Here is a letter to the coastal commission from the City of Encinitas (click link). Prop A people say this doesn't make the council look good.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1wJWJxfrtmTZUtZOGNmc3YzQ0k/edit?usp=sharing
I don't really have time to digest this, but here is my immediate reaction (besides... that's no surprise).
Does the letter mean the city won't be broken into 2 planning regions, as we were warned about? I think it means the city WON'T be bifurcated. Hum...
And what does this mean?
As suggested, in cases where existing codes specify a different maximum height standard, the more restrictive standard will be applied. For example, certain structures are limited to a maximum height of 22 and 26 feet in our Zoning Ordinance and certain specific plans. These more restrictive standards shall apply.Does that mean I can't build a 30 foot accessory unit? The council wrote to every voter in Encinitas, "Imagine a 30-foot structure five feet from your property line [if Prop A passes.]"
Doug Long wrote that heights limits would be raised in residential neighborhoods if it passed. Of course, this sort of statement was an obvious and predicted result of the way the council proceeded with THEIR "independent" analysis and public statements they made about the negative parts of Prop A. To their discredit, the council wrote a signed statement that the heights could be raised. They did not say how that could happen, nor did their "independent" report. ALL FIVE signed on.
Did the council want the public to be misinformed? When Doug wrote his commentary in Coast News I emailed the mayor letting her know about how her statements had predictably evolved in the public debate. I had hoped she would make a statement that addressed this, as the council clearly was responsible for promoting this thinking. She emailed back saying she would not even comment on the issue (an issue she facilitated). She comments on lots of stuff all the time, but not on this.
If the council made a false statement in the ballot argument they could be sued, but wishy washy "coulds" can be spread without support (the public has to rely on their trust of the council). Had the council explained their statement or said it "would" increase heights then they would have been sued, and they would have lost. In that case they would have had to fight Prop A with legitimate concerns about Prop A (which were less scary to a majority and so would make winning less likely for the council). More on addressing legitimate concerns later.
The council avoided resolving contrived or real ambiguities, prior to the election. The did not want to put in the effort. Why? It turned out that it was better for their campaign now that there can be no more "coulds", assuming this letter is real. Prop A doesn't do all those scary things, apparently.
Several council members directly resisted having these issues clarified PRIOR to the vote (more later, I'll have to review emails). Some of the resistance was based on "the issue being too complex" and a court would have to decide explanation. I made the point that first the city would have to decide, BEFORE a court would ever hear it, so why not resolve things PRIOR to the vote, so the people would have good facts to work with? No good answers came for that, other than it will take some time, from one council member. Well, how much effort was put into making the decision to support the paragraph above (were there really any viable options)?
If it were so convoluted and difficult to figure out (was it?) why wasn't that deliberation and decision made in the public, especially if it took some judgement or put the city at risk?
Barth was recently asked via email why they didn't resolve these "issues" prior to the vote. She has not responded.
It appears to have been "decided" easily by staff without new legal assistance or review by the city council!
This is all assuming I am reading the paragraph from the letter correctly (gotta work).
The (genuine) worst parts of Prop A didn't get pumped up by the council because a lot of people would have actually said, heck I like that! Or said, "if that is the worst part, I'm all in!"
Most of the council's statement could not withstand scrutiny and that might explain why the Mayor Barth wanted to avoid discussing her reasons for opposing "The Right to Vote Initiative". She went so far as to imply that she was afraid it would be illegal for her to exercise her free speech rights (which she knows), as an obvious and terrible weak way to deflect questions about her reasoning behind her opposition.
It is one thing to disagree. Its another to thing when our leaders don't play fair.
Was this the fair play that the Mayor promised?
Sure, lets all move forward (like there is any alternative), but lets take stock of what has happened and figure out how not to make the mistakes were made during Prop A. What went down during Prop A needs to be reconciled and behaviors changed if the current council majority doesn't want to end up Guerinating.
Later, a discussion of the statements Pro A made about property rights.
