot. Which one is it?
Easy Eddie- no body said Marco was the devil. But Marco admitted in an email last night that he has a regional vision for Encinitas fitting regional zoning goals. Marco also said he believes Encinitas needs high density housing. He is entitled to the opinion that Encinitas needs to be a regional city but it is not the view of many residents who like our small town.
ReplyDeleteThese are facts. He is opposed to Prop A and some developers he represents have benefitted from laws written at the state level that benefit developers over residents- by wanting a regional zoning agenda it takes power out of local hands, this benefits lawyers like Marco and the big money people they represent. Just cause we don't like the facts doesn't mean we should ignore them
Marco is an insider in the eyes of many as the council he helped elect over turned the planning commission and voted in his favor- Marco even threatened to suit the city if he did not get the density increases- again, these are all facts. It doesn't make Marco the devil and no one said it did but that facts do show he has something to gain by changing our land use to benefit his vision. Now his vision is a regional city serving regional zoning. This would put power in the hands of SANDAG and lawyers - not the people. Again, these are the facts.
It is speculation but his sister does have ties to the unions, the public unions like SEIU are bleeding the public taxpayers dry at the city, state and federal level. Encinitas has a $40 million unfunded pension debt, the unions do donate massive amounts of money to politicians who then vote to give out more raises and pensions. Tis does not mean there is anything untold about the SEIU and the council. However Marco did back Barth Shaffer and Kranz- Barth has voted to increase salaries and pensions- these are all facts we should consider, it does not make anyone the devil or bad, it only means we should be aware. Jeez Louise
Don't worry folks. If Prop A passes your developer masters will skillfully guide you into voting properly.
DeleteThe council is against it because they need to feed the pension/salary beast.How about an audit of salaries and benifits.They should be in line with the private sector.BTW it was Maggie, not Barth, who voted for the increases.Only Bond opposed.
1:04
DeleteFocus. Stay on topic.
A has nothing to do w pensions/salaries.
Yo 12:34,
ReplyDeleteWhat area do you think would be best for the 1300 housing units that may or not ever be built, but are currently REQUIRED by the state to be only allocated by location and not necessarily built?
What? Don't know? Haven't thought that one through?
Or we can continue with the general plan update and proceed with efforts of our NEW council and recommendations from GPAC to try to lower the requirements.
I do not want you to be making decisions with you speculative rumblings.
The state requires that a city must upzone within a stated time period properties that have been chosen by the city as properties for increased density.
DeleteOnce the properties are upzoned any building is by right. This upzoning is entirely different from the density bonus some developers use.
1300 housing units? How about one high rise, 13 floors with 10 units per floor next to the Sheriff's Sattaion on El Camino Real. That way the Sheriff wouldn't have far to go to respond to all the calls he will get.
DeleteOkay then 6 story 60 unit apt building at La Costa and 101 and another on RSF rd. at Lone Jack. That would spread them out a little.
No, how about 6 stories 60 units in the new park, close to hospital and another next to Pacific Station? We have a lots of possibilities.
Or my choice. Lets not build any and see what happens.
That seals to for me.
DeleteI want 1:55 voting for land use and housing requirements for our city.
Don't let our new council work to create a general plan that is most fair for all. Dont let the new council work to reduce state requirements. Sure we fought hard and won to have a new fair council. But let's ignore all that and depend on 1:55 and those other misinformed bloggers to determine our future.
1:11 you might find it interesting to know the facts that the population forecasts of Encinitas pushed by the state and SANDAG have been proven to be incorrect by SANDAG's own actuaries......hmm imagine that we are not growing-
DeleteAdd to this Mayor Barth's slip of the tongue to KPBS where she said she liked high density, it fit regional trends and then the bombshell that it is the seniors who want all the high density housing...........
OF course imagine my shock to learn we just dropped $75 million on a community park and our fastest growing segment of population according to barth are empty nesters from Encinitas Ranch who are fighting each other for the chance to live in 500 sq ft condo's next to the train tracks down town
The Encinitas council needs to take the step of firing the city manager, then calling the city councils of Walnut Creek, Irvine, Orinda, Marin, Mill Valley, San Anselmo, Del Mar, Oceanside and all the other cities who have complained about faulty state numbers and bringing a collective action against the state-
The second thing the city should do is negotiate with the state, Del Mar did it.
