No I think it came from those who benefitted from state mandated affordable housing, now the quality of life of all the long term residents who worked hard to live in a small town get the Barth Gaspar Muir Shafferoffer social engineering project......oh well!
Wow! Posters swing from the left to the right on this board more easily than a Harry Reams movie!!!! People who can afford Pacific Station don't tag. To blame "state mandated affordable housing" is racist at best, vile at worst. There's been tagging in Enci long before any state mandated anything - political opportunism at its worst 8:28.
Alinsky was big on calling those with opposing views racist. For instance if you want to protect your property rights, quality of life life, tax base, schhol district and believe it is not the job of ggovernment to take from one family to benefit another then some call you a racist . They are the affordable housing bullies trying to intimidate in the name of profits for a few at the expense of your ffamily.
Scuplin calling someone a racist becuase they oppose bogus so called affordable housing laws that only help developers make money is really pathetic. The deve.opers buy out the affordable and will it their families for 20 years, or they just make a payment to the city and don't build a unit. and who decides who does or does not get to live at the beach...?// does gasapr and muir say this family gets to live at the beach and this one doesn't:? I even herad the high density lawyer Marco Gonzalez wanted the developer he represented to pay the in liu fee, and then Marco's sister Lorena running for assembly is out organizing by promoting so called affordable housing and social engineering as a way the get elected. I am glad people are waking up to learn the truly intolerant people are the environmental bullies ahd socilal justice know it alls..............they are in it for themselves and thier clients
9:22 - stop it with the Alinsky crap. If I said the sun was coming up tomorrow you would respond that it would be clasic rule 32F in his communist manifesto or some such nonsense....you've beaten that horse beyond death...move on... 10:46 - I'm not getting your point. Are you saying taggers are developers? How does a developer making an in lieu payment result in tagging? The affordable unit never gets built!?!?!? What 8:28 was implying is the type of people who live in affordable housing lack morals and common decency and will run amok and tag. This is a very broad brush, and can be viewed as racist since "we all know what kind of people" live in affordable housing. Honestly, if this is your comment, you certainly did not vote for Barth or Kranz. You must have been a Stocks supporter until he burned you.
The people behind this type graffiti in encinitas come from million dollar homes. So they could easily live in pacific station if they desired. Get real our gangsters are rich spoiled children that think it is cool to tag our community.
6:12- There have always been juvenile lawbreakers, but this tagging often has gang affiliations connected with them, which of course often have drug affilations. There is no denying that since the high density housing project Pacific Station went in and that there are more bars downtown crime and violence in Encinitas has gone up. This tagging in my eyes is not the result of an artists but gang members- this is the new community character brought about by the social justice police who force policies on unsuspecting communities and a decaying US culture that promotes the violence, sex and disregard for human life and decency in music videos, films and tv. Just my 2 cents- I will be voting yes on A
Sculpin- Thank you for sharing with us what 8:28 was "implying". We are all so dumbed down we can no longer think ourselves. Thank you for thinking for us. I am also glad that you shared with us who did or did not vote for various candidates. Also 10:46 never said an in liu payment resulted in tagging but thank you for sharing with the rest of us what 10:46 actually said, as 10:46 never wrote that I would have missed it without you pointing out what is not there. We are so lucky to have the thought police explain things to us - kind of like Morgan Freeman explaining things in Batman (my comments are satire to make a point)
Why do you not want people to know who that Alinsky guy is? seems to have hit a nerve with you.
Sclupin- the people who got "burned" as you say are the ones who trusted Barth, Shaffer and krantz to protect today's community character and quality of life. After being elected the 3 have turned on the residents who supported them and sided with city manager Vina, Sabine and the out of town deep pocketed developers to defeat Prop A. These are the facts- I am one of the burned
Hmmmm and all that pacific station inscreased density under the name of affordability, and according to Sculpin they are tough to afford, so confusing, government gives to one, takes from another, and the social engineering project continues.
11:38 Can't pick and choose? See Solyndra, See Desert Rose- government took $500M from taxpayers for a bankrupt 'Green' company that was about putting 'Green money' in the hands of so called kleptocrats that were not only investors in the company but also campaign donors to the Administration
Desert Rose- government took the rural quality of life from residents and gave for profit density increases to a developer who's attorney is rumored to have been a campaign donor to council members.
Is it any wonder residents are demanding the right to vote?
How is blaming State affordable housing considered a Racist or Vile Comment.
State housing programs are completely bad for neighborhoods. All State welfare programs are bad for the community and the individuals in the community.
Incentivizing slacking is about the stupidest think a government can do. The stupidest think is to allow the welfare recipients to reproduce.
Dear 9:17. It can only help you in like if you were to come to grips of the reality that you are, and neen not be, a racist, elitest, ignorant dick. You cad do better.