At the Leucadia Town Council Membership Meeting / Prop A debate, Bruce Ehlers made it very clear that Prop A would not raise existing height restrictions. Dr. Lorri and I spoke about that beforehand and of course she was told differently and to vote no on A. Cardiffians were especially stirred with the rumor that Prop A would automatically raise all shorter heights allowed within the whole city up to 30 feet. First reading looks to me like Gus or Jeff did a good job of presenting the truth about Prop A - that they understood it would not raise existing heights.
ReplyDeleteBut back to Bruce, were you at the LTC debate WC? I thought there should have been many more of them, especially sponsored by our business groups, but LTC had the only one I know of.
"Especially stirred" in Cardiff, because guess what council member lives there? Give you one guess: the mayor, that's who.
Deletevina-barth made sure there were few debates. Barth looked bad every time Ehlers spoke. She doesn't like looking bad.
DeleteThank you Fred for letting me know the truth beforehand. I had emailed Bruce, but maybe he didn't have the time to respond. After we spoke, I did vote YES. Yes, the height limits were important to many of us in Cardiff, as many of us were told that the 22'flat and 26' pitched roofs which are in the General Plan, could go as high as 30 feet. Thanks again for all of the helpful information you have given me over the years. I truly appreciate it.
DeleteThanks for calling me about it, Doctor. And I actually think Gus' or Jeff's paragraph in the letter made this issue clearer that it was on the proposition itself.
DeleteIt was not explicit in the proposition, because it wasn't seen as necessary from implementation standpoint. However, it was a mistake not to have run it by the public and staff prior to circulation so that BS dust couldn't kicked up as an election ploy.
DeleteThe LTC had a debate because they don't get moolah from the city. Everyone else was afraid their knee pads would be taken from them, including The Beloved 101 Leucadia Mainstreet Ass. (no pun intended)
ReplyDeleteTeresa had promised a League of Women Voters debate, but that went nowhere, due to supposed scheduling difficulties. Sadly, after voting for her twice, I find she is on the side of developers, lies, and (worst of all) all things Vina. She has proven herself to be completely untrustworthy.
ReplyDeleteI agree....
DeleteHer biggest mistake to date has been supporting Sad Sac.
Even after his sports complex raiding of the city coffers and suggesting an active opposition to Prop A. All in the name of hire densities and taxes for pensions.
The reality is with Prop A passing our biggest revenue source will go up, property sales tax. Prop A is great for property values and hence good for property tax revenues.
Sad Sac is an idiot and Barth is not wise for backing that fool. He sure pulled the wool over her eyes. Sheeze.
And were are Lisa and Tony on the Sad Sac issue. Man- Muir and Gaspar must be cracking up in side. 8 months in and the City Council has yet to accomplish anything.
Oh I forgot. They did, Sad Sac is 8 months closer to retirement and pulling in over $200k a year for many years of crappy service to the public sector. Ask Stockton or Sacramento or California how their finances are doing. Are we sure he wasn't a manager with San Bernadino or Detroit? The fit the pattern.
This latest development only confirms that each of the council members is in over his/her head to be able to lead the city. To be so wrong on the details of Prop A implementation is astounding. Was it so hard to sort through the initiative's language? The city staff sure seems able to do it now, after the election. The five council members obviously can't handle their responsibilities to understand the issues, and make straightforward decisions. What next are they going to get so wrong?
DeleteProp A is over it is being implemented YOU ARE VERY SORE WINNERS!!!!!
ReplyDeleteGet over your self. DO YOU HAVE SOMTHING POSITIVE TO CONTRIBUTE. I think not
Yes, the right to vote. You are welcome.
DeleteI don't feel like a winner at all. Prop A wasn't even my horse in the race and I didn't like the property rights impact (in practical terms) of the height limit. I would have voted no if I could trust that the Mayor was going to replace Prop A with something substantial.
DeleteAssume you are Stocks, Andreen, Crawford, a developer, or a four-headed combination of all of the above. It is ONLY today, per this email, that we have final closure on the implementation of A. Opponents until this moment have very much been keeping the "bifurcation" lie alive.
ReplyDeleteNow Prop A is over. Pretending that the Mayor was honorable dooms the public to trust her next time.