2:09 thank you for sharing. The council has kept on Pedr Norby who is overpaid and has done a lousy job. If they had fired Norby and save the city money I might agree with you - but the council didn't - so the GP is and will be a document written for and by insiders. If the city council has moved to terminate the contract of city manager Vina I could have agreed with you, instead the council has kept the high density pushing city manager around and shown no backbone to say no. Heck 2 weeks ago the council talked about raising fees on residents and then voted to let VIna spend 135K on a PR specialist?
ReplyDeleteFair council - if the council had held city manager Vina accountable for dropping 40K to Rutan and Tucker I might have agreed with you, but the council didn't/
WIth all due respect 2:09 you sound like a low information voter, please come to city hall and watch the facts of what is happening.
Mayor Barth did not say she liked high density but many of young people do .
ReplyDeletePacific station is sold out Manley young people .The plaza is full people eating ,talking
Having fun .It's not for everyone but it seams that some like it.Mayor Barth said it was
A trend a talking point .After all if we can't build out .we are going have to build up.
But only in the appropriate areas. Think this trough use logic not your emotions.
Word is most units sold to speculators, not people who live in detached homes and suddenly saw Barth's "millenials and seniors want to live like sardines" light.
Delete4:08 PM. It is debatable on whether or not Mayor Barth did not say she liked high density. Her comments lean to increased density in Encinitas. When she goes to the "sardine living" planning conferences, she comes back more enamored of the high density talk.
DeleteThe comment about Pacific Station and the plaza is a stretch. At the most that small area for tables could be called a courtyard. Butting up to the Whole Foods tables is the new beer,wine/restaurant that fronts on 101. They look like they are having fun trying out the wares. Are people allowed to drink alcoholic beverages at the Whole Food tables?
Plaza? You rae joking right.......it's a small irregular shaped cube that gets very small sun and no clean air or breeze, it is loud with the did. Old idling cars on the 101 that are waiting to drivd into the underground 3 story parking bunker where the bums go to sleep and urinate. Courtyard? Please......now seaside market has an ocean view plaza with a BBQ and music, dogs, kids and they have. Of them! Compare old zoning at seaside space and community character, high density zoning at pacific station no space no sun nocharacter......
Delete4:08 many units at Pacific station sold for 1M+, young people? If that is true why did Barth say it was mostly seniors? Get your story straight, Vina and city hall and Barth are selling a smoke screen of high density
ReplyDelete4:08 are you Barth? Barth parses her words to hide the truth- she wants high density upzoning fitting a regional agenda. Barth is about building a new Encinitas not preserving the one we have.
ReplyDeleteInstead of jerking residents around, the council should work on removing the density bonus law. When a developer can use the law to increase density, then use the council's un-codified policy to let the developer buy out of building the affordable units so the units can be sold for millions of dollars something is rotten in local government. Please city council don't use the excuse that the state made you do it.
ReplyDeleteYeah city Council, remove the density bonus law.
DeletePoof!
Why didn't they think of that?
Vote no.
I do not want these people, with a very few exceptions, voting on anything.
These people, jeez sounds a little bigoted, you tnink? Any thoughts on the council raising fees on residents to pay for debt?.....oh yeah that same night they voted to hire a new 130K PR specialist.........................don't trust the council/ they have not earned it.
DeleteDensity Bonus is a STATE law. Get with the program.
DeleteDensity Bonus is a STATE law that is a MULTIPLIER on the underlying zoning.
DeleteSo the more the council upzones, the WORSE the density bonus becomes.
Even worse, any change from Commercial to Mixed Use opens up vast new swaths of territory to the density bonus.
Pacific Station is very popular. Prop A will push future Pacific Stations to a public vote. Those developments will be taller and denser than Pacific Station, and they will pass. Because that is what popular now.
ReplyDeleteProp A will ironically lead to a higher density Encinitas.
Huh? Sounds like Shaffer babble. No evidence for that except she's repeating after Norby and you're repeating after her.