Sculpin has no argument about the failed policies of high density housing that destroys community character so by calling people racists or invoking an Us versus Them republican/Democrat ruse he hopes people won't notice he has no facts.
Facts on why high density housing that takes rights from residents and gives new rights to for profit developers and so called state social justice programs would be appreciated - do you have any?
And you welfare loving losers, will always be losers.
I know it and you know it in your own mind.
I agree that questioning a system that make you a dependent is vile, but you probably don't understand the pleasures of freedom. You think pleasure comes from handouts. I pity your souls and you know should try and learn about liberty and freedom and peace within that it brings.
11:33 and7:49 What does Romeny or Rove have to do with the proposed high density upzoning in Encinitas? This high density myth being forced on residents is the result of developers seeking profits, social engineers who think they know better than everyone else what we need, organizations like building one America (I had never heard of them until someone at this blog posted it) who truly do believe the suburbs are racist and that they, Building One America need 'policies' to promote 'equality' that actually takes the hard earned quality of life from one family and gives it to another- check out the story about education redistribution in Minnesota St Paul- it is true.
All of this happened at Desert Rose in Encinitas- the developer argued they were entitled to density increase under state law, the social engineers helped write the law, the developers wrote the law, our elected leaders ignored resident safety and sided with the developer and the social engineers saying we need affordable housing, now the developer is suggestion paying an in lieu fee and not building the so called affordable unit-
You are attempting to bully, intimidate and silence those speaking out by calling them 'racists' (that alinsky guy actually did write about this, I checked it out) while it is the policies of the social engineers that are racist.
Any council policy that takes the quality of life from one family and gives that to another is ethically and morally bankrupt.
The elected elites in Encinitas would prefer the public not know the truth or look deeply at their policies- but we are, and we are telling our neighbors and friends. There is a reason Social engineers like Barth and Shaffer have joined with profiteers like Gaspar and Muir- it's called money and power at the expense of the community. Both sides want to keep it and they are equally complicit in their campaign of deception against the public.
and who paid the price for all this government crookedness? The residents who worked hard, saved money, paid taxes, and bought homes because of rural zoning only to later learn the social engineers like Barth and Shaffer, and the profiteers like Muir and Gaspar, all sided with the high density lawyer to take from one family so another could profit-
Barth, Shaffer and Gonazlez are likely so called democrats and social engineers who want to force on us what they think we need. Gaspar, Muir, Stocks are so called republicans who write laws so their campaign donors make profits-
Why did that group from Chicago home of Building One America send the most contributions to oppose A?
So you live in Olivenhain! We’re neighbors! With an assessment like that I don’t know what you do next. It seems you’ve been cornered on all sides, burned by everyone, trusting no one. Prop A will do nothing to alleviate this because you are only 1 vote. If the developers are as powerful as you claim, they will most likely win whatever election they desire – not every one – but enough to change the character of the neighborhood as you know it. The social engineers are a different lot. They are not concerned with today; they are concerned with tomorrow, and 10 or 20 years out. What do we need to do today to make sure the city will continue to do well in the future? This is anathema to today’s residents who like it just the way it is. This is why I’m voting against Prop A. Not because I’m a greedy developer, a “run amok” racist social engineer, or a NIMBY. I believe in the process, the professionals, the players, the council and staff to all act in their own competing self-interests, and through that tension it all works out. I also don’t believe in ballot box zoning. Long term it stops a city cold. It’s messy, it doesn’t always give you the result you want, but it’s the right way to go. On another note – Dove Hollow Equestrian Center is for sale for $10M. It sits on 5 acres and is permitted for commercial activity. Assuming that the property is not zoned similarly as its neighbors, would Prop A require a vote if a “greedy developer” wanted to raze the facilities and build homes on the site? I realize this is theoretical because no one would pay $10m for 2 home sites.
Sculpin,I respectfully disagree with you that there is a tension between developers, the council, and the so-called 'professionals' in upzoning our city. I have seen over and over that they give applicants anything that they want. The City and Council benefit because they get short-term windfalls for upzoning.
That is why I and all of my friends are voting YES on A. It allows for citizens to decide if there is an actual public benefit for going outside of the requirements of our General Plan. If you want to build and not pay for an election, it is simple. Follow the zoning and other requirements of the General Plan.
Sclupin- I know exactly what I will do and that is vote yes on A. Voting yes on A means the residents will have the power to determine our future community and quality of life.
Voting A means I will not have to rely on social engineers who want to take from one family and give to another- I can rely on myself.
Voting yes means I won't have to rely on incompetent city staff who are in bed with developers- I can rely on myself.