DeleteIt is not completely over. Prop A will have impacts and should be reviewed and reflected upon as we go forward. This is a point where the council can't maintain their benefit of doubt from people. What they built up in the campaign is not what is happening.
DeleteCoastal legal has not signed of on prop A Staff is saying this and legal is saying
ReplyDeleteThat.Nothing in writing yet. Your guess is as good as mine
Are you saying that the coastal commission might tell the city they have to bifurcate or raise residential heights?
DeleteHasn't the city been in phone conferences with the CC before they sent the letter?
And the lie continues...Murphy is being advised by legal counsel on his letter. Let go of the bone, dude.
ReplyDeletedid you read the letter?
DeleteYes, and Sabine advised him.
DeleteYou must believe Barth's propaganda. Here are the facts directly from the City
Deletehttp://www.encinitasca.gov/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=3006
Barth, Tony, Lisa, Jerome, Long, Gaspar and Muir were the ones not being honest.
Barth was the one trying to hide the ball.
what lie?
DeleteTeresa Barth and Tony Kranz and Lisa Shaffer had all also committed, particularly Teresa and Tony, beginning in 2010, when we voted for both of them, then, to immediately passing a Sunshine Ordinance. That hasn't happened. I had asked for an open government commission or committee, or one on ethics, that could include those issues. That request has been repeatedly ignored, as well.
DeleteThe new "Community Outreach Specialist," is not necessary. Council and the City Manager already know what the public wants and requires. This new full time employee is there to solidify Gus Vina's excessive salary and his position directing his newly rebranded and newly hired "Cabinet Team," also with excessive salaries. To set a good example, if the City wants to save money and address the unfunded pension liability issue, all heads of department, all "executives" should take a 20% salary reduction. All the money they need for their escalating operating expenses cannot come from increasing fees or hoping for more and more sales and property taxes, by overdevelopment.
Kevin, from the ivory tower of academia your vision is perfect.Get down in the real world of legal counsel and I think it's called myopia.
ReplyDeleteThis has nothing to do with 'ivory tower' or academia. Kevin is an honest, ethical and forthright man who has donated thousands of hours to the betterment and protection of Encinitas.
DeleteOne does not have to be in academia to hold ethical values. Gus Vina, Glenn Sabine, the Council, and Encinitas Planning staff all have ethical codes of conduct and best practices in their own professions that judging by their recent conduct and job performance, they need to become acquainted with!
I don't work at a liberal arts college. I do work in an environment where everything you produce should be evidence based and justified, in writing. It is also a place where everything gets challenged and you have to explain your conclusions in the face of critique. I wish our council would recognize the benefit of having their thinking challenged and having to logically explain their decisions.
DeleteI made an effort with three council members to get explanations and support for their statement. It did not go well. The FAQ released yesterday should have been released before the election, and you don't need to go to college to figure that out. It is also not so difficult to see who benefited from keeping the public confused.
I've spent a lot of time with the statutes and case law. I've also seen two government counsels commit malpractice in an effort to run cover for elected officials. Lesson, don't defer to persons, defer to the law. If the lawyer is good she can lay out the law for everyone.
This has nothing to do with Kevin and everything to do with the council lying to residents and siding with big money against the very people they are supposed to represent.
ReplyDelete9:29, who are you that you're blaming the messenger??
I'am sorry did I hurt your feelings poor baby grow up this is the world of legal opinion and the court of law. AND I THINK YOU LIE. Just say in
ReplyDeleteCity hall insider paid to spread innuendo and misinformation? Just sayin'....
Deleteanon 10:11
DeleteWho lied about what?
Congratulations on your Prop A victory. Too bad it has doomed Leucadia to wild up zones voted in by the rest of the city in the future.
ReplyDeleteWild upzones...if voters say so, which I kind of doubt they will ;)
Deleteupzone requests still get reviewed by council. Now there is a backstop. No protections have been lost.
DeleteAll this does is make sure ALL potential projects in Leucadia and downtown will be Density Bonus projects: there are still about 14 housing element laws that are in conflict with Prop A, say hello to the State A.G. and furthermore, this guarantees a public hearing before the Coastal Commission. See you in Long Beach in 12 months.