DeleteI don't know anybody that wants to live in Pacific Station except Barth and Shaffer maybe. I prefer a yard and some trees.
Deleteif you want to live in high density area, I hear Manhattan is great for some: Packed, vibrant, social, and affordable (oops, not really).
If you want to live in a big city, move to one, don't let it come to Encinitas.
Votes Yes on PROP A!
All of you people who have children , how do you expect them to live here if we cant' create affordable housing? Density creates affordable housing.
ReplyDeleteCase in point: Pacific Station: Avg. sale price for a small apartment: $500K, how many affordable units: 3?
ReplyDeleteI did not live in Encinitas until I was in my mid-thirties. I saved enough money to afford a townhouse. Save money, work hard, than maybe one day you'll have a chance to live in Encinitas. the jewel of North County. I expect my kids to earn their way too, just like I did.
Density can create a few affordable units, but at what price for the rest of the community?
Vote Yes on PROP A.
Is it the job of your neighbor to subsizesub size someone eelse's beach side living? Is it the governments job to decide who does and who does not get to live at the beach by allotting to a lucky few beach side living while taking away from some other family who earned it? Shouldn't affordbale living mean living where you can afford?
ReplyDelete"Affordable Living" means you're affording the developers a chance to make millions for their livin'!
Delete(cackle)
Affordable housing in old Encinitas was quoted at $800K "as starter homes for teachers and policemen." What a joke, yet the developer was dead serious...thought he could convince folks that a schoolteacher would start with an $800K home. Didn't fly, but that was his approach, and he was offended when people pointed out that he was crazy. Now, that's crazy.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete2:53
ReplyDelete"The second thing the city should do is negotiate with the state, Del Mar did it."
Can someone explain to me the logic to the following facts and figures?
1. 1n 1995, Encinitas had a population around 52,000. (How do I know? I've been nosey for a long time).
2. Our required low cost housing units at that time were deficient by only 500.
3. Today, our population has increased by only 8,000 people. That's roughly an 8% population increase since 1995.
4. In that same amount of time, our low cost housing deficiency (we are told) increased from 500 to 2300 units. That's almost a 500% increase for that need in the same amount of time that our population increased only 8%. Something is not right about that incredibly disproportional increase of these ratios and yet no one is even mentioning it.
5. Just WHO is coming up with the numbers for this need? And what good reason do they base this exponentially increasing need upon? I'd really like to know. Is it the state or SANDAG pulling these gargantuan numbers out of a hat? If not, maybe they have a meaningful formula I have yet to learn.
Wow, do you have a source I can check out on your facts? Those numbers are staggerin-g and important
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGlad someone agrees the current claim of 2300 affordable homes needed here cannot be an equitible increase.
ReplyDeleteI copied these figures (below) back in February that were "according to the information included in the recent bond proposal for building the Hall property park, the city had a population of 48,558 in 1986 at incorporation.
Here are the figures for the last six years;
2007 59,378
2008 59,411
2009 59,453
2010 59,628
2011 59,910
2012 60,346"
But you'll have to take my word on the '95 figures of 500 affordable homes lacking in Encinitas and its population of 52,000. Mayor Hano's understanding was 2000 higher (54,000)but don't know where she got that. Even so, the ballpark figures should fit that estimate for '95 considering the population in '86 was roughly at 49,000.
It was Mayor Chuck DuVivier who told me at that time the '95 quota we needed was 500 homes. I think he got that number from SANDAG but it was common discussion back then and that's why it sticks out in my memory. Chuck's argument was that if a city utterly fails but ATTEMPTS to add affordable houseing that the city would be cut some slack and not be penalized by the state.
If I run across any mid-nineties news clippings saved revealing the 500 quota, I can better add credibility to my recolection. I would imagine Chuck and/or Gail's memory of the '95 housing number however is the same as mine - if it didn't get erased in the deluge of all the other stuff they had to study every week for many years!
I was the one who originally posted the population figures here. Anyone can go to the city website and check the Lease Revenue Bonds for the Hall property and Moonlight Beach construction. The city wouldn't fudge the figures because of the liability with the buyers of the bonds.
