Monday, June 17, 2013

Tony Kranz responds on ballot argument honesty question

This is solely the opinion of Council Member Tony Kranz, not speaking for anyone else on the council:
My friend K.C. threw up a post on this weblog the other day that did what any blogger wants their writing to do: generate comments (173 so far, a record on his blog says W.C.). The title of the post was Scariest Prop A Thinking and went on, in many words, to express his opinion about what the council wrote in the arguments against Proposition A, and comments I had made on this blog. He ascribes motives to the council that I disagree with and feel pretty sure the rest of the council does as well.

So what was it that scared him so? One thing he wrote had to do with this comment I made in reply to a direct question from an anonymous commenter about the council's argument against Prop A:

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.

This doesn't seem that scary to me. I would call it the representative democracy definition of whether up-zoning was "major" or not, since it was left to our elected representatives to consider the political impact of approving a land-use plan, as well as the community impact. In fact, this was true whether there was up-zoning on a project or not.

And it turns out that the thinking in the early 1990's was similar to what I wrote on the blog. Way back around the time former County Supervisor, Mayor and Council Member Pam Slater-Price voted to add the 4/5ths exception to our General Plan by amendment, the same logic was used in the City Council Staff Report for the meeting of 9/25/91. Here's an excerpt:

Based on testimony at the [Planning] commission hearing, the following options can also be considered:

e) Instead of specifically-defined exemptions, give the Planning Commission and Council disoretionary authority to determlne when items are exempt from voter-approval. All items would be subject to voter approval except when the commission and council determine an item is exempt. This option removes the difficulty of trying to specifically define "minor" changes; it also creates undefined discretion. Variation: define at least some of the circumstances or criteria under which Commission and Council would have discretion to exempt.

As mentioned, the council back then ultimately added the 4/5ths exception, which—in another display of representative democracy—the current council unanimously voted to remove, making direct democracy the final step in ALL future major land-use decisions.

However, Prop A isn't only about the right to vote. It also includes provisions that would cause existing specific plans to be amended and, in my opinion, that is not a good way to govern. These "secondary" amendments could easily have been avoided, as they were in the initiative that passed in Escondido, by specifying that the provisions of the initiative would only apply to future land-use planning documents.

Kevin also calls aspects of the city council arguments against Prop A scary. His opinion is that we used "weasel" words, and suggested that we should have written our arguments using language that fit the context of Prop A. Needless to say, I disagree. We wrote our arguments as a group, in open council sessions, doing our best to honestly describe what we thought were important points to make. But as E.B. White said, "The best writing is rewriting." In our case though, any rewriting would have required another meeting to re-agendize the subject, deliberate and hold another vote. The calendar didn't allow for that.

Now the calendar shows we're a day away from the special election which will decide Prop A. California's tradition of direct democracy will have made its mark on our community. Regardless of the outcome, we'll have a lot of work to do in order to move our city forward.
WCV comment: We thank Tony for continuing the dialogue with the public, and we wish other council members were as open to publicly discussing the initiative as Tony has been. However, we don't think this explanation changes the fact that, by any objective measure, the council lied to the public in its unanimous ballot argument against Prop A. The council stated,
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.
In fact, large sections of the downtown 101 area were increased  from two stories to three stories without a public vote. To argue that these changes were not "major" strains credulity. Apparently, no council until now, including the council that allowed the changes, has tried to make the claim that those changes weren't "major." In fact, as the Staff Report quote above shows, the earlier council specifically chose not to define "major" or "minor" but to give themselves the 4/5 vote exemption regardless of how "major" a change.

The current council's ballot argument looks like they were more interested in making a strong argument to persuade uninformed voters than in telling the truth.

75 comments:

  1. Councilman Kranz is finally admitting in articles that his concern (and the council's) are the 3 or 4 properties owned by one person in downtown Encinitas that are zoned for possible uses including a hotel.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The council lied for special interests. Those lies were used in the no on A fliers. Darn convenient for the council to provide the wording for no on A groups.