Voting yes means I won't have to rely on a city council that is backed by big developer money like the Gaspars, Muir', Ecke's and Meyers- I can rely on myself. Or the social justice police in Shaffer and regional trendsetter Barth
Voting Yes means I won't have to rely on incestuous insiders like lawyers I can rely on myself-
Who opposes A and doesn't want people to have the right to vote? Of course people who support social engineering and think they should take the rights of one family and give them to another don't want people to have a right to vote on A. Other people who want developer profits want the insider process at city hall, not the democratic process, hey why would they want to give up a good thing. This is who they are so own it.
Maybe they are getting a big fat pension like Muir's 170K and need to find a way to fleece taxpayers to keep paying it, or maybe they are hoping to sell out of the farm their parents worked so hard to leave them because they don't have the can do work ethic dad did- they have gone soft.
I suspect people looking for profits, fat pensions or social engineering scientists would take a 5 acre cre farm ad change the zoning without a vote of the people to to allow 45 units and acre and 225 homes, but with density bonus lets throw on a 100% increase from the state making 450 homes and call it a regional high density affordable housing transit center - Hey, that's the ticket.
That is why I am voting yes on A. I trust the electoral process, not the insiders you seem to know so well.
4:36 - that's the best you can come up with? I believe in the process. I also believe that when the process is flawed, you fix the process, not bypass it. What you have lost sight of is that government, good and bad, is "the people". Barth/Kranz/Shaffer are by far the most progressive bunch Encninitas is going to get, but becuase 1 project didn't go your way you're writing them off and want to prevent them from having any type of influence forever. So what are you going to do when a Prop A election doesn't go your way? Advocate anarchy?
11:19 is me - The Sculpin Why doesn't anyone (other than Fred) want to own their comments? You don't have to use your real name, just pick a moniker.....any moniker...
SCuplin I don't want a progressive or any other label, I want a local council that represents local residents. You want a regional special interest council that represents regional high density zoning. I also want fiscal stewardship and no more back room deals- the new council's voting record has been horrible and based on how they have voted thus far all 5 should be run out of office
Hi Sculpin- I read your post above about fixing the process, that is exactly what Prop A is about, fixing the process. Prop A takes control of local land-use away from insiders and special interest and regional governing body's and puts it in the hands of residents. Prop A fixes the process.
12:52 - nothing like imposing a binary (and false) choice. I do not want a regional special interest council that represents regional high density zoning. I want a council that will look at issues by weighing the benefits to the residents, the city, and the region. We are not an island, and we should not expect our representitives to act as if we do.
12:55 - I disagree. Prop A does not fix the process - it creates a brand new process that is fraught with uncertainty. Prop A will not guarantee that the character of Encinitas will remain the same over the years to come. I remember a similar argument was used for term limits. While it was successful in limiting how long someone stays in a particular office it was not successful in maintaining institutional memory - that was transferred to the special interests - and it certainly did not rid us of career politicians.
I'm a prime example. I was raised in upper middle class areas, yet never got an allowence, sewed all my own clothes in high school, and started working at 18, and did odd jobs at 15 years old. My parents gave me nothing. I inherited a house and came to Encinitas with exacly $28,000. My husband and I bought a home for $100,000- a run down, weed infested fixer upper that stayed that way for quite a while because we had no extra money. We had one car, an old one, used, and I walked and rode a bike for 6 years. We went without so we could live here. We finally paid off our home 13 years ago. We lived paycheck to paycheck. Currently, we do not have cable, cel phones, bottled water, or any debt of any kind. I have this computer, (over 11 years old), because the nature of my work demanded it. We live within our means. Now I'm being asked to welcome 1500 (or more) homes in Encinitas. I'm not buying the bullshit that we're "helping" those less fortunate than oursleves. I know what the average credit card debt of households are. It's people who cannot control their spending. I have no pity for those people, and if you cannot afford to live in Encinitas, go somewhere else. I'm also not buying the bullshit that affordable housing will "help people". It will help one class: The already wealthy land owners and developers. Look who is against Prop A. I rest my case.
I certainly understand your dilemma. I came here in 1983 and rented the house I now own. It was 3 bedrooms so I got roommates. I bought it a year later. When I was through with everything I had $27.00 left to my name. When I got married, my husband and his 2 children moved into my home with me. The kids are in their 30's now and in no way could afford to live in Encinitas. I have never taken any form of a government handout, and have never sued anyone to make a lot of money. I think low income housing has its place, but I wonder why it has to be at the beach? It took a lot of us a long time to live at the beach, and there is only so many homes located in any beach community. Maybe one has to start in East County, save and move to the Coast. Perhaps low income should be for places less desirable? I don't have an answer, but in my opinion it doesn't seem quite right that the government should mandate low income housing. But, since it does, we need to fight it at the State level, not locally, as I also do not want to spend taxpayer money on any more lawsuits. So, once again I am undecided, as I do not know the law well enough to know if this will happen.