DeleteWhen the city held the open house for SANDAG in the library some years back and had a SANDAG presentation more recently at a council meeting, it was stated very clearly that the planning staff accepted the population figures and required affordable units needed. Of course, Jerome Stocks was our representative at SANDAG and had every interest in making the numbers as high as possible.
YES on A = backed by residents
ReplyDeleteNO on A = backed by developers
This is all you have to remember on June 18th.
VOTE YES on A!
The only thing you have to remember is to use your brain to weigh the competing merits of each position and decide which works best for you, the community, the environment and the future. Do your diligence, do your homework and make sure you vote!
Delete- The Sculpin
And "consider the source" is one of those "competing merits" for most voters.
DeleteBefore you vote ask why is a developer from LA putting $17,000 into the NO on A flyers? Why is a Chicago land use outfit spending $8,300 to defeat the right to vote?
ReplyDeleteI say the developers want handouts from the council to make money by destroying our town.
I will be voting yes on A, I want to right to vote - so should you.
By the way, who were the people staffing the NO on A booth at the stree fair? We're they people from Encinitas? Take a look at 460 that was filed this week. It revealed they were people from San Diego, Bonita, Lakeside, Orange Counyy. None of we're from here.
ReplyDeleteIn contrast all the Yes on A people are volunteers from all 5 communities.
Not to mention they were unable to answer a single question on their position.
DeleteThere is no one who can support the No side. They have to hire people from out of town. How sad for them. Looks like Prop A is going to win. Yipee. Goodbye developers. Which city will you screw now once Encinitas is off the auction block?
DeleteBig money outsiders and special access insiders trying to control our zoning for the their own profit.
ReplyDeleteVote yes on A
This town has been in torn half by this PROP A.Friend against friend ,Neighbor against neighbor .We will never be the same .thanks again Bruce and Kevin it appears you have done Something even Jerome Stocks could not do ,split this town in half.
ReplyDeleteGREAT JOB!
KC and Bruce love to pit neighbor against neighbor. I have seen it many times before and this probably will not be the last.
DeleteThis just shows how little you know. KC has nothing to do with prop A and Bruce is one of several.
DeleteAre you stupid?
1:50 is either Stocks or his lap dog, Andreen, trying to spin their mess. Ignore them.
Delete1:50 please , the out of town developer's donation list was released today- LA developer, Arizona Developer, Shea Homes, etc..........
DeleteShaffer, Barth, KRanz and Muir and Gaspar have divided the town with deceptive mailers and lies
Bruce has repeatedly been found in violation of California election laws (Documented), committed perjury on his city council ballot statement (documented) and now has knowingly misled the unemployed of Encinitas into condemning the town to financial misery (documented in his hysterically semantically 'true' press release for the Encinitas Project). His handmaidens of the apocalypse: Lynn, Donna, Kathleen, Denise, Caroline (Hic) and the weirdest sister of them all (MacBeth), Sheila, a sextet of emotionally disturbed/disenfranchized sisters taking advantage of the first amendment by lying about the 4/5 story fantasy to render us all as miserable as they clearly are: 99% of the town wouldn't trust any of them to pet sit, much less honestly lead this town. Yes, Bruce is more interested in personal glory than the environment or the town's overall well-being. At a recent weekend getogether in North Shore, Lisa S. shut Bruce down cold by using logic and the State law: while all Bruce could do is complain about Stocks and Andreen, both of whom are irrelevent to the City's future. Yes, Lynn/Jim K. Bruce WAS a planning commissioner, who was replaced for his misuse of city staff and a slew of Brown Act violations with the Community Character conspiracy of 1999, ask Guerin and Holz. Luckily, it looks like there is state court precedent to nullify this big 5 story lie.
DeleteMike andreen the political operative from oceanside who supported stocls and the developers, is this you? I was at the lisa shaffer meet with bruce and shaffer makes no sense.. shaffer has come out and said she wants high density she also signed her name to a falshood that no 5 story building will ever be built. Peopla have asked the council to show them the city ordinance and they can't.....these are the facts, i saw it watching the council meeting on tv, somebody asked them. The whole council is spreading unproven falsehoods
DeleteMike Andreen at 5:34
DeleteYou are funny. Too bad for you that people see right through you and realize that you are Jerome's flunky assistant that helped kick him out of office because of your crazy, untrue, and vicious rants. Go back to Oceanside where you are from and leave us alone here in Encinitas. You are not wanted or needed.