DeleteAnd, Yes, did you attend any of the debates WC? And WHY does Lisa keep forwarding City correspondence to you?
My Andreen detector is beeping loudly on this last post. It has all the required indicators: A series of unsubstantiated claims designed to stir up fear, a boast of impending legal action, an accusation of subterfuge on the part of members of the council, and finally, a few uppercase conversational ploys designed to make you think he really has something to say.
DeleteThere is a record of the council saying those things. There is no record of the council acting to get the real facts to the public. The Mayor scared the public with "bifurcation" and "30 foot accessory units." The letter and FAQ is authentic and contradictory to the council's statements.
DeleteWho is it that attempts to turn reality around and induce fear? The letter shows that the Mayor does. There will be no bifurcation and no 30 food accessory units. Who was using the scare tactics?
Andreen and the Mayor were on the same side of Prop A.
And it was Muir who brought the 30' accessory unit scare to the ballot argument against Prop A with Shaffer by his side, in agreement.
DeleteThis is my second biggest concern about Prop A, but I'm really that concerned because Prop A doesn't specify any changes to the current way an upzone request is processed. The council still must approve it prior to going to the people for a final say.
DeleteNothing changes except there is one extra layer of public oversight. Besides most people didn't even know about the SP upzoning and had no idea who voted that into leucadia.
Oh and I forgot the one other negative of Prop A. Propzilla. The historic buildings in town are at risk now according to the poster presented by Dodie Tucker. I never understood that part, when I get some time I'll try to have a talk with Dodie about that and determine if a follow up initiative needs to be circulated to protect those structures.
DeleteDody is not a reliable source of anything, Kevin. You know folks you can trust for true and honest answers. Go to them.
DeleteKevin, those concerns about historic structures were more disingenuous arguments, AKA deceptions, designed to confuse and get people to vote NO out of fear. A major or minor use permit can be issued to allow one of the Boathouses to become a library, in a residential zone, as was promised when the Encinitas Preservation was set up through Peder Norby and Paul Ecke III.
DeleteNo further initiative needs to be circulated. Just as retail sales are allowed at museums and at the library, although they are not zoned for that. There are many alternatives, and it was a false argument that Prop A will in anyway "endanger" our historic structures.
DEMA did a great thing helping to preserve the boat houses. But to highlight in No on A literature that "if Prop A passed, one of the boathouses couldn't be a planned mini-museum without a public vote" was a bit of a stretch. That plan surfaced 6 years ago or more and was never acted upon. Even it if were ever realized, it would require a curator to be paid to give tours. I happened to speak with one lady who lives across the street from the boats and she's already is weary of tourists stopping all the time to take pics. The rumor of the museum was not well recieved by her. Doubt the other neighbors would appreciate a museum there either, parking is so scarce anymore. (As cool as it would be for anyone to be able to visit the tiny inside of one of them.)
DeleteOh, my mistake, I meant a museum, not a library. Someone on the Board of Directors for the EPA could set up a volunteer curator, or "revolving" curators, or our paid Arts Director could act as curator, as he does for the library. Part of the Escrow Agreement whereby the City paid into Escrow over $700,000 for the purchase of the Boathouses (more was added in, later, all through the affordable housing funds that developers pay into) was that one of the Boathouses would eventually be turned into a museum. There was no "deadline" placed on that condition of Escrow, however. The four affordable housing units would remain "affordable" in perpetuity.
DeleteThe EPA Boathouses Escrow went through in 2008. Two of the "converted garages" on this property, zoned for single family, without off-street parking, were not "legalized" through the city until 2012. I'm grateful that the Boathouses were preserved; the museum should happen, as promised. Donations to the EPA are tax deductible. The IRS Forms 990 are publicly disclosable. Peder Norby should answer the CPRA request that was forwarded to him by the City Clerk. The fact that he will no longer be a paid contractor for the City of Encinitas is irrelevant. He is still on the Board of Directors for the EPA along with Paul Ecke III and Doug Long, on the form 990 I could access online. Those forms are public documents.
They would be density bonus projects anyway...developers almost always ask for the bonus, Prop A or not. That is how they make it "pencil out."