10:12 years ago lawyers representing developers got together with lawyers representing the social engineers who believe it is the role of government to provide affordable housing. The for profit developers then backed for profit candidates and the social engineers backed social justice candidates. They then wrote state density bonus laws for residential housing that trumps any local control for citizens and rewards builders with more profits to build more housing, it contained however loopholes like letting the builder buy out of the so called affordable units. The result has been outrage by residents up and down the state- Marin County, Contra Costa County, right here in North County Del Mar with Prop J, the recent upzoning lawsuit in Oceanside, Carmell Valley and One Paseo and Encinitas- all the result of upzoning problems.
Next add the national effort to promote so called equality and justice programs that take from one and give to another. Someone here posted about a group called Building One America and their agenda to "end the suburbs" I looked them up online and went through 3 google pages for info- these guys are trying to end local city councils by transferring power to regional agency's like SANDAG and others, across the country. So there is all this cookie cutter me too high density housing going on under the guise of the environment and sustainability- but look at the Pacific Station building, weather you like it or not ask yourself if it was good for the environment? After all, most people drive there, that means the 3 story underground parking is full all day as cars go in an out- it's not a local market it is a me too big box retailer, then think about the high density apartments of 450 sq ft, 44 of them that have 2 car parking- that is another 88 cars coming in and out of, and up down roads we can't now afford-
In Encinitas the council wants to upzone commercial property for residential use, this means the state and the lawyers would have the final say and not the residents.
Voting Yes on A means residents decide their future not the state. Yes on A means you get the right to decide your future. Vote yes on A. There is a reason developers have spent 100K to defeat, they want our quality of life.
I appreciate Anon 10:35's story. I know a lot of people in Encinitas who would not be able to buy a house at today's prices.
The Encinitas staff and our Council of social experimentalists think that people lie 10:35 are rich and that she shouldn't mind having her quality of life that she has saved and worked hard to create degraded by putting high density housing in her neighborhood. Why do I say this, because the entire city is up for grabs.
The resons that people feel betrayed is that our new Council Majority ran on a platform of respecting community character. We also have participated in various community outreach programs that our own staff is unable to interpret. Most Encinitas residents don't want to change anything except for the City Manager, the Council, and the staff. Regarding the current zoning and the city itself--leave it alone. Enough damage has already happened.
The platform Lisa and Tony should have run on had they been more honest should have been "I want housing affordable to the point that my kids could move here." How many votes would that have gotten them, though? Many of us have heard them say that, and wonder why they think we care whether their kids can move here??
What is this about Shaffer and Kranz saying they want affordable housing . For their kids? That's crazy, can't their kids go out and earn it like therest of us? How arrogant to think they knpw best. The more I know the less I like . I mean up zones for their lawywr friend over safety, now this.
I heard Kranz and Shaffer express this sentiment about wanting to have affordable housing to move their own kids out of their houses a number of times. I had thought that it was a joke--but the joke is on them.
There ARE no remaining housing assistance programs to speak of. Also, how corrupt does it sound for them to support low-income housing so that they can help secure government benefits for their own children? I hope that is not what they were suggesting. If they were, it is in league with a former mayor who got a free kitchen upgrade for voting to let somebody steal a piece of City property!
Geesh. The "stolen city property" was in place prior to the party buying the property. (stones on the ground) The current owner of the propery made it a beautiful and small planter where people could sit, rest and enjoy. The 3' wide area in no way impeeded traffic; looked great. It was a welcome improvement by neighboring residents. The free kitchen wasn't free, but low cost scratch and dent items that are not sellable at retail costs - but still work fine. The entire council should have voted in favor of keeping the planter and plants, but they did not. Instead it became a political war, villifying a good neighbor. The small attractive planter of course was destroyed. Instead the neighborhood now gets a blank wall that butts up against asphalt. In no way was it a bribe, but one of many locals who benefited from shopping at that one store (including me - someone who would rather eat a bug than be a council member or believe there were ulterior motives.)
Were these tags produced by young people like Mayor Barth has said would like to live in high density housing, like Pacific Station?
ReplyDeleteNo I think it came from those who benefitted from state mandated affordable housing, now the quality of life of all the long term residents who worked hard to live in a small town get the Barth Gaspar Muir Shafferoffer social engineering project......oh well!
ReplyDeleteWow! Posters swing from the left to the right on this board more easily than a Harry Reams movie!!!! People who can afford Pacific Station don't tag. To blame "state mandated affordable housing" is racist at best, vile at worst. There's been tagging in Enci long before any state mandated anything - political opportunism at its worst 8:28.
ReplyDelete- The Sculpin
Alinsky was big on calling those with opposing views racist. For instance if you want to protect your property rights, quality of life life, tax base, schhol district and believe it is not the job of ggovernment to take from one family to benefit another then some call you a racist . They are the affordable housing bullies trying to intimidate in the name of profits for a few at the expense of your ffamily.