"Nullify..." Tony, that you?
Delete1:50 and 2:00 PM.
ReplyDeleteThat ploy won't work.
THAT PLOY HAS WORKED FOR GOD SAKES, do you live in a cave.
ReplyDelete2:27 PM.
ReplyDeleteTesty, testy.
YES ON A!
ReplyDeleteI'm voting no.
ReplyDeleteYes on A adds another layer of buracracy at city hall fattening salaries and pensions.
Vote NO!!
Exsqueeze me?
DeleteIf I didn't know better, I'd think you were a developer trying to spread misinformation to confuse voters.
Prop A adds ZERO bureaucrats, ZERO salaries, and ZERO pensions.
In fact, the pension hogs at city hall want No on A so they can pack high-density development into Encinitas to pay for their outrageous pensions.
4:55 PM
ReplyDeleteI'm voting yes because residents will have a voice. The council hiring a spin doctor to make them look good is another layer of bureaucracy.
Vote YES on A!
If you vote yes on prop A ,were will your children live. NOT ENCINITAS,vote no for your children sake.
ReplyDeleteYour grammar sucks, go back to elementary school.
DeleteGrammar aside, wouldn't your children rather live in the house they grew up in instead of a Manhattan Beach-style high-density complex?
DeleteVoting No, your children can't live here either. Heard of Market Rate folks?
DeleteWC- I expect that my children will be living somewhere other than with mommy and daddy when they are older and have their own careers. AND no I don't want them living with me for the rest of their lives. If I do my job properly they will be strong independent human beings not dependent on me or the govt or anyone else to survive and prosper. If they can't afford to live here... Too bad for them. They made a wrong choice somewhere. As the great judge schmales once said, " the world needs ditch diggers to".
DeleteWow, personal responsibility! I remember that.
DeleteThe Leucadia Post Office is on the chopping block and slated to close in September. The "For Lease" sign is already up. The post office is the heart of Leucadia and the biggest draw of all the businesses and serves at least 5,000 people. The only way it can be saved is for people to make their voices heard from Encinitas to Washington, D.C., just like when Cardiff was going close. Calls to our congressman, letters to the editor and a deluge of complaints to our City Council members might help. Please help save our post office.
ReplyDeleteThe heart of Leucadia?? You are out of your mind. Stay off the pipe.
ReplyDeleteBig story in last weeks Coast news about all the donors and money supporting the NO on A campaign. But not a word about the money spent on the yes side of the equation. How much do those 1/2 page ads cost Jim Kydd?? Nothing's free. Who's paying for the yes flyers I toss in the rubbish bin?? Notice I said rubbish Bin not the recycle bin.
ReplyDeleteWell??
Do your homework!
DeleteResidents funded Prop A. One dollar at a time.
It is public record.
Tell me, who's paying for the glossy flyers?? The coast news ads??
DeleteAnswer the question.
I received one flier for Prop A and at least four against, with the dumbest one yet sure to hit mailboxes this weekend. If you want to know who paid for anything, read the notice at the bottom of anyone's materials.
Delete7:34 is that you Mike Andreen ? You must be cconcerned that all the money your developer ffriends spent to defeat Prop a might not work . The public knows yes on a means local control no on A means developer control. Vote yes on A
ReplyDeleteThanks for not answering my question. So I'll ask again...well??
DeleteThank you Coast News and thanks to the residents that have made this PROP a campaign possible
ReplyDelete120 anonymous comments, many of them by anonymous trying to figure out who anonymous is.
ReplyDeleteThis is why Kevin and I disabled (mostly) anonymous comments on the Leucadia Blog.
By the way, I am WC Varones
I am WC Varones
DeleteAnd all this time, I thought I was :(
DeleteJP-
DeleteAll your commenters are Anon except you, KC, and Fred. Even the Lword goes anon now.