ReplyDeleteProp A will help tremendously because the DB is based on the underlying zoning and unless a vote of the people raises that zoning, it will keep it to the current zoning and not what would surely have been much higher if the city determined there was a public benefit. And they would have, if history is a teacher.
Also, remember, the current "rule of law" is that the State cannot or will not force unfunded mandates on cities or other government entities, such as counties. That is why the City of Encinitas had to specifically pass an ordinance, or was it a resolution, upholding the Brown Act, although the State will no longer reimburse our city for noticing expenses.
DeletePotential lawsuits that have been threatened, are NOT from the State, as also admitted by Jeff Murphy at the last Council Meeting, when he confirmed we would not be making out "deadline" for a Housing Element, again. Murphy said we could be sued by housing advocates or developers. He listed a series of cities that had settled such lawsuits. What he FAILED to mention was the lawsuit, Henandez vs. City of Encinitas, from 1994: http://law.justia.com/cases/california/caapp4th/28/1048.html
That case set precedent. It was determined that Encinitas does not have to actually accomplish State "mandates," but can instead show potential for affordable housing units. The City prevailed. This case is also being pushed under the rug, and hidden from the public.
Accessory units or potential accessory units should count. In single family residential zone, one accessory unit is allowed by right, according to Encinitas Municipal Code. There should not have to be covenants on these properties, only the potential for affordable housing must be demonstrated.
With respect to Murphy and Vina's letter to the San Diego Regional Director, Deborah Lee, of course the City wanted to give Eric Stevens', who is our North County Staff Representative on the Coastal Commission, not the director, and not legal counsel, inordinate weight, because they wanted to put the blame on the Coastal Commission and the Voters for their disingenuous arguments against Prop A.
Importantly, Doug Long is not a public official. HIs wording, that height limits WOULD be raised, was taken directly from the NOT impartial analysis that City Attorney Glenn Sabine, through his further malpractice, placed on the ballot. Sabine took Joel Kuperberg's incorrect speculation and conjecture, through Rutan & Tucker, that height limits "could be construed to be raised" to the level of an OUTRIGHT LIE.
Sabine has repeatedly given dreadful legal advice to Council. But they have wanted to believe their own lies and by ignoring the truth, which was explained to them many times, by experts and informed community members, they chose ignorance and deception over honesty and integrity. Unfortunately, as was pointed out at the Council Meeting, Teresa Barth did, prior to the General Election in 2012, allow many to think she supported "the public's right to vote," and that she endorsed Lisa Shaffer's and Tony Kranz' signing of the petition to qualify the right to vote initiative for the ballot.
More deception. When Prop A passed, despite Council's "best" efforts to quash it, untruths supported by staff, and the city's sponsors/subsidiaries, Leucadia 101 Mainstreet Association, DEMA and the Encinitas Preservation Association, and more, then Council and staff tried to justify their terrible decisions and deceptions by saying, see, the Coastal Commission is trouble. They wanted a scapegoat; but it didn't work!
Prop A people AKA. TEA BAGGERS
ReplyDeletePeople from all political backgrounds supported Prop A. What we have in common is to try to preserve what is left of Encinitas!
DeleteEncinitas has a Tea Bag Majority?
DeleteYeah, who knew?
Deleteinteresting.
DeleteLet's hear all about it from the city itself: http://www.encinitasca.gov/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=3006
ReplyDeleteI just got that in my inbox from the Mayor, directly to me. No direct answers, just that stuff. She did not answer my questions about the process that led up to the decisions reflected in the FAQ, why she didn't have them resolved prior to the election, and how it is that she could call the Rutan report "independent".
DeleteWe (taxpayers) paid for that so-called analysis from Rutan that offered only a collection of maybes, coulds, and potentiallys to the tune of $50K. The city then turned that piece of hypotheticals into definites. So far, all going according to plan.
DeleteThe council, with developers doing their dirty work for them against Prop A, never thought it would pass. That's where their plan went off the tracks. After weeks of dithering and looking for a way out they're left with the truth, finally posted on the city website. Don't hold your breath though for any acknowledgement that they just wasted $50K of our money.