DeleteScuplin calling someone a racist becuase they oppose bogus so called affordable housing laws that only help developers make money is really pathetic. The deve.opers buy out the affordable and will it their families for 20 years, or they just make a payment to the city and don't build a unit. and who decides who does or does not get to live at the beach...?// does gasapr and muir say this family gets to live at the beach and this one doesn't:? I even herad the high density lawyer Marco Gonzalez wanted the developer he represented to pay the in liu fee, and then Marco's sister Lorena running for assembly is out organizing by promoting so called affordable housing and social engineering as a way the get elected. I am glad people are waking up to learn the truly intolerant people are the environmental bullies ahd socilal justice know it alls..............they are in it for themselves and thier clients
Delete9:22 - stop it with the Alinsky crap. If I said the sun was coming up tomorrow you would respond that it would be clasic rule 32F in his communist manifesto or some such nonsense....you've beaten that horse beyond death...move on...
Delete10:46 - I'm not getting your point. Are you saying taggers are developers? How does a developer making an in lieu payment result in tagging? The affordable unit never gets built!?!?!? What 8:28 was implying is the type of people who live in affordable housing lack morals and common decency and will run amok and tag. This is a very broad brush, and can be viewed as racist since "we all know what kind of people" live in affordable housing. Honestly, if this is your comment, you certainly did not vote for Barth or Kranz. You must have been a Stocks supporter until he burned you.
Oops! 11:31 post is mine - The Sculpin
DeleteSculpin,
DeleteThe people behind this type graffiti in encinitas come from million dollar homes. So they could easily live in pacific station if they desired. Get real our gangsters are rich spoiled children that think it is cool to tag our community.
6:12- There have always been juvenile lawbreakers, but this tagging often has gang affiliations connected with them, which of course often have drug affilations. There is no denying that since the high density housing project Pacific Station went in and that there are more bars downtown crime and violence in Encinitas has gone up. This tagging in my eyes is not the result of an artists but gang members- this is the new community character brought about by the social justice police who force policies on unsuspecting communities and a decaying US culture that promotes the violence, sex and disregard for human life and decency in music videos, films and tv. Just my 2 cents- I will be voting yes on A
DeleteSculpin- Thank you for sharing with us what 8:28 was "implying". We are all so dumbed down we can no longer think ourselves. Thank you for thinking for us. I am also glad that you shared with us who did or did not vote for various candidates. Also 10:46 never said an in liu payment resulted in tagging but thank you for sharing with the rest of us what 10:46 actually said, as 10:46 never wrote that I would have missed it without you pointing out what is not there. We are so lucky to have the thought police explain things to us - kind of like Morgan Freeman explaining things in Batman (my comments are satire to make a point)
DeleteWhy do you not want people to know who that Alinsky guy is? seems to have hit a nerve with you.
Sclupin- the people who got "burned" as you say are the ones who trusted Barth, Shaffer and krantz to protect today's community character and quality of life. After being elected the 3 have turned on the residents who supported them and sided with city manager Vina, Sabine and the out of town deep pocketed developers to defeat Prop A. These are the facts- I am one of the burned
DeleteHmmmm and all that pacific station inscreased density under the name of affordability, and according to Sculpin they are tough to afford, so confusing, government gives to one, takes from another, and the social engineering project continues.
ReplyDeleteThe government has always given to one and taken from another, going back to 1776 - you can't pick and choose - get over it.
DeleteThe Sculpin
Yes, Sculpin. That's why sensible people want to limit government's power with measures like the Bill of Rights and Prop A.
Delete11:38 Can't pick and choose? See Solyndra, See Desert Rose- government took $500M from taxpayers for a bankrupt 'Green' company that was about putting 'Green money' in the hands of so called kleptocrats that were not only investors in the company but also campaign donors to the Administration
DeleteDesert Rose- government took the rural quality of life from residents and gave for profit density increases to a developer who's attorney is rumored to have been a campaign donor to council members.
Is it any wonder residents are demanding the right to vote?
Sculpin/Loser,
ReplyDeleteHow is blaming State affordable housing considered a Racist or Vile Comment.
State housing programs are completely bad for neighborhoods. All State welfare programs are bad for the community and the individuals in the community.
Incentivizing slacking is about the stupidest think a government can do. The stupidest think is to allow the welfare recipients to reproduce.
Yea, and you were really bummed when Romney lost...you and Rove......complete surprise.
DeleteThe Sculpin
Dear 9:17.
DeleteIt can only help you in like if you were to come to grips of the reality that you are, and neen not be, a racist, elitest, ignorant dick.
You cad do better.
I don't think there's anything vile or racist about questioning a system that creates multi-generational welfare dependency.
DeleteSeems to me not questioning such a system is vile and potentially racist.
Sculpin has no argument about the failed policies of high density housing that destroys community character so by calling people racists or invoking an Us versus Them republican/Democrat ruse he hopes people won't notice he has no facts.
DeleteFacts on why high density housing that takes rights from residents and gives new rights to for profit developers and so called state social justice programs would be appreciated - do you have any?
And you welfare loving losers, will always be losers.
DeleteI know it and you know it in your own mind.
I agree that questioning a system that make you a dependent is vile, but you probably don't understand the pleasures of freedom. You think pleasure comes from handouts. I pity your souls and you know should try and learn about liberty and freedom and peace within that it brings.
When caught garnish their wages for ever for all the tags they've done over the years.
ReplyDelete11:33 and7:49 What does Romeny or Rove have to do with the proposed high density upzoning in Encinitas? This high density myth being forced on residents is the result of developers seeking profits, social engineers who think they know better than everyone else what we need, organizations like building one America (I had never heard of them until someone at this blog posted it) who truly do believe the suburbs are racist and that they, Building One America need 'policies' to promote 'equality' that actually takes the hard earned quality of life from one family and gives it to another- check out the story about education redistribution in Minnesota St Paul- it is true.
ReplyDeleteAll of this happened at Desert Rose in Encinitas- the developer argued they were entitled to density increase under state law, the social engineers helped write the law, the developers wrote the law, our elected leaders ignored resident safety and sided with the developer and the social engineers saying we need affordable housing, now the developer is suggestion paying an in lieu fee and not building the so called affordable unit-
You are attempting to bully, intimidate and silence those speaking out by calling them 'racists' (that alinsky guy actually did write about this, I checked it out) while it is the policies of the social engineers that are racist.
Any council policy that takes the quality of life from one family and gives that to another is ethically and morally bankrupt.
The elected elites in Encinitas would prefer the public not know the truth or look deeply at their policies- but we are, and we are telling our neighbors and friends. There is a reason Social engineers like Barth and Shaffer have joined with profiteers like Gaspar and Muir- it's called money and power at the expense of the community. Both sides want to keep it and they are equally complicit in their campaign of deception against the public.
and who paid the price for all this government crookedness? The residents who worked hard, saved money, paid taxes, and bought homes because of rural zoning only to later learn the social engineers like Barth and Shaffer, and the profiteers like Muir and Gaspar, all sided with the high density lawyer to take from one family so another could profit-
Barth, Shaffer and Gonazlez are likely so called democrats and social engineers who want to force on us what they think we need. Gaspar, Muir, Stocks are so called republicans who write laws so their campaign donors make profits-
Why did that group from Chicago home of Building One America send the most contributions to oppose A?
Vote yes on A.
So you live in Olivenhain! We’re neighbors! With an assessment like that I don’t know what you do next. It seems you’ve been cornered on all sides, burned by everyone, trusting no one. Prop A will do nothing to alleviate this because you are only 1 vote. If the developers are as powerful as you claim, they will most likely win whatever election they desire – not every one – but enough to change the character of the neighborhood as you know it. The social engineers are a different lot. They are not concerned with today; they are concerned with tomorrow, and 10 or 20 years out. What do we need to do today to make sure the city will continue to do well in the future? This is anathema to today’s residents who like it just the way it is. This is why I’m voting against Prop A. Not because I’m a greedy developer, a “run amok” racist social engineer, or a NIMBY. I believe in the process, the professionals, the players, the council and staff to all act in their own competing self-interests, and through that tension it all works out. I also don’t believe in ballot box zoning. Long term it stops a city cold. It’s messy, it doesn’t always give you the result you want, but it’s the right way to go. On another note – Dove Hollow Equestrian Center is for sale for $10M. It sits on 5 acres and is permitted for commercial activity. Assuming that the property is not zoned similarly as its neighbors, would Prop A require a vote if a “greedy developer” wanted to raze the facilities and build homes on the site? I realize this is theoretical because no one would pay $10m for 2 home sites.
DeleteThe Sculpin
Sculpin,I respectfully disagree with you that there is a tension between developers, the council, and the so-called 'professionals' in upzoning our city. I have seen over and over that they give applicants anything that they want. The City and Council benefit because they get short-term windfalls for upzoning.
DeleteThat is why I and all of my friends are voting YES on A. It allows for citizens to decide if there is an actual public benefit for going outside of the requirements of our General Plan. If you want to build and not pay for an election, it is simple. Follow the zoning and other requirements of the General Plan.
Sclupin- I know exactly what I will do and that is vote yes on A. Voting yes on A means the residents will have the power to determine our future community and quality of life.
DeleteVoting A means I will not have to rely on social engineers who want to take from one family and give to another- I can rely on myself.
Voting yes means I won't have to rely on incompetent city staff who are in bed with developers- I can rely on myself.
Voting yes means I won't have to rely on a city council that is backed by big developer money like the Gaspars, Muir', Ecke's and Meyers- I can rely on myself. Or the social justice police in Shaffer and regional trendsetter Barth
Voting Yes means I won't have to rely on incestuous insiders like lawyers I can rely on myself-
Who opposes A and doesn't want people to have the right to vote? Of course people who support social engineering and think they should take the rights of one family and give them to another don't want people to have a right to vote on A. Other people who want developer profits want the insider process at city hall, not the democratic process, hey why would they want to give up a good thing. This is who they are so own it.
Maybe they are getting a big fat pension like Muir's 170K and need to find a way to fleece taxpayers to keep paying it, or maybe they are hoping to sell out of the farm their parents worked so hard to leave them because they don't have the can do work ethic dad did- they have gone soft.
I suspect people looking for profits, fat pensions or social engineering scientists would take a 5 acre cre farm ad change the zoning without a vote of the people to to allow 45 units and acre and 225 homes, but with density bonus lets throw on a 100% increase from the state making 450 homes and call it a regional high density affordable housing transit center - Hey, that's the ticket.
That is why I am voting yes on A. I trust the electoral process, not the insiders you seem to know so well.
Interesting post Scuplin, it seems you believe in all the insiders and government and not the people, I think they have a word for that.
Delete4:36 - that's the best you can come up with? I believe in the process. I also believe that when the process is flawed, you fix the process, not bypass it. What you have lost sight of is that government, good and bad, is "the people". Barth/Kranz/Shaffer are by far the most progressive bunch Encninitas is going to get, but becuase 1 project didn't go your way you're writing them off and want to prevent them from having any type of influence forever. So what are you going to do when a Prop A election doesn't go your way? Advocate anarchy?
Delete11:19 is me - The Sculpin
DeleteWhy doesn't anyone (other than Fred) want to own their comments? You don't have to use your real name, just pick a moniker.....any moniker...
SCuplin I don't want a progressive or any other label, I want a local council that represents local residents. You want a regional special interest council that represents regional high density zoning. I also want fiscal stewardship and no more back room deals- the new council's voting record has been horrible and based on how they have voted thus far all 5 should be run out of office
DeleteHi Sculpin- I read your post above about fixing the process, that is exactly what Prop A is about, fixing the process. Prop A takes control of local land-use away from insiders and special interest and regional governing body's and puts it in the hands of residents. Prop A fixes the process.
Delete12:52 - nothing like imposing a binary (and false) choice. I do not want a regional special interest council that represents regional high density zoning. I want a council that will look at issues by weighing the benefits to the residents, the city, and the region. We are not an island, and we should not expect our representitives to act as if we do.
Delete12:55 - I disagree. Prop A does not fix the process - it creates a brand new process that is fraught with uncertainty. Prop A will not guarantee that the character of Encinitas will remain the same over the years to come. I remember a similar argument was used for term limits. While it was successful in limiting how long someone stays in a particular office it was not successful in maintaining institutional memory - that was transferred to the special interests - and it certainly did not rid us of career politicians.
12:55 YOU SAY YOU WANT TO FIX THE PROCESS BUT THEN YOU RECOMMEND STAYING WITH THE EXISTING PROCESS SORRY FOR THE CAps my keyboard is stuck
DeleteI'm a prime example. I was raised in upper middle class areas, yet never got an allowence, sewed all my own clothes in high school, and started working at 18, and did odd jobs at 15 years old. My parents gave me nothing. I inherited a house and came to Encinitas with exacly $28,000. My husband and I bought a home for $100,000- a run down, weed infested fixer upper that stayed that way for quite a while because we had no extra money. We had one car, an old one, used, and I walked and rode a bike for 6 years. We went without so we could live here. We finally paid off our home 13 years ago. We lived paycheck to paycheck. Currently, we do not have cable, cel phones, bottled water, or any debt of any kind. I have this computer, (over 11 years old), because the nature of my work demanded it. We live within our means. Now I'm being asked to welcome 1500 (or more) homes in Encinitas. I'm not buying the bullshit that we're "helping" those less fortunate than oursleves. I know what the average credit card debt of households are. It's people who cannot control their spending. I have no pity for those people, and if you cannot afford to live in Encinitas, go somewhere else. I'm also not buying the bullshit that affordable housing will "help people". It will help one class: The already wealthy land owners and developers. Look who is against Prop A. I rest my case.
ReplyDeleteI certainly understand your dilemma. I came here in 1983 and rented the house I now own. It was 3 bedrooms so I got roommates. I bought it a year later. When I was through with everything I had $27.00 left to my name. When I got married, my husband and his 2 children moved into my home with me. The kids are in their 30's now and in no way could afford to live in Encinitas. I have never taken any form of a government handout, and have never sued anyone to make a lot of money. I think low income housing has its place, but I wonder why it has to be at the beach? It took a lot of us a long time to live at the beach, and there is only so many homes located in any beach community. Maybe one has to start in East County, save and move to the Coast. Perhaps low income should be for places less desirable? I don't have an answer, but in my opinion it doesn't seem quite right that the government should mandate low income housing. But, since it does, we need to fight it at the State level, not locally, as I also do not want to spend taxpayer money on any more lawsuits. So, once again I am undecided, as I do not know the law well enough to know if this will happen.
Delete10:12 years ago lawyers representing developers got together with lawyers representing the social engineers who believe it is the role of government to provide affordable housing. The for profit developers then backed for profit candidates and the social engineers backed social justice candidates. They then wrote state density bonus laws for residential housing that trumps any local control for citizens and rewards builders with more profits to build more housing, it contained however loopholes like letting the builder buy out of the so called affordable units. The result has been outrage by residents up and down the state- Marin County, Contra Costa County, right here in North County Del Mar with Prop J, the recent upzoning lawsuit in Oceanside, Carmell Valley and One Paseo and Encinitas- all the result of upzoning problems.
DeleteNext add the national effort to promote so called equality and justice programs that take from one and give to another. Someone here posted about a group called Building One America and their agenda to "end the suburbs" I looked them up online and went through 3 google pages for info- these guys are trying to end local city councils by transferring power to regional agency's like SANDAG and others, across the country. So there is all this cookie cutter me too high density housing going on under the guise of the environment and sustainability- but look at the Pacific Station building, weather you like it or not ask yourself if it was good for the environment? After all, most people drive there, that means the 3 story underground parking is full all day as cars go in an out- it's not a local market it is a me too big box retailer, then think about the high density apartments of 450 sq ft, 44 of them that have 2 car parking- that is another 88 cars coming in and out of, and up down roads we can't now afford-
In Encinitas the council wants to upzone commercial property for residential use, this means the state and the lawyers would have the final say and not the residents.
Voting Yes on A means residents decide their future not the state. Yes on A means you get the right to decide your future. Vote yes on A. There is a reason developers have spent 100K to defeat, they want our quality of life.
I appreciate Anon 10:35's story. I know a lot of people in Encinitas who would not be able to buy a house at today's prices.
ReplyDeleteThe Encinitas staff and our Council of social experimentalists think that people lie 10:35 are rich and that she shouldn't mind having her quality of life that she has saved and worked hard to create degraded by putting high density housing in her neighborhood. Why do I say this, because the entire city is up for grabs.
The resons that people feel betrayed is that our new Council Majority ran on a platform of respecting community character. We also have participated in various community outreach programs that our own staff is unable to interpret. Most Encinitas residents don't want to change anything except for the City Manager, the Council, and the staff. Regarding the current zoning and the city itself--leave it alone. Enough damage has already happened.
The platform Lisa and Tony should have run on had they been more honest should have been "I want housing affordable to the point that my kids could move here." How many votes would that have gotten them, though? Many of us have heard them say that, and wonder why they think we care whether their kids can move here??
ReplyDeleteAffordable housing programs ruin community and people.
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing good about handouts. I robs a person of their soul and make their mind a dependent of the Man forever.
What is this about Shaffer and Kranz saying they want affordable housing . For their kids? That's crazy, can't their kids go out and earn it like therest of us? How arrogant to think they knpw best. The more I know the less I like . I mean up zones for their lawywr friend over safety, now this.
ReplyDeleteMany people of their generation have expressed similar sentiments, that it is sad that middle-class kids can't afford to buy a house in Encinitas.
DeleteIt's a legitimate sentiment, and it is sad.
But turning Encinitas into Manhattan Beach will not solve anything. Have you seen the prices in Manhattan Beach?
I heard Kranz and Shaffer express this sentiment about wanting to have affordable housing to move their own kids out of their houses a number of times. I had thought that it was a joke--but the joke is on them.
DeleteThere ARE no remaining housing assistance programs to speak of. Also, how corrupt does it sound for them to support low-income housing so that they can help secure government benefits for their own children? I hope that is not what they were suggesting. If they were, it is in league with a former mayor who got a free kitchen upgrade for voting to let somebody steal a piece of City property!
Geesh. The "stolen city property" was in place prior to the party buying the property. (stones on the ground) The current owner of the propery made it a beautiful and small planter where people could sit, rest and enjoy. The 3' wide area in no way impeeded traffic; looked great. It was a welcome improvement by neighboring residents. The free kitchen wasn't free, but low cost scratch and dent items that are not sellable at retail costs - but still work fine. The entire council should have voted in favor of keeping the planter and plants, but they did not. Instead it became a political war, villifying a good neighbor. The small attractive planter of course was destroyed. Instead the neighborhood now gets a blank wall that butts up against asphalt. In no way was it a bribe, but one of many locals who benefited from shopping at that one store (including me - someone who would rather eat a bug than be a council member or believe there were ulterior motives.)
ReplyDeleteAlways love your posts Fred.
ReplyDelete