The extra step of registering as an anon just kills most commenters. As we no most people are lazy.
Your grammar sucks. Which local elementary school needs their teaching staff fired for failing to teach you the difference between " no" and " know"?? Way to go teachers union.
DeleteI am Mike Andreen and I am WC Varones. I changed my mind and decided to embrace PROP A.
ReplyDeleteLOL
Mike Andreen is not even worth mentioning.
DeleteWho?
DeleteSo I watched (yawn) what went down last night at City Council.
ReplyDeleteCity Council deemed the sinking parking lot at Beacons Beach worth looking in to.
City Council determined that Cardiff Elementary School deserves safer routes to school than Paul Ecke Central Students.
City Council determined that hiring 3 new fire fighter positions for Olivenhain was worthy. They talk as if it was only a $26,000 item, but we all know firefighter positions full loaded with pensions and overhead costs about $200,000 per position per year minimum, so Olivenhain received councils blessing for over $600,000 and they still were complaining. One good point is now with the new fire station in Olivenhain, the City can plan some nice high density 4 - 5 story affordable housing condominiums for all the teachers and firefighters. The tax base will also help pay for the new $6,000,000 station (the fire department doesn't believe in the word budget) they will be asking for in the near future.
City Council supported Sacramento Gus's Employee building escapade, and supported spending $137,000 on a new employee position full time communications specialist, instead of contract. Not one Council member asked the following questions:
1. Why not make this contract considering? we all know that the contract positions are more cost effective.
2. Why do we need this position when other 50,000 person towns don't seem to need one? Could it be because existing staff is incompetent and is not fulfilling their responsibilities? What does Richard Philips actually do for the City anyway, beside sit there and reply nonsense answers when asked a question? In all the years at the City, has he ever brought forward any positive change in our City. He is classic bad employee that focus's on why something can not get done verses getting something done. Why do other Cities seem to communicate with their residents without a communications director?
City Council supported Sacramento Gus's continuing program to sink the City in eternal debt with the only plan being increase revenue by increasing the density and resulting tax base at the cost of the quality of life by existing residents.
Gus increase Staff by over 4 full time employees this year and has yet to answer how he proposes to address the increased pension payments to PERS that's about to hit, and the pending huge operational costs from the mammoth Regional Sports Complex that is being build entirely on the Encinitas tax payer dime. The Encinitas tax payer will also pick up the 1,500,000 to $2,000,000 in ongoing operational, depreciation/asset management replacement reserves funding, and maintenance costs associated with building the regional complex.
The $136,000 per year for staff communications could have built many needed projects in Encinitas, but instead we get a mouthpiece with a huge pension to feed in the coming years.
Is Sacramento Gus doing a good job?
No he's not.
DeleteFire him and all the new hires.
Dump Barth.
Dump Muir.
Dump Schafer.
Dump Gaspar.
Dump Kranz.
But the council was happy, happy last night. The laughs flowed. Council was working as a team under Sacramento Gus. Can't wait till the $137,000 spin doctor becomes council's mouthpiece.
DeleteA well-oiled machine against residents.
Deletewow - 6:24 thank you for the post. I can't believe how incompetent and fiscally irresponsible this council is. The Barth, Shaffer, Kranz council is worse then Stocks. Let's say it. Stocks was concerned about being elected and listened to residents and OCCASIONALLY showed restraint.
ReplyDeleteBarth, Shaffer and Kranz have decided they know what is best and they are doubling down and moving forward with bankrupting the city. Their plan is to use the PR person to spin their tale of incompetence.
I had no idea they were this bad or that their voting record as you present was so bad for the city.
Thank you, it is eye opening. How do we get this message to our neighbors and friends?
Good news on the Olivenhain fire station!! Kudos to the council for right-ing a wrong from a long time ago. By the way 6:24, have you driven through Olivenhain lately? There are 99 Yes on A signs for every No on A sign.
ReplyDeleteAs for the "Regional Sports Complex" - happy to pay my fair share. I don't know how regional it will be since Carlsbad is building a bigger one....