      Delete
    2. The owner of the 3 or 4 properties just contributed $2500 to one of the No on A groups.

      Delete
    3. As a signature gatherer for the Initiative that led up to Prop A, I used these activities to campaign for Shaffer and Kranz, and I also put in a good word for Mayor Barth when she was a councilwoman. I think that these activities contributed to their win in November.

      Those involved in the Yes on A side feel betrayed. Kranz and Shaffer were prepared to support us when we were helping them get elected, but now they have turned the backs on us and worse, betrayed their own platforms and campaign promises.

      Delete
  2. The council lied to every voter in Encinitas.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mr. Kranz Please expalin why you or Mayor Barth refused to rebut the lie that there will never be 5 story buildings in encinitas that you have been misinforming the public about on the ballot statement? why are you decieving the public? someone asked the council at city hall last week how you knew what future councils would do? someone asked the council to show where the code outlaws and bans for ever 5 story buildings......will you answer, or will you hide?? Mr. Kranz it your opinion the 101 upzone without a vote of residents was not a major land use, reaaly? over 3 miles of land is rezoned and you don't think it is major......the residents do.

    ONE AND DONE TONY......vote him out in 2016, we will save on paying a pension to him for life, tell your neighbors.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Major changes ARE defined in 3.12 as everything other than the minor changes allowed to be done with out a City wide vote. That provision is the same under Prop A as the existing policy. The idea that a major use change is whatever 4/5s of Council says is just wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  5. BOY, I BET PAM SLATER AND KEVIN CUMMINS DIDN'T SEE TONY DRIVING THAT BUS!!!

    ReplyDelete
  6. It is nice that Tony has Marco Gonzalez to write his comments for him.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Kevin Cummins one very intelligent person that always has the communities best interest at heart. He is a resident who has gone the extra mile to stand up for us on his own free time. If our council were filled with his type then maybe we would trust our elected officials. Many thanks Kevin!

    ReplyDelete
  8. I didn't vote for Tony - just couldn't get comfortable with him - but clearly I made a mistake. He's far more thoughtful and nuanced than I thought.
    - The Sculpin

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sculpin I am surprised to read that you support a council that deceives and lies to the public. Can you please direct me to the city code that bans for eternity that 5 story buildings will never be built in Encinitas? Looking forward to your prompt response.

      Delete
    2. 10:11 - I know of no code that bans 5 story buildings. My Mama also said "never say never". I don't see an issue with 5 stories if done in the right location - say Walmart? I support a council that recognizes a red herring and is willing to work around it. Politics is not absolute, and not for the faint of heart - it's the art of compromise. No on A and let this council do what it set out to do.

      - The Sculpin

      Delete
    3. Sculpin- So you support a council that lies. That is your choice. The rest of us want a council that tells us the truth. Lying and not lying is absolute. Do you agree?

      Delete
    4. 10:32 - As you point out, lying and not lying are absolute - and you have established that they are "liars". So explain to me which "lie" you believe to be the lie, and which "lie" you believe to be the truth, and why? After all, once a liar, always a liar! I prefer to see it as "It was a good idea at the time, but upon reflection this thing does not really accomplish the goals that we have set, and here's why, so we'll have to respectfully part ways on this issue".

      - The Sculpin

      Delete
    5. Scuplin-

      THE city council wrote on the ballot statement that Encinitas Will never have approved 5 story buildings. Please direct us to the specific city code banning for eternity 5 story buildings. If you are unable to do this than I must agree with 10:32 Mayor Barth and Deputy Mayor Shaffer, the ethics teacher, and the council have lied and misrepresented the truth to the public. Please show me specifically the code to back up their statement of fact that they signed their name to. Looking forward to your response.

      Delete
    6. My Mama said? Is that really your argument against the lies and misrepresentation of the council -my mama said? Who are you, Bobby Bouchette the Waterboy?