Fire Jeff Murphy and the rest of the top tier in the Planning Department. Their recommendations are ALWAYS wrong.
ReplyDeleteThis one department has done more damage to the reputation of Encinitas staff than any other.
Isn't he in his probationary period?
DeleteDon't be fooled: Murphy is the tail wagged by the dog that includes ALL five council members, Vina, and Sabine. The entire crew needs to go and yes, take the planning department with them. Most in planning are a disgraceful bunch of liars and connivers who were schooled under Stocks and the "other" Murphy.
Delete1:20 you couldn't be more correct. All of Encinitas is getting played by dysfunctional greedy leadership.
DeleteThrow the bums out. Throw the bums out.
DeleteBLAH BLAH BLAH PROP A IS OVER,REMEMBER YOU WON. Now we the city
ReplyDeletemust face the realty good or bad There will be booth move on this is not a one issue
town. TEA BAGGERS or is it hypocrites.
Got anger?
DeleteYou bet this city is not a one issue city. I'm sorry but I am betting that the current council does not take on the major issues in front of us. They've already dodged the financial issues and there is sign of an open government ordinance. They are sticking to the frosting and if they get into anything substantial we'd be stupid to expect fair play.
DeleteThe conclusion:
DeleteWe are going to have do this ourselves.
The whole world is coming to that conclusion KC. Well put.
ReplyDeleteThe recall effort is starting, spread the word.
DeleteAnd we aren't talking Filner here.
DeleteBy the time we can Gus, he will just about ready to retire.
DeleteI know of no effort to recall. I do know of a renewed effort to run initiatives because the there is widespread belief that the Mayor has no intention of taking on the most important issues in an open way.
DeleteKevin
ReplyDeleteYour not a gambler your a suck ass , a brown nose you live in an ivory tower.
ACADAMIA. Go back to sleep
The oxygen is very thin up here and sometimes I get confused. Please, can you explain the behavior of the council? Is what they did fair play?
DeleteKevin
ReplyDeleteQuestion ,Why did J P ST. PIERRE kick you of his blog
oh, this question: (I'm Working my way up).
DeleteHe didn't. I'll post something this weekend over there when I get a chance (sorry, have a life, very busy).
oh,
Deleteanon 7:43,
what do you think of the topic of the post? You didn't mention what the council signed onto and now it appears the city itself is publishing position statements that contradict the council and No on Prop A campaign.
Sorry, been busy chasing wild geese. When I get a chance... I've had a few things to post for a while now.
DeleteAndreen x 2.
ReplyDeleteKevin
ReplyDeleteMan up kevin no balls Ya I thought so answer the question Punk Ivory tower
Syndrome clear perfect vision. Your a coward
That's 'You're' as in 'You are' Mr. GED Failure, who is probably drinking while commenting?
DeleteReally? Calling someone a coward without using your name?
Kevin put himself on the public firing line with the lawsuit against the City over the street-paving and you call him a coward? And, he won against the City!
Your turn...who are you to call someone else a coward? Of course, even this blog master won't identify himself, so why should anyone else?
Jealousy of someone with more opportunities and higher degrees is nothing new: but the subject here supposedly is 'ideas', not 'Ivory Towers'.
Pick up book and put down the beer.
Using "your" when "you're" is correct is a Jerome Stocks trait.
DeleteThe Cabezon
Yes I have no balls. What does that have to do with what the council did?
DeleteIf I missed a question, Which question was that? (sorry very busy)
Gosh and here all this time I'm thinking the topic of this thread is "Prop A: it IS what it seems."
ReplyDeleteWhat are the negative consequences of Prop A? Of those that remain, how would those differ from what the Mayor was promising in her version of Prop A? These questions are still important to ask because they set the context as we move forward.
DeleteAsk Rutan & Tucker. They're the experts at crystal ball gazing and unsubstantiated hypotheticals.
DeleteJust be ready to fork over the $$$$$$.
DeleteKevin,
ReplyDeleteI don't know who the anon writer is but he has a strategy, attack the messenger. He seems like he doesn't have a thought of his own. Kevin, keep up the good work.
A reformed Barth supporter
Not at all: a pro-Prop A person, as it happens, who is just not rising to the "unintended consequences" bait. We've already been there and done that.