- The Sculpin
Sculpin , are Olivenhain residents gullable enough to believe that the fire dept will put out a fire?? Ask the home owner east of the 5 and north of Birmingham as his house is again....a total loss. How far was the enc fire dept from the fire?? 2 blocks!! Proving again that NEW fire stations don't put out fires. But they are proven re-election winners aren't they?? Gotta have that, firefighters support Bullwinkle for re-election nonsense.
DeletePlease don't use Bullwinkle for whichever Council member. Bullwinkle is an upstanding moose who would never stoop to what the council is doing.
DeleteThank you.
Rocky
1:39 - clearly you do not live in Olivenhain and clearly you do not understand what a firestation does. The issue is not about fire. Many of the homes here have sophisticated sprinkler systems and plenty of insurance, not to mention space for firebreaks. After all, it's just property. The real issue is medical response times. Things like heart attacks, strokes, equestrian or agricultural injuries - things that require you to be there within 3, 5, 10 or 15 minutes. Also having personnel trained in how to navigate the area. GPS is irrelevant here. You have to use latitude and longitude because there are too many dirt roads, trails, easements, etc. That's what that fight was all about.
Delete- The Sculpin
Sculpin, remember your comment as your house is burning to the ground....
Delete3:02 - Like I said - it's just property and I have plenty of insurance. I'm far more concerned with loss of life and limb - I can't get that back. Where are your priorities, man?
DeleteWhere they should be. Fire fighters should be voluntary. It's proven there more effective when they're volunteering. When paid they become useless
DeleteClearly, It takes like 5 minutes to learn all the streets in Olivenhain.
DeleteMaybe if the fire fighters were not jogging, working out, BBQing, watching movies, running their real businesses, and sleeping while getting paid, they could learn the addresses of a few homes. Its the opposite of rocket science.
Fire fighters only get burnt out when they go home to their families. They love going to the fraternal fire station-- its like club med. Burgers, boobs and beaches.... I love my job!
Sculpin-you made a choice to move and live in Olivenhain knowing there were no safety services. You are the person that moves next to an airport then complains about jets taking off and landing.
Delete11:26 - I agree it takes 5 minutes to learn the streets. It takes alot longer to learn the trails and easements. Have you been out to Spooks lately? Can you navigate those trails? How about behind Knightsbridge? What is the status of the gate between Knightsbridge and Dove Hollow. What is the status of the gate between Dove Hollow and Carlsbad? Keys? Alternative route into Copper Crest - that on a map?
Delete3:20 - a past city council thought it was a good idea to have a fire station in Olivehain when the population was half what it is today. So why is it a bad idea to put one in today? I think your airport analogy misses the mark. Besides, there have always been safety services in Olivenhain - not sure where you're getting that idea. It's just that we want them here quicker - maybe in the same amount of time you get your safety services.
Oops again - 10:59 is mine - The Sculpin
DeletePffff- 90% of Encinitas fields are occupied by carsbad residents
ReplyDeleteThe new City Shirts should read.
ReplyDelete"We pay, You play!"
Re/ Olivenhain Fire response. Fire Station number 4 in Village Park is only a short few blocks from 11th St. in Olivenhain, yet no one will acknowledge this. 50 feet or so of earth keeps Mountain Vista Drive from swiftly connecting to 11st (Lone Jack Road). Because those roads do not connect, it adds probably 5 minutes to emergency response times to Olivenhain, making vehicles travel 10 times the distance needed to get to the heart of Olivenhain. Google Earth yourself and follow Mountain Vista all the way east until it makes a 90 degree turn south. Straight east of the bend it perfectly lines up with 11th St. The terrain does slightly decline, but not as radical as the dip at 3rd and B St. on the coast. I don't understand how it is fiscally prudent to build a new fire station and add more employees when there is already a station a few blocks away from 11th St., blocked by land less than a stone's throw across.