      Delete
    7. Sigh..............
      - The Sculpin

      Delete
    8. Scuplin- still waiting for you to cite the city code the council claims exists that bans for eternity 5 story buildings- can you cite it............Sign, well, well, well, Mama Says !

      Delete
    9. 11:56 - see my response at 10:26 - Thank you.

      - The Sculpin

      Delete
  9. All this so that one developer can build his hotel across La Paloma Theater. I hope Tony can sleep at night!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What's wrong with a hotel accross from La Paloma - if it's done right?

      - The Sculpin

      Delete
    2. scuplin- that is the whole point of A, to make sure it is done right. The builder works with the city and residents to produce a product that the people vote on. You are for democracy scuplin- right?

      Delete
    3. Please, who decides what's "right?" Tony? Landowner Keith Harrison? Potential investor Dody "Propzilla" Crawford? Gary Tucker? Mark Muir?

      No thanks to all of the above, I'll take my chances with a resident vote on that one. Word is that Harrison's already wanting 3 stories - minimum.

      Delete
    4. 10:12 - I like democracy, and I like representative government too. They work hand in hand. I disagree with you on Prop A because Prop A is not iterative. Going back and forth to the Planning Commission and/or City Council is iterative, but Prop A is a one shot deal. Why would anyone want to risk that? The only groups who would risk it are those who feel the process is an imaterial part of the projects overall costs. To me, Prop A shuts down the little guy and opens the door to the very large developers that have the deep pockets. Isn't that who you really want to keep out? Not your neighbor?. Oh, and why do you keep calling my scuplin?

      Delete
    5. Who is this "little guy" who wants to build a mega-hotel beyond existing zoning?

      You could build an awesome two-story boutique hotel that takes up an entire city block there.

      But no, the developers want to go three or more stories purely for bigger profits. And Gus wants three or more stories for more revenues to feed the pension beast.

      Delete
    6. W.C. - the "little guy" is you and me and all the other Encinitians who own real estate.

      - The Sculpin

      Delete
    7. 10:20, you have it exactly, perfectly backward. It's the so-called "little guy" who has been shut out of Encinitas, while the usual suspects have been favored: Barrett American, Doug (Rancho Sta Fe) Harwood, Buddy Bohrer, David Meyer.

      Talk to an independent developer (I have), and you'll find they've not gotten so much as a toe in the door at City Hall over the years.

      Delete
    8. WC, you know nothing about running a hotel nor motel. 3 stories doesn't always mean greater profit, unlike running a blog.

      Delete
    9. 10:55,

      So you think the developer is asking for 3 or more stories because they want to make less money?

      Why exactly would they want to make less money?

      A 3-story blog earns exactly the same profit as a 2-story blog, from my experience.

      Delete
    10. Speaking of 3 stories and Doug Harwood, wasn't he the one, along with David Meyers, who got that retirement home across from Encinitas Country Day School increased to a 3-story building? They got an extra floor in that facility--I assume because it helped them to make more money. Does anyone know the back story?

      Delete
  10. Council majority has over thought this issue and listened to the bad advice of two sets of attorneys [not to mention Staff]. All three have done a lot of damage to their credibility because [I think} they wanted to do the "right" thing. I voted yes on Prop A, but I can see how voters can be confused over the issue. If Prop A passes, the public, not the Council, will be the deciding voice on big development. I believe that is as it should be. I don't believe, as put forward by the No on A speaker debating Bruce Ehlers, that the public just doesn't have the knowledge to make the choice wisely. The voters of Encinitas will act for the benefit of Encinitas, why would they do otherwise ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The No on A speaker was Steve Shackleton, for whom "3 stories is sacred." That and the electorate can't understand anything were his two main "arguments."

      Delete
  11. scuplin-

    I own property. My current general plan protects my property values and the values of both my residential and commercial neighbors. I worked hard, saved money, and took risks to earn the quality of life I have. I would like to vote on proposed land use changes might destroy our quality of life. If I wanted to live in a high density urban city I would choose Manhattan or Redondo beach.

    More than $70,000 has been spent to defeat NO coming from Zellman in LA, Shea in Arizona and $8,300 from that crooked bankrupt communist city called Chi-Town. You want us to believe you are on the side of the little guy when you are clearly aligned with the high density Goliath's that want to take from me to profit themselves. They wish to rob me of my quality of life to feather there own nest by having the council, not the people, control future land-use.

    You are not for the little guy, or for property rights of all. You are for the big developers, and for property rights for a few at the expense of all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 10:52 - I know who I am for, and who I am not for, thank you very much. I also know that Zellman in LA, Shea in Arizona and that crooked bankrupt communist city called Chi-Town will put their money in any ballot measure anywhere that limits their perceived property rights - no need to take their participation personaly. They could care less about Encinitas - what they care about is this spreading to other cities. Unlike you, I don't look at who's behind the Yes or No drive - I look at the law as proposed, and I don't like it. I have done the same as you, and I love where I live, and I just don't see Prop A achieving the goals it sets out to, especially after having voted in a more receptive council.

      - The Sculpin

      Delete
    2. scuplin- "perceived property rights" property rights are rights, you have them or you don't. What the upzoning high density builders want are new rights for profits at the expense of the little guy. What the social engieers from Chi-town want are new rights to take from one and give to another in a grand social engineering scheme that much like the communist of Russia want to dictate who lives where-

      As for the new receptive council mostly all their votes have been unanimous- they agree on everything. They voted to hire a PR guy for 135K when they could have paid down debt, bought playground equipment they refused to buy or re-fund one of the 15 projects they raided to start the hall park - so much for wise spending, on open government they looked the other way when vina cut a deal with Rutan and Tucker, on preserving our town Barth and Shaffer waited until after the election to let the public know they wanted high density housing, on community character and safety they voted against residents at Desert Rose-

      I look at A and it gives all residents the right to decide their future- what a great thing. Del Mar has it and so should Encinitas

      Delete
    3. I like the Hall Park - it was a real shame that my kids never got to use it - Thanks to all those that made that fiasco possible!
      - The Sculpin

      Delete
    4. Be glad your kids never got to play on that toxic dump. Vina/staff/Council looked the other way when warned about mishandling of contaminated soil.

      I wouldn't take my dog there, much less my kids.

      Delete
  12. Yes, Dirty Dan Dalager along with Stocks and Bond really screwed that one up wasting taxpayers more than $1 million in needless fees and a decade of delay's. It is unfortunate that Gaspar, Muir and Barth supported City Mgr Vina's reckless plan to raid 15 fully funded capital projects of $7 million (where is the money to do those projects today) and went into hock to build the park. It explains why Vina along with Barth, Muir Gaspar approved the risky plan to burry the "dirty dirt' onsite. I would not take my dogs there either. I love youth sports- the new park is a regional park serving a regional agenda, just like Kranz and the council's regional high density housing agenda

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hi Tony- thank you for writing about this. Please explain for us the ballot honesty writing that there never will be approved 5 story buildings? How do you know what future council will do? Is there a code you can show us that outlaws four story buildings. Please help set the record straight. Why did the council claim that as a fact if they can't back it up? Thanks Tony....looking forward to your answer

    ReplyDelete
  14. So let me get this straight, No on A folk. First you say the passage of A will inhibit growth, destroying our economy, then in the same breath you say it would actually encourage larger buildings to be built here?! Well, which is it? It won't be either. A perfect example of scrambling for scare tactics to "have it both ways". No wonder some people are confused with those baseless claims so heavily advertised.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John Wainio's building industry consulting company "The San Diego Group" was retained to run the No on A campaign with the intention of confusing the voter, which they have managed to do with some success. Just how much success, we'll know tomorrow night.

      I guess that's what you do when you don't have a decent argument on your side other than "Prop A will interfere with my 'right' to make a killing off developing Encinitas to the max and well beyond."

      Tony, Lisa, and the rest of Council: answer the question: "where does it say 5 stories will never be approved in Encinitas?"

      I'm hearing crickets...and hypocrisy.

      Delete
    2. FRED - I can't speak for anyone else, but my take is that it boils down to who can afford to run a campaign. By placing the costs of the ballot request on to those seeking the change in zoning, the Proposition creates a significant barrier to smaller projects. As the projects budget gets larger, the cost of the ballot request becomes less significant. To use this hotel going in somewhere downtown as an example - the cost of the ballot measure for them (if needed) will be a much higher % of the budget than let's say a 75 home subdivision at the end of Fortuna Ranch Road.

      - The Sculpin

      Delete
  15. Sculpin- to place an item on a general election ballot that happen every 24 months costs only $10-15,000. dollars. You can verify this fact by looking at how much it cost Encinitas to put Prop K, the electing of a Mayor issue, on the 2012 general election ballot.

    Add to this that K was placed on the ballot a few months before the election.

    Also remember that the only projects that go to a vote are the projects that exceed current general plan zoning AND are from developers seeking new rights they are not entitled to.

    It seems to me that any person seeking new property rights to increase density and heights would be happy to pay $10-15,000 to put it on the ballot.

    Of course the no on A people spread more misinformation and lies, like it costing 350K, of yea, and that lie of a statement you are aware of like the council claim that that there is a permanent irreversible ban and that no 5 story buildings will ever be approved in Encinitas

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1:20- What does the 10 -15K cover? Is that all in? What about the opportunity cost of holding your project for 24 months (worst case)? Does it cost more if you can't wait 24 months? Does it include the costs of "outreach" or "voter information" or whatever you want to call it? Does it include the attorneys fees for drafting the ballot language? Are there any other fees to the state or city or Registrar? I assume you've done this before or know someone who has?

      - The Sculpin

      Delete
    2. Sculpin, there is no lost opportunity cost because the builder under Prop A can build the same thing tommorrow they can build today under the General Plan zoning. What the developer going to a general election vote is asking for is A NEW OPPORTUNITY to be given new rights they do not now have to increase density and height.

      The voter info/outreach is the same tommorrow as it is today, today they are called Community Participation meetings.

      I do know someone who has done this before, the city of Encinitas, last year they put Prop K on the ballot- it cost between $15-20K

      If a builder wants new rights they don't now have, they can decide for themselves how much campaigning they want to do - I believe in freedom and liberty for all , not new rights for a few.

      Delete
  16. Barth, Schaffer and the council have intentionally misled and misinformed the public- shameful. Ethics teacher my butt

    ReplyDelete
  17. Just got a Bond robocall, lie-filled from one end to the other with the now-predictable "lower property values, can't remodel your home" garbage so publicly embraced by Muir and Gaspar.

    Sculpin, you want to talk about affording to run a campaign? At last official count, the No folks are outspending the Yes people 10 to 1, minimum. Does that really not tell you anything? All workers are paid, down to the charming Pt. Loma college girl at the Leucadia Farmers Market this past Sunday: paid, and could barely speak on the issue.

    The developer cost of an election is in the extremely low single percents of the cost of a project, if that. For example, a $6M project with an election cost of $20K = .33 PERCENT.

    Please, don't try to sell anyone on that driving up any costs. No one's buying. Find a real argument.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1:36 - not too sure what you're worried about. In my experience money doesn't win elections - ideas do. Alot of Encinitans like the idea of Prop A so it will likely pass. That said, campaign donations from deep pockets are very different from someones development budget. My real argument from day 1 has been ballot box zoning doesn't work. No one's happy other than the people who want no development at all - and even they become unhappy in 10 or so years.

      - The Sculpin

      Delete
  18. Yep, just got the same call from robojames - again. Do the people who paid for these calls know they're wasting them on Yes on A voters? I'm guessing that's 2/3 of their audience. We'll know tomorrow night. Please vote YES on A.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What a fortune they're spending. Second Bond robocall in half an hour.

      Delete
    2. Yes, a fortune spent by those poor, poor developers the folks like Sculpin and the No people are sooooo anxious to protect from democracy.

      YES on A!

      Delete
  19. Sculpin-

    Del Mar residents have had the right to vote on land use changes for close to 20 years by passing Prop B. This year the residents re-affirmed their right to vote by rejecting Prop J- think the people in that small town like their right to vote? What one calls their right to vote another calls ballot box zoning. At least Del Mar doesn't have as many red light camera's as Encinitas- another benefit of a small town looks like to me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't presume to speak for Del Martians, but yes, I would assume they hold dear the ability to vote on zoning issues. Maybe they don't have red light cameras, but they have alot of stop signs - neither of which have anything to do with zoning. They also do not have as much commercial real estate as we do. Less people, too. If you think about it, we really don't have much in common with them.......

      - The Sculpin

      Delete
    2. If you think about it, we're all Americans and should have self-determination over how we live - and over how someone would like to force us to live....

      Delete
    3. 2:15 - voting for city council is not an example of self-determination? Who would have thought........

      - The Sculpin

      Delete
    4. Not when they turn coats. Shame on the voters, doesn't mean we sit back, wait, and suffer.

      Delete
    5. scuplin- Dan Dalager pled guilty after taking a 100K loan from developer and failing to disclose. Jerome Stocks go 60% of his campaign money from developers and got caught by residents on video breaking city laws and codes on elections--

      with Prop A we have the right to elect councils, and the right to vote on proposed land use changes. That is the right self determination. Vote yes on A

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  20. Right, except a one road highway that fronts the ocean that provides resident commercial serving business that server local residents, and that we share 2 story height limits, and 30-40% lot coverage on commercial buildings. Yeah, we don't have much in common with the small town beach community of Del Mar- we should look more like Oceanside- 5 story buildings, crime, vagrants, taggers- whew! thanks for setting me straight on that one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 2:24 - relax......Del Mar does not have El Camino Real - we do. Maybe you see that as being the same?

      - The Sculpin

      Delete
    2. Yes, but that is Because Carmel Valley is about to get lit up with regional high density zoning at One Paseo!

      Delete
    3. Someone alert Del Mar. Their portion of El Camino Real is missing!

      Delete
  21. OK Guys and Gals - this has been alot of fun. Thanks for the discussions - the parrying - the duck and weave - but I gotta go. Make sure everyone you know votes because that's the only way we lose - if people don't vote....

    - The Sculpin

    ReplyDelete
  22. I agree with The Sculpin -vote! we are lucky to have it.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I disagree with scuplin who say vote no, I say vote yes on A, protect your right to vote!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Prop A has nothing to do with your right to vote, the supreme court today said anyone can vote in any election. Pay attention.

      Delete
    2. Thanks, Jerome. OAO.

      Delete
    3. oh no- is that stocks guy still around? He was the guy caught on videotape being a lawbreaker violating city election codes right? HE also backed dangerous dirty dan dalager who plead guilty to the DA- Stocks is the reason people lost trust in city hall. Maybe Stocks and Dalgaer can start the Encinitas Tool Academy

      Delete
  24. 3:38
    OK, then you're saying we should have called it "the right to an election"?

    ReplyDelete
  25. 3:38: It' s The Right To Vote on Up-Zoning! You sound like a moron.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey everyone is nice to Fred. And you'll be nice also. Fred has emeritus status in this town.

      Delete
  26. Of course there will never be approval for 5 story buildings....it is the 7 story buildings that are being planned. Vote YES on A

    ReplyDelete