ReplyDeleteWhen is the last time Kevin spoke before the city council.I think it's been 3 or 4 years
ReplyDeleteHE does his WORK on a lap top hiding all alone in a dark room,yes calling people names. Pointing his finger. And for what purpose. NONE HE wasted 100000k of
Our money that is tax dollars on the road report and did nothing with it.Wasted
Money ,and now it's 400000k on prop A Why HE didn't trusted the council. HE,
HIS OPINION and we all have one is driven by his ego .I'AM sorry that's not good
Enough. C WORK
Hey, dude. You have it backasswards. It was the city that wasted taxpayer money on fighting K.C.'s public records request and fighting the will of the people on Prop. A. The city lost on both, and it all could have been avoided. Dude, get real. Blame those responsible.
DeleteThe city broke the law for years. I asked nicely several times. I also wrote editorials ans public warnings that I would take action. They were asked during council meetings to release the report. The city sent really BS letters to open government organizations asking for the report to be released. They broke the law. I did not trust the statements the city made and the courtS agreed with my opinion. The city lied the whole way and it continued even with Gus Vina, who was excused by Mayor Barth...
DeleteThe individual action that I took was to release many many documents and daylight much more than that single document. It was as much about getting the hall park build as it was about the roads. Didn't know about that?
The action cost me personally. I did it because it was the right thing to do and I hope that others would do the same. The city lost, and there were no winners.
I have not spoken at council for about two years (hiring of the city manager and 2 year budget). I had been working 7 days a week and I don't speak without doing 10s of hours of research prior. I don't have the time to spare. I certainly can't justify it when the council meetings require unnecessarily long waits for action items to be heard.
anon 12:16,
DeleteWhat do you think about the revelation that there will be no bifurcation and no 30 foot accessory units?
You were so excited to talk about me (which of course I love), you forgot to address the issue of public consequence and the topic of the post.
Not knowing KC at first glance this guy is a hero. The city does lie and I think the majority of the bad press the council is experiencing is because of Sabine and his bad advice. The road report, etc. who is behind these legal calls? Council should get rid of the two main suspects making all the wrong calls. You can Gus who the other one is.
DeleteHave you noticed the anger level in Encinitas has gone up with bar hanging / alcohol intake.
ReplyDeleteLaugh of the day.
ReplyDeleteCouncil members Kranz and Gaspar voted no on the bar moratorium so the newly formed Encinitas Hospitality Association could fix all the drunkenness problems.
The Association's website has a page on "why we live here" demonstrated with assorted photos which include a glass of wine in front of a woman, four women at a table, a winery, and an over the shoulder view of someone playing a guitar. Plus, there is a good photo of the Saloon - nothing like free advertising.
Wine, women, and song.
What's not to trust? Sounds like they're already hard at work allaying fears (NOT) of non-partying residents and meditating SRFers.
Delete
ReplyDeleteWhat's up with the Coastal Rotary group and their Brewfest signs on the community center and other public properties?
Maybe the name Encinitas should be updated to 'Lushland.'
DeleteOr given the council's behavior, "Hushland"!
DeleteCoastal Rotary group giving out free beer?? When?? Where?? Any hotties??
DeleteLet's all get drunk.....
The Rotary and the Coastal Rotary - what's the difference? Coastal Rotary puts on the beer gathering. Rotary has the wine get together fundraiser.
DeleteNever too early to start exposing the kids...before long, they'll be the next alcohol target market!
ReplyDeleteKevin,the conversation always comes back to you as in ME ME ME I want and need
ReplyDeleteattention. You need a little help pal. I think your divisive and hostile your posts are
Negative and serve only to enhance your on image.Go back to your ivory tower
the view is perfect.
Anon 7:10, the conversation was not on the topic of Kevin at all until you reintroduced it. Why do you have an obsession with Kevin?
DeleteYou are not really demonstrating the best mental health to keep circling back to Kevin. Get a life Dude!
Rotary should run bars not cities, fortunately the rein of drunken council members is winding down. This present city council is going to find out soon what a Pandora's box they have opened.
ReplyDelete