Read all about it at the Coast News.
Using “density bonus” state laws, the project was allowed to put in extra homes on the subdivision since they agreed to set aside houses for low-income residents.
In this case, the developers were afforded 10 additional homes. However, all of the houses will be sold at market rate.
That’s because Shea Homes transferred the 10 low-income units from the 69-home development, as well as three other projects, to the Iris Apartments on Vulcan Avenue, which opened about six months ago.
WC,
ReplyDeleteI'm not going to subscribe to the coast news to read the story online, I'll just pick up a copy free outside the Little Moore at lunch today.
El Matador
OK but good local journalism doesn't come free. Please at least support their advertisers.
DeleteWCV
I am thinking that they might try the same thing with Desert Rose.
ReplyDeleteLeucadia secession movement, anyone?
All of these issues boil down to a city employee empire and a builders'empire that are overtaking the rights of citizens who bought their homes in previously nice areas.
ReplyDeleteIt is hard to beleive that Gus Vina and Glen Sabine will be evaluated by Gus' "cabinet" of directors since he hired the majority of them. Gus has made it so that each of them can become millionaires at taxpayers expense. Who would bite the weasel that feeds them $160,000 per year on up--and allows for them to get millionaires' pensions?
Encinitas citizens must fund the builders' millionaires club and the city staff millionaires' club.
How do we get a cut of the Ponzi Scheme of a retirement plan?
Yes Encinitas is nothing but a Ponzi scheme. The truth is now coming out, the new council should be careful.
ReplyDeleteThe Council has turned all matters over to Gus. Gus is supposed to work for the Council, not the other way around.
DeleteOur progrowth City Manager will do everything possible to keep projects like this one coming as fast as possible since his multi-million dollar retirement depends on it. This is what is actually meant by 'sustainability!'
What's w the editing W.C?
ReplyDeleteDecided to support Lynn's views over others?
That's weak!
You lost credit in my book.
Don't think u have integrity for editor like associated press?
You have weakiened your blog.
Please keep comments focused on issues rather than personal attacks.
DeleteI deleted a few of the most personal.
WCV
So Lynn can rant all her hate and lies without edit but other truthful posts get delete?
ReplyDeleteWhere is your base?
I though you believed in free speech?
Watch it folks. WC w block your posts and seems to favor Lynn over our City Council?
I've deleted some personal attacks on Norby and others as well.
DeletePlease stick to issues. Name-calling and rumor-mongering doesn't do anyone any good.
WCV
So much for free speech.
ReplyDeleteSad WC favors Lynn's views.
WC is clearly in the wrong camp.
BOO!
And I thought u were a Ron Paul kinda guy. Boy wAs I wrong.
Ron Paul hates roundabouts.
DeleteWCV
Ron Paul would not hate roundabouts.
DeleteThey work. The question is does WC hate roundabout?
WCV is uninformed on the specifics of Leucadia Streetscape but in general loves roundabouts.
DeleteWCV
WC is right on most issues. 10:16 am, you sound a little angry and whacked!
ReplyDeleteNow you wonder why Shea Homes contributed $5,000 to defeat Prop A. Penny on the dollar for these guys.
This density bonus law is fundamentally flawed. This development is a good example.
WC-
DeletePlease delete they called me angry and wacked.
They hurt my feelings!
Not true.
ReplyDeleteStay on topic or delete your own comment.
Ur losing credit quickly.
Sad.
Thank you Wc. The Leucadia Blog used to be a vibrant blog until people started trashing one another. If people cannot stick to the posts, without having to trash people who have a different opinion, then it is not for me. I appreciate your blog for that reason. At least Lynn has the cajones to post under her name. When will the rest of you do it? I understand why Wc doesn't, but for the rest of you, what are you afraid of?
ReplyDeleteYour post makes no sense.
DeleteWC the blog master is Anon.
Go cry and promise your not going to post again.
We've heard it all before.
I rarely go on these things but Dr. Lori is correct. why not put your name on here if you have the guts?
DeleteIsn't it interesting that Leucadia has to "eat it" while Olevenhein gets off scott free. They even got lawyers for Desert Rose. We all want to keep out community character, but some communities, such as Olevenhein, seem to get better treatment. I don't think anyone on the Council lives in Olevenhein, so what is the problem? Why can't they take their fair share?
ReplyDelete11:11 — Nobody will take you seriously if you can't even spell the name of the place you're raking over the coals.
DeleteI did. It's a blog not Harvard business case study.
ReplyDeletePopeye, with his odd accent and improbable forearms, used spinach to great effect, a sort of anti-Kryptonite. It gave him his strength, and perhaps his distinctive speaking style. But why did Popeye eat so much spinach? What was the reason for his obsession with such a strange food?
DeleteThe truth begins more than fifty years earlier. Back in 1870, Erich von Wolf, a German chemist, examined the amount of iron within spinach, among many other green vegetables. In recording his findings, von Wolf accidentally misplaced a decimal point when transcribing data from his notebook, changing the iron content in spinach by an order of magnitude. While there are actually only 3.5 milligrams of iron in a 100-gram serving of spinach, the accepted fact became 35 milligrams. To put this in perspective, if the calculation were correct each 100-gram serving would be like eating a small piece of a paper clip.
Once this incorrect number was printed, spinach's nutritional value became legendary. So when Popeye was created, studio executives recommended he eat spinach for his strength, due to its vaunted health properties. Apparently Popeye helped increase American consumption of spinach by a third!
This error was eventually corrected in 1937, when someone rechecked the numbers. But the damage had been done. It spread and spread, and only recently has gone by the wayside, no doubt helped by Popeye's relative obscurity today. But the error was so widespread that the British Medical Journal published an article discussing this spinach incident in 1981, trying its best to finally debunk the issue.
That Quail Gsrdens project is destroying the 'tranquility' of that small bit of open space. Isn't this part of the
ReplyDeleteEcke's Ranch that was into agriculture "in perpetuity"? - apparently not. Developers don't know how to blend into the landscape - scrape, reshape and build compacted, ugly cookie cutter clapboards at inflated prices. CHANG CHING!!!!
Perfect example of how the planning dept / leadership has failed us.
ReplyDeleteIf there is a department that should be dismantled, the Planning Department is it. They are the main reason that Prop A happened in the first place.
DeleteI bet Jeff Murphy didn't know that he was taking over the most detested department both inside the city and among Encinitas taxpayers.
Good to see you, Dr. Lorri. This is another good topic, WC. Density bonus is allowed, in the name of affordable housing, but the affordable housing doesn't have to be included in the density bonus development. For example, the developers of Moonlight Lofts, which later went bankrupt, paid $35,000 per unit, a total of over $631,000 of in lieu affordable housing fees, which went to the Boathouses owners, the Encinitas Preservation Association, for purchase of pre-existing affordable housing, with an addition of a direct grant from the City of over $209,000 from our "affordable housing fund." So the EPA was subsidized for four PRE-EXISTING affordable housing units for more than $831,000. I'd like to know when the EPA will follow through and apply for a minor use permit so that one of the Boathouses can be made into a museum, as promised, when the property was purchased. The City and County receive no property taxes from this property, as it's tax exempt; contributions made to the EPA are tax deductible.
ReplyDeletePublic/private partnerships can be good, and I do appreciate the architecture of Moonlight Lofts more than that of Pacific Station, but Moonlight Lofts does block the view corridor, and was not economically sustainable. It also replaced existing affordable housing, which could have been repaired, maintained and upgraded, with a City subsidy, for low income members of the Artist's Colony, if necessary, as the Boathouses were.
If the artists colony was so good it would not need a subsidy of any type.
DeleteThe facts are the owner of the artists colony choose to sell the land. The artists could have bought the land, but they didn't. Simply because an artist lives or works somewhere does that qualify them for s subsidy?? Funny, the good artists in encinitas need no subsidies.
If Moonlight Lofts and EPA Boathouses were so good, they would not need a subsidy of any kind.
DeleteWhy did the city subsidize Moonlight Lofts and the Boathouses and destroy the artists' colony? Follow the money.
WCV
That's right... Money. Follow the money. There wasn't any money in the artist colony in way of property taxes. But there is now.
DeleteJust another made up fictional tale by Lynn, the EPA does pay property taxes and there were no preexisting affordable housing units.
DeleteMy understanding that tax exempt, tax deductible foundations, which the EPA is, pay no property taxes. I asked for verification of this, through Peder Norby, in a California Public Records Act request that was forwarded to Norby through the City Clerk. He gave me no answer.
DeleteThere WERE pre-existing affordable units in the back, four of them. They may not have been counted "on the books," for affordable housing, but the rents did NOT go down when the EPA purchased the property with the help of City subsidies.
Also, the EPA, with the help of these City subsidies, was able to "legalize" two garage conversions that were labeled as "illegal units,"by Planning, in 2012, four years after the purchase by the EPA, of the Boathouses property, in 2008. But other property owners seeking to "legalize," through a similar affordable housing covenant, including the former OWNER of the Boathouses, have been DENIED this same method of "legalization," at different properties.
DeleteIt seems our City Attorney has profited, handsomely, through selective enforcement, and that is surely an additional reason that another amnesty has not been initiated, although it's been suggested, for years. Follow the money is correct!
The EPA was able to "legalize" the so-called illegal units, four years after the fact of purchase, with the help of City subsidies. Others are prosecuted through lawsuits carried out though secretive closed session meetings with Council and the City Attorney and City Manager, all in on this conspiracy to subsidize one property owner, while prosecuting and persecuting another, for the same "violation," that is, owning a property with a pre-existing accessory dwelling unit, "not on the books." In the 1950's, and before, permits were not NEEDED for accessory structures that were 500 sq. ft. or less!
Well, I took a lovely bike ride (We again only saw bicyclists traveling south on North Hwy 101 today, not north. Russ did say bicyclists were "out in force" yesterday, that the Grand Prix is going on, in France, now), but I was thinking about the comment, above, from 5:02., who concludes his/her post with: "the good artists in encinitas need no subsidies."
DeleteI feel that low income artists should be subsidized through affordable housing, just as much as anyone else should! Of course we've all heard the term "starving artists."
Most artists have to supplement their artistic creations with other more "mundane" jobs. Artists whose works command substantial prices usually don't become "famous" until after they are deceased. There are many exceptions to this, but most artists live minimally, and count on friends, families and various foundations for the arts to help support them, particularly while they are becoming established. I admire street artists, because they are performing, offering something to the public, not just panhandling.
Support our local artists, not high density development!
In your 10:49 post in this thread, you said ".. our City Attorney has profited, handsomely, through selective enforcement...".
DeleteIn what way? I'm genuinely asking because i don't know the back story. This discussion has been a very interesting read.
The city attorney, Glen Sabine, is a contract employee. Extra law work, like selective enforcement resulting in litigation, is outside the scope of his contract and results in his firm billing residents additional fee's.
DeleteGot it. Thanks.
Delete10:04
ReplyDeleteWC's right. There's free speech and there's foul. Names and name calling are irrelevant to ideals when making a point, if you have one. Facts stand on their own. Quoting a comment and challenging it needn't be personal. Unless it's about Rachel Maddow.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI see a difference between citizens who invest time, energy and money into investigating issues to keep the City honest, and taxpayer-paid City workers or consultants like Vina, City staff and Norby.
ReplyDeleteIn the real world, the person who pays is the customer and is the one who is listened to. Our City works in isolation of Encinitas citizens, and our role is to pay their salaries, their pensions, and all of the bills that they rack up for meaningless and invalid studies by consultants, when we have a staff of people who seem incapable of doing their own jobs.
WCV,
ReplyDeleteI think Ron Paul would be just as happy as the next guy breaking, idling and excelerating 20 minutes of his life everyday at stops in Encinitas.
To install four one lane roundabouts on 101, through Leucadia, would cause a lot more braking, idling, especially during busy summer months, as it would take what was a four lane highway, for motorists, down to two lanes, one in each direction.
DeleteThe one stop sign on this stretch, at Marchetta, would remain, as far as anyone has told me. I never have seen any plans for it to be removed. If the plans were to go through, there would be a stop sign at Marchetta and 101, a stop signal at Leucadia Blvd. and 101, and, in between, a one lane roundabout, for a three way intersection, with no cross traffic, due to the railroad tracks, at El Portal. Adjacent residents definitely are not in favor of a roundabout at El Portal. But I'm super sorry you had an accident there, years ago, Fred.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteTo stop, or not to stop: That is the question. And the answer is unequivocally YES at stop signs and stop lights EVERY TIME. You'd better stop every time (or else!). And you had better wait till the light turns green - whether it be day or night - even if there is no cross traffic whatsoever for miles and it would be completely safe to proceed. But at Roundabouts the vast majority of time one has to stop ONLY when required to yield to any car in the small ONE LANE circle. With a clear length of 60' or so to your left you keep rolling and that occurs the vast majority of times anyone approaches a Roundabout because the vast majority of the time they are empty. Even at peak hours there are always small breaks in traffic large enough to merge with. When a driver has to navigate merging with ONE lane of slowed down traffic, it makes if far easier and safer than having to navigate 3 lanes of faster traffic - as is now experienced by anyone trying to make a left turn onto 101 from the west.
DeleteSTOPS are what increase braking, stopping and accelerating - not proven circulatory systems like Roundabouts. (Formerly misnamed "choke points" but at least that catch phrase has died off).
We're in the busy months of summer right now, and the narrowed lanes are working just as well as the old ones. Partly because they and the new lowered speed limit discourages Carlsbedites from using 101 as their fast track to Sorrento Valley each morning. Also because Solana Beach and Del Mar now have an extra lane on the freeway which has vastly improved getting to all places south quicker for all who zip through Encinitas daily without stopping.
" The one stop sign on this stretch, at Marchetta, would remain, as far as anyone has told me. I never have seen any plans for it to be removed"
Go over to the L-101 office and look for stop signs for 101 at Marchetta St. check out the Streetscape map like Doug did. They don't bite and would be happy to show you. I would have provided a link to the map but somehow I'm being blocked from the city website half of the time. (Anyone else besides me and Sheila having that problem, by the way?).
For decades I've walked 101 and without exception, El Portal is the widest and most unsafe "portal" for a pedestrian to cross. In part because it's so wide and takes longer to cross than any other street. It's uncanny that most of the time you try to cross that street, a vehicle is crossing the crosswalk from one of the four directions they're traveling. Odd that someone would run that stop sign at full speed and total my van last year at (currently) my least favorite place to cross the street on foot, but they did. Fortunately they broad-sided a car with a thick headed driver and not a pedestrian or biker. Just glad no one was hurt, and I'm pretty sure the guy who hit me and his buddy in the other car who fled will probably try to drive better in the future. I'm certain this accident would have been infinitely harder to have happened with a Roundabout at the same location. Progressive Insurance came through with flying colors though. And lucky for the guy that didn't hit someone who would fake an injury for private gain. I imagine that's not uncommon in other areas of the world.
And back to the topic. The city used to laugh at people who wanted to have their affordable housing units on another lot down the street from their target project. Now it's OK to put it in a different community. Next year, a different city?
ReplyDeleteYou're right Fred! This entire project and the way that they put the low income units into off site rentals sucks in every way. Some of us beleived in low-income because it seemed like an ethical thing to do. The way that it has been applied in Encinitas, particularly in this case, is a mockery of the law and its intended purpose! This former low income supporter is 100% against the way that they do it in Encinitas.
DeleteMaggie Houlihan herself signed off on this paradigm.
DeleteI think that towards the end, Maggie might have not felt the strength to fight this group. Remember, the developer of this project was involved in the clown caper. Who could blame her for not wanting to spend her last moments being attacked again by the same people?
DeleteDuring the Cradiff Specific Plan led by Peder Norby the citizens told Norb6 and city staff that the so called low income units could be built anywhere in the state. An example the residents used was the upzoning of VG's lot for lot line to lot line pack and stack 3 stories and the pushing the so called low income to Eastlake. Mr. Norby and city staff Jay Disocho and Laurie Tremor, along with Planning Director Pat Murphy mocked the residents and told the council it would never happen................hmmmm, did Norby and city staff tell the truth?
DeleteMaggie opposed density bonus law. Maggie supported local control.
DeleteDavid Meyer loves density bonus = higher profits
Hence Gaspar and Muir support density bonus.
Placing all the affordable units into one, identifiable "that's where the low income folks live" is a hardly how folks who support affordable housing imagine it plays out.
ReplyDeleteIntegrating the affordable units among the rest of the community is a noble intent, but in reality completely subverted by developer and building industry pressure to write the laws to provide them the maximum profit.
Desert Rose is good example of how developers subvert the intent to do public good. There is currently a dwelling where an actual low income family who care for the horses has lived for years. Although it could have been counted in the low income numbers for the City, the owners chose not to do so. For doubling the number of houses on the lot, they will provide 1 low income unit. Therefore, there is zero net benefit to this project at all. They only used the Denisty Bonus Law as a means to try to get the most units on the property possible while degrading the safety and environment of a corned of Encinitas for everybody else.
Delete5:32-An excellent pojnt. If the City would grant amnesty to all "illegal by their standards dwellings" it could probably go toward the density housing right there, or at least a great deal of it. I know that Leucadia, and Cardiff both have some of these, and they are probably rented to lower income people. However, the owners cannot count it, as they are considered illegal at this time. How about it City? A one time "amnesty" and let's see what happens. One thing though, does anyone know if this would create more taxes to the owners of the properties where this might apply? That would be s disincentive. Also, does it have to be Prop. 8 housing, as they can be sticklers?
ReplyDeleteThere was a citywide Amnesty for these accessory dwelling units back in 1991, I'm told, Dr. Lorri. Dennis Holz, former Councilmember and Mayor, and an attorney, told me, before he was elected in 1998, that another amnesty could easily be initiated by a willing Council. These affordable units would NOT have to be Section 8 housing.
ReplyDeleteAlso, an individual's tax situation wouldn't necessarily have to change, because, as the City has already litigated, and as Jerome Stocks was so fond of pointing out, potential affordable units count; they don't have to be "occupied," according to a lawsuit brought in 1994 by affordable housing advocates (mainly on behalf of immigrants and the homeless), Hernandez v City of Encinitas.
Ironically, Joel Kuperberg, who wrote the bogus, pro-development impact report for Encinitas through Rutan & Tucker was the also the attorney of record on this case for Defendant City of Encinitas. The City prevailed, so we don't have to show ACTUAL affordable housing, only the potential for it.
My opinion is that the Amnesty solution has been available for YEARS, but the "monied" powers that be would rather facilitate more high density development and higher profits, than count what is actually already being USED as affordable housing toward our State mandates.
So would illegal garage conversions count in the amnesty??
Delete"illegal" is a matter of opinion. I was told by Planning that the garage conversions on the Boathouses property required a permit when they were done, AND NOTED ON COUNTY RECORDS, in the 50's.
DeleteBut my question is, if a permit were needed, then why didn't the COUNTY ask for one, if the conversion was "on record," through Assessor's notes, and the County had jurisdiction? The fact is that permits were NOT required, and when permits were pulled, for larger structures, the permits themselves were not retained and given to the City of Encinitas upon our incorporation on 10/1/86.
There are some schematics and records by the County Assessor, intermittently, prior to 1978, when Deputy Assessors still made site visits. After 1978, and the passage of Prop 13, the Jarvis-Gann Initiative, site visits were rarely made, as the value of the property was assessed by 1% of the purchase price, plus 2% increase in that value, compounded, yearly. The Assessor's office no longer needed to set the value of properties according to estimated market value, as before.
OOOOhhhhhh, Lynn, now you're drifting into "my line of work"! Yhe assessors office is notified by the counties and cities of all building permits. Those permits are then evaluated by the assessors office to determine whether the permited work adds substantially to the value of the real estate. If it does, the assessor will determine what that value is and issue a supplemental bill to the property owner for the tax on the increase in value. If you remember awhile back, Duncan Hunter Sr. got himself in a bit of a pickle for significantly inproving his home without permits. When he fessed up, he also got a tax bill. Sometimes repairs and maintenance are subject to permits, but that work would not be subject to reassessment. I don't know how an amnesty works in this situation, but if the city retroactively issues permits I have to believe that the assessors office would reassess that portion. After all, that square footage is income producing.
Delete- The Sculpin
It's a simple question. Yes or no?? Jeezzzzzz....
Delete10:53: A general amnesty for all "non compliant uses of structures, such as garages, granny flats, and other things, would go a long way in possibly getting our low income housing look better than it is. I personally know of many places in Leucadia and Cardiff that rent their remodeled garages and granny flats that are being rented out. So, if there is no property tax increase, or no other penalties, this seems like a good idea. Why not do it?
ReplyDeleteEven if they are not rented out, accessory units could be counted, through an amnesty, as potential dwelling units, which is the rational for high density "stack and pack," the mere potential of affordable housing.
ReplyDeleteIn my eyes, the only reasons NOT to do an amnesty is to enable the wanna be high density developers the potential for more short term profit at the expense of our quality of life and community character.
Sculpin, in the 50's and before, California counties and existing cities (Encinitas wasn't incorporated until the end of '86) had very loose and inexpensive permitting requirements. That did change, in later years.
Encinitas had two HUGE increases in fees, one in 2005, and another in 2009, for building permits (and presumably all other fees, as well), except for "multiple unit" developers, who got a permit fee reduction, as part of a settlement, whereby Barratt American, in 2004, prevailed against the City of Encinitas in the 4th District Court of Appeal. These fee increases are necessary to pay all the "back up costs" of operating expenses; but state law says building permits should be related to inspection costs, only. This policy, which the County had called the Homeowner's Relief Act, encourages homeowners to maintain and improve their properties, and also improves our neighborhood's character and livability, as a whole. When I asked Planning about the Homeowner's Relief Act, I was told, oh, Encinitas has its own rules and regulations.
Permits were NOT originally required for small accessory structures, including garages and "garage conversions" when they entailed buildings 500 sq. ft. or less. But even when permits were later required, the actual permits were not retained, and the City of Encinitas was NOT notified of PAST permits. The City or property owner can go to the Assessor's office and look up past deputy Assessors' notes and schematics, which were accumulated through intermittent on site inspections of property, prior to 1978.
For garage conversions, or accessory dwelling units built without a permit after 1978, those too, could be "brought into the fold," through an amnesty, whereby a covenant could be recorded, so that if rented out, or occupied by low income homeowners, the units would count toward the affordable housing quota mandated, through SANDAG, by the State.
Accessory dwelling units are allowed by right in our city. The code now reads that single family residential zones allow one accessory dwelling unit, by right. Every new build has the "potential" for one legally permitted accessory dwelling unit. The City is purposefully not counting this potential, because it has been influenced to use the high density development alternative, instead.
Interesting the city raised fees on permits just about the same time Good Ol Stocks, Dalager, Barth and Bond raised salaries and pensions for city employees. Now you got Muir raking in 170K, heissner Raking in 212K, Cotton getting 94K, Murphy getting 140K- Hey, the gang's all here right Sculpin!
DeleteSkip
DeleteAn interesting side note, Encinitas Planning Commissioner Joanne Shannon has a husband named Gary (I believe). Well, wouldn't you know it but Gary Shannon was VP with Shea Homes and attempted to push stack and pack high density on Sol Beach at Cedros. Hmm, see how it works.
ReplyDeleteHow did she vote on Desert Rose?
DeleteWCv
Considering how she votes on most things, I'd be willing to bet a big thumbs-up in favor of the developers. Any DR here to tell us what the vote was??
DeleteIt is my recollection that as planning commissioner Ms Shannon was part of the discussion about 'those people' and locating 'them' where it would be best for 'them'. Social engineering in the name of profits?
DeleteMs. Shannon was one of the 2 Planning Commissioners who voted with the developers on Desert Rose.
Deleteregarding amnesty, I would think you would need inspections. That would include foundation, structure, electrical and
ReplyDeleteplumbing. This would be quite an expense for the owner.
Amnesty does require inspection. Our neighbors took advantage of the last amnesty program in Encinitas and it was not "quite an expense" for them: they had to upgrade the stove from a 2-burner to a proper one and install a better heating unit. A few hundred bucks and they were legal AND section 8-qualified.
DeleteThis sounds like a winning situation except that it would benefit a low income family, a home owner, become part of the city's low income inventory--but wait, they can't make sustainable money off of this. Sorry. Gus would not approve since it does not provide ongoing cash for him to raid!
DeleteDoes anyone know if the Desert Rose low income property will be within the development or somewhere else in Encinitas? Is that known ahead of development?
ReplyDeleteThe affordable unit (really market rate) is within the Desert Rose development. But developers often come back for a modification, and the Planning Commission usually gives it to them. It's a sneaky way to ultimately get what they want with less opposition from the public. This is what happened on the the Bahlmann property/Shea Homes deal.
ReplyDeleteSo Desert Rose provides less than zero if the actual low income unit, where a low income family has lived for decades disappears, and they get to put in a market rate unit instead.
ReplyDeleteWhy does Marco Gonzalez keep saying that he feels good about this deal?
With the horse stables gone, he gets to ride his mountain bike on trails without horse poop.
DeleteBecause he's for sale and someone bought him.
Delete