ReplyDeleteRe/ Concern over Beacon's beach. It had a few million dollars ear marked for improvements a year or two ago, but those funds were diverted to Moonlight Beach Improvements. (the ribbon cutting for the developments was yesterday, and they far outshine the crappy old toilets plopped in the middle of the beach.) But what about Beacons? Left alone the parking lot will fall into the ocean. When I moved here in '61, there was a road still there where lifeguards could drive down to the beach. That was a good 60 years and 20 feet ago. The bluff could be protected saving the parking lot / stairway. But neighbors fear improvements there would erode their property worse from diverted waves. 10 or 20 years down the road I can see the partial remains of a parking lot barb-wired off from public access. If there is a middle ground solution to satisfy all, you can bet that study will cost more than any physical improvements would. We're Encinitas and we LOVE to spend!
Re/ Spin doctors. In 1992, the city hired a man from Tiburon named Ted Krines to come to town and tell us how Encinitas could become a "CAN DO CITY". Ted divided up the communities to address each one's potential individually. (And when it came to Leucadia's time to be reviewed by the committee, the suggestion was to "Barb-wire it and sell it to Carlsbad".) That wasn't a good way to win friends or influence Fred.
After a few month's Ted's analysis was complete. His overall conclusion for his $40,000 40 page essay? "Hire and Ombudsman" - a person to facilitate the introduction of new businesses to town. The ads went in the papers for those believing they were qualified to apply for the position. I was chosen among the small group of people selecting the person for the job. I even knew a few of the applicants. But the biggest duck in the puddle was yes, Ted himself - and his wife who said they would move here from Tiburon and do it for only $120K per year. What a charade. The whole thing was so blatantly self-serving it got quitely circular filed and the Ombudsman position was never filled. Consequently, Encinitas became a CAN DO city anyway without an Ombudsman with (to name a few) the Ranch, the Downtown Streetscape, infrastructure improvements and a thriving economy. Well, we'll see about the latter later. Thanks Ted! So what's up with needing a new one? If we have to have one, please don't let it be the guy who created the position.
FRED - spot on comment about fire station #4 - but that's not what happened. As informal historian, any ideas why that was never seriously considered?
Delete- The Sculpin
Because no one was connecting the closest dots when they should have. I brought it up but no one liked the idea. I guess it didn't cost enough.
DeleteSculpin- no one wanted to do it because this city is run by idiots and assholes.
Delete11:58 - that's about as succintc and to the point as you can get!! Gotta love that economy in words lol
Delete- The Sculpin
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, formal historians dress better than I.
ReplyDeleteI believe in Teresa,Tony and Lisa not all you anon bloggers!.
ReplyDeleteGET a real life.
I look at facts to come to a logical decision. I don't "believe" in a few "decision makers'" opinions whom I can no longer respect, or trust, because they have misrepresented the truth over and over again.
DeleteYou should believe in them, Mike, they're your dream team come true.
ReplyDeleteMy humble prediction on Prop A.
ReplyDeleteYES 60% - All residents concerned about the "unintended" consequences of growth. People that understand that future growth will bring already unbearable traffic to a standstill.
People that want to hang on to their small town beach community and don't appreciate outside interests telling us how the city needs to grow.
NO:
5 misguided council members. 3 of ther turncoats!
DEMA Prop-zillers
1% developers
39 % duped residents that were satisfied having studied the issue based on the deceptive NO-mailers.
I don't think their NO on A mailers will be effective in this golden coast city. And I feel sorry for all the NO investors who paid so incredibly much for the quality of robo-calls they got asking the kind of stacked questions a child could see through. What a waste of their money. Most voters here are smart enough to weigh the truth and vote accordingly. The other thing Prop A has going for it is the sheer fact it's a ONE issue election - not the usual 9 candidates trick with a third of them encouraged to run only as a strategy to water down all the votes. But even when that happened here, Maggie still led the pack didn't she? The six figure, eight year smear campaign against her was see-through and another waste of THEIR money. The majority of voters here are savvy about following the money; who it comes from and why. They also pay attention and take offense to deceptive campaign tactics. Neither do I think they appreciate the city encouraging our business groups (which the city co-funds) to pick sides on political issues. (and YES, 5 story buildings are SO on the radar for Encinitas in a big way - regardless of what their NO on A argument says on the ballot!). No. We may look and talk a lot like them, but we're not as dense as the cast of the "Californians" seem to be on Saturday Night Live. But enjoy this link anyway!
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbxihR3C-Hk
Vote YES on Prop A!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete