Sacramento Bee:
From the broader perspective of public policy, however, the problem with redevelopment in California was that it had evolved from a program to reduce urban blight into a tool for local politicians to practice crony capitalism.Well, seniors and young people should be happy.
Quite a few proposals to resurrect redevelopment have been floated in the Capitol, and [Senate President Pro Tem Darrell] Steinberg's version, Senate Bill 1, is the most prominent.
It would rename redevelopment agencies as "Sustainable Communities Investment Authorities" and focus their activities on high-density, transit-oriented housing, low-income housing, and "clean manufacturing," such as solar panels and trolley cars, with "prevailing wage" workers.
The new agencies could issue bonds, levy sales taxes and seize land under eminent domain, but the old requirement to define blight in areas earmarked for redevelopment would be eliminated, thus vastly expanding their reach.
[...]
Steinberg holds visions of how Californians should be living their lives and wants state law and taxation to achieve those visions in ways that would discourage politically incorrect, albeit more traditional, lifestyles.
Another do as I say , not as I do politician. A la Al Gore, a la Bob Filner. Time to pack and move out of this once golden state. C yaaaaaaaa you stick around to pay the taxes....and fees ( which are really taxes).
ReplyDeleteGreat idea! Let's put a bunch of anti-social Olivenhain loners together in an apartment complex like Pacific Station. You can pretty much guarantee that the Bier Garden won't have a noise problem!
ReplyDelete2:12 - I think you have that wrong. Actually, there would be a much worse noise problem, as well as a substantial olfactory problem. You see, us anti-social Olivenhain loners have to put our horses somewhere, and the Bier Garden is just as good a place as any!
DeleteOh yea - and don't forget the shootouts - don't want any collateral damage, do we?
- The Sculpin
Sounds like our mayors view. Let's make everyone live like me. Small condos are fun. No yard to maintain, someone else does the building maintenance. Hell everyone should liv like this. I think I will try and force everyone to be like me.
ReplyDelete-the Shark
This is UN agenda 21 in action. Google it.
ReplyDeleteDidn't I read somewhere that numerology proves that Agenda 21 is valid? Or was that vapid? What about astrology? Does it have an effect too?
DeleteBarth thinks if she uses the word "Millenials" repeatedly and includes enough links that demonstrate the joys of living living like sardines, we'll start to buy what she's selling. Just because she's glommed onto some trend doesn't mean an entire town is going to follow her like the pied piper.
ReplyDeleteHer recent newsletter tried yet again to cram it down our throats. A better use of her time would be to run the city as she promised twice that she would: with "trust and transparency."
Dump Barth.
DeleteBarth has become as much of an expert on leading questions as Gaspar. When the Planning staff can't explain their own reports and are caught in lies, Barth likes to ask, "But am I right that we could get sued?" and the Planning staff gratefully nod like bobble heads.
DeleteWhat happened to the old Teresa who used to represent citizens?
Hypothetical lawsuits and state mandates are Teresa and the council's favorite alternatives to actually engaging their brains and doing the hard work.
DeleteTotally accurate description of our inept planners and our enabling fearless leader, the mayor, in action at a council meeting?
That was not meant to be a question....
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Well, seniors and young people should be happy."
ReplyDeleteYoung people act 25 and Seniors act 45 in Encinitas CA. The rest act their age. That's the first reason no one here will be happy with Redevelopment. Ever.
"Sustainable Communities Investment Authorities" is not witchcraft, astrology or numerology. But if it were an adult beverage it would be 101 Proof Agenda 21.
You are entirely right, and Barth/Shaffer have NO business pushing that religion on us.
DeleteFred nails it again. Atta boy Fred.
DeleteAw shucks, tanks.
ReplyDeleteEUSD Superintendent Tim Baird is going along with cronyism politics, emphasizing redevelopment. He seems to name, as his Pacific View negotiator (Baird's supposed to be the negotiator for the school district, and Gus Vina, the negotiator for the City, which negotiators, according to the Brown Act, are to be listed on the closed session agenda), a pro-development consultant with apparent redevelopment ties on a recent EUSD Board of Trustees Agenda:
ReplyDeleteJune 25, 2013 EUSD agenda
3. CLOSED SESSION
a. PROPERTY NEGOTIATIONS
Property: Pacific View APN 258-15-122
Conference with Property Negotiators
Real Property Consultant Bob Nicholson, Eric Hall & Associates
Government Code § 54956
*****************
[I looked up Bob Nicholson, as detailed, below. Perhaps he could be listed and present as an agent, not certain the Brown Act "template from the Attorney General's pamphlet, states negotiator (not agent)., But Dr. Baird, for consistency, and Brown Act compliance, should be listed as negotiator, if he was present at the closed session meeting. If he wasn't present, it shouldn't have been held. Closed sessions for real property are to be ONLY about negotiations for price and terms, which fact should also be listed on the agenda. Also, EUSD should be listing Gus Vina as negotiator for the City of Encinitas, if that is known to the school district, which it should be, as it is a matter of published public record.]
http://www.erichallassociates.com/about-us/
Bob Nicholson, Associate [It appears that Bob Nicholson, as an agent, was incorrectly named as an agent, rather than real property negotiators being listed, as mandated by the Brown Act, on the EUSD agenda for the Pacific View closes session.]
Bob has recently worked as the Director of K-12 Education for JCJ Architecture in San Diego. Bob previously worked as the Senior Director, Facility Planning Services for the San Diego County Office of Education.
Bob brings added value to school districts with his knowledge and expertise in the following areas: [edited for brevity, not all his bullet points are included, here]
• Developer fee reports . . .
• Redevelopment agency agreement negotiations and funding allocations
• Taxpayer organization endorsements for capital improvement bond elections
• Classroom capacity studies and demographic analysis review and application
[Opinions given by Bob Nicholson through Eric Hall & Associates, do not constitute legitimate independent appraisals. As an agent, he shouldn't be named as negotiator, according to the Brown Act. Also his presence in any closed session should be directly related to negotiating price and terms, only]
The public already owns the land. When it gets "flipped" from one public entity, to another, only the "middlemen" profit, players, power brokers and career bureaucratic administrators. The land wad donated for our LOCAL community. 49% of EUSD students are from outside of Encinitas. Carlsbad children would be welcome at the arts and learning center, but we should not have to give Baird another star on his resume, nor should we have to pay broker fees and consultant fees. The reason there is no precedent re the Government Code Baird sued under, is because his lawyers GOT IT WRONG. The land, as public/semi-public is compatible with surrounding properties and is consistent with our general plan. Mayor Barth is wrong. The State Code that Baird, on behalf of EUSD sued the City on, would NOT trump local law, and local zoning, even if Prop A had not passed. But it did, and that misconstrued lawsuit, comprising misinterpreted and misunderstood law is MOOT!
Sorry for any typos, above. The county owns the land our library sits on. It is leased to the City for $1 per year. EUSD, under Superintendent Devoir, rented Pacific View to the City for $1 per year for a public works yard, using classrooms as headquarters, from 2003-2006. These $1 per year amounts are in recognition of the fact that the land ALREADY BELONGS TO THE PUBLIC.
DeleteBoth Tim Baird, who's only been EUSD Superintendent since 2009 and City Manager, Gus Vina, manager since 2011, as relative "newbie administrators" are not good property negotiators for Pacific View. They are too caught up in wanting more development, more revenue (funding) through developers. Baird and Vina do not have the historical perspective or the longtime community ties to understand that Pacific View is an irreplaceable public asset that was donated to the people, and is already owned by the people. We, the people are the ones that must decide the highest and best value, for the greatest community benefit. Envision the View!
I am forming the KPVCC. Keep Pacific View Crappy Club. We are dedicated to keeping PV just as it is at this moment...an ugly rundown neglected eyesore. Did you know they have plans to install 4 roundabouts at PV?? Even though the Dept of Transportation, FAA, FDA, CalTrans, CIA, Librbary of Congress ALL oppose roundabouts next to abandoned schools. PV is in violation of the Brown Act and all the children taught there in closed session are in violation also. Wrong, wrong, wrong wrong. Everyone is wrong only KPVCC is right...about everything.
DeleteHow can I join?
Deletethe issue is world population growth.
ReplyDeleteWe need world population reduction. Support Negative Population Growth.
But we need growth to fund the Social Security and Medicare Ponzis. And locally to fund the Encinitas Government Worker Pension Ponzi.
DeleteMark Muir's $170,000 a year doesn't grow on trees, you know!
WCV
The key phrase in the article is "high density".Everthing else after is B.S.This is all about more money for developers and pension hogs.
DeletePensions,pay, and benifits should mirror the private sector.Anything more is thievery.
The Cabezon
"Mayor Barth is wrong" - so she is. She and the other Council members either can't or won't understand that PV cannot be re-zoned without a vote of the people.
DeleteThe PV site value should be based on current zoning, period, not the "opportunity value" that is code for upzoning.
Muir gets $175,700. He's worth his weight in gold!
DeletePerpetual growth is a suicidal spiral.
Done well, PV could pay for itself.
The city has no business purchasing pacific view. The city cannot maintain its current obligations, it does not need to add any further costs to its books.
ReplyDeleteEnd of discussion.
I would rather see the City purchase property than hire more City employees who are dishonest or questionable in their ability to perform their jobs.
DeleteWhen did Encinitas government move from serving the needs of it citizens to becoming a great benefits administrator and a sourse of lifetime employment for its workers?
It's not the end of discussion, anon 10:03. The community can find creative ways to fund purchasing PV, through a foundation. The foundation could lease the site , in perpetuity, for $1 per year from the City, should the city purchase on a "lease to own" contract with EUSD.
DeleteAll monies raised by the foundation, which could be through the Historical Society and/or the Artist's colony, could go into refurbishing, maintaing the property, and paying the City back towards the purchase price.
With a major or minor use permits, some of the classrooms could be artists studios/caretaker's lofts, for LOW INCOME ARTISTS. Then affordable housing fund "in lieu fees" could also help repay the City of Encinitas for the purchase price. The City of Encinitas, through affordable housing fees, paid over $831,000 toward the purchase of the Boathouses, with the money going to the Encinitas Preservation Association foundation, which lobbied against Prop A, and on which Board of Directors sits Peder Norby, Paul Ecke III and Doug Long.
There are those in the city who have dollar signs in their eyes...they'll say it's for the community/children, but.... Look at how the Hall property morphed from a community park as originally pitched to residents, to a regional sports park.
ReplyDeleteLook for the hidden agenda behind a city purchase; only strong oversight and input (and not the bogus Vina "workshop" type) will keep the city on the straight and narrow.
Sigh.........10:07 - it never "morphed" into a sports park - it was always meant to BE a sports park. 'nuff said......
Delete- The Sculpin
The community input workshops provided feedback that citizens did want some sports fields, but wanted a better balance, so that it would be a TRUE community park, with more open fields, not designated for sports, more walking trails.
DeleteBut once Mayor Christy Guerin was "on board," it was going to be a sports specialty park, come Hell or high water. The community's input from the workshops was twisted and tweaked, so Guerin et al could get what they wanted, and interregional sports complex with 90 ft. light standards, and five all purpose 100 yard sports fields, plus baseball diamonds.
I think that right now only four all purpose" (soccer, football and La Crosse?) fields are being built? Not sure, but when Kristin Gaspar moved at a Council Meeting, that the park be named Encinitas Community Park, and all the other names submitted were "overruled," it was pointed out the Hall Property Park does not comply with the city's own definition of a community park.
Council's answer? "We aren't going by the definitions!" Sculpin, if it was meant to be a sports park all along (meant to be, by Council, NOT meant to be by the community), then it should NOT have been named a community park.
I guess at the end of the day, our respective definitions of "community" are very different. My sense was the majority of the "community" in those workshops wanted a sports park. Council merely affirmed that, not overruled.
Delete- the sculpin
Not true, The.
ReplyDeleteIt became a regional sports park after the planning commission rejected the EIR, because after two days of public testimony, reading all the ails from the public and all reports, the Planning Commission stated that the public comments showed that the public wanted a community park and that the traffic mitigation was not adaquate.
The Community Imput Map shows clearly that the public wanted sports fields, basketball, tennis, community center, dog park, amphitheater,a retention pond for Motzart Creek, gardens and an aquatic Center.
This Changed when the council rejected the findings of the Planning Commission with a 3-2 vote.
The then council then behind closed doors changed the park design and directed the developer to, MAXIMIZE SPORTS FIELDS.The public NEVER HAD ANY INPUT IN THIS DECISSION. The Community Input Map was then hidden from the public.
It did not morph into a Sports Park. It was Changed onto a Reguonal Sports Park by a Sticks led city council.
The map that was created by the city to show what the taxpayers wished for is viewable at: www.EncinitasCommunityPark.blogspot.com
Sculpin, you stand corrected.
Actually - I do not. If "...the public wanted sports fields, basketball, tennis, community center, dog park, amphitheater,a retention pond for Motzart Creek, gardens and an aquatic Center..." is not a sports park, I'm not sure what is! I was at those original workshops, and yes, that's what the majority of people wanted with the exception of a very vocal, visceral and vehement minority that wanted a 100% passive park with no demarcated sports fields, no pool, no skate park, no teen center, no, no, no!
DeleteAnd to this day, I fail to see why some object to regional sports tournaments held in Encinitas. If that's not family and community roled into one, what is?
- The Sculpin
We have a sports park, Leo Mullen, Lake, Cardiff Sports Park. Do you truly expect me to believe that there have been no tournaments in Encinitas the last 5 years- please!
DeleteThis was a waste of $80 million to solve a problem that does not exist in an effort to scare up votes, reward contractors and take a toxic waste site off the hands of the Hall family.
Just saying
Not a waste at all. Rather, money well spent. Sure we've had tournaments in the last 5 years, but the Hall property will allow us to have better, bigger, and more efficient tournaments. We are a city of atheletes - and our infrastructure should show that. We have harrows on the roads, we have surf contests, we have walks and runs, and yes, we have regional sports contests. Let the games begin!!!!
Delete- The Sculpin
Scuplin-
DeletePerhaps you might read the latest demographics that the number of kids in Encinitas is declining. Also, thanks for admitting it is a regional sports park not a community park.
Lastly, thanks for admitting Encinitas has had sports tournaments over the last 5 years with no complaints from taxpayers. It shows how idiotic taking $80 million from all of us is to satisfy the dreams and glory of Dirty Dan and Codebreaker Jerome
???? The current demographics are irrelevant. Long term, there will be more kids in Encinitas and they will need a sportsd park, as will the adults - don't forget them. I have always maintained that it's a sports park - no shame in that. No complaints from taxpayers? I don't understand. We're all taxpayers, and we all want more sports fields, so in a way that's a complaint, I guess? So in that light, $80 million is a bargain and I'm glad to pay my share! So, thank you for thanking me, and I guess you're welcome?
Delete- The Sculpin
I don't know what kind of planning you do for your household budget but planning for spending taxpayer money should take into account projected demographics, it is reckless and irresponsible not to take into account that the number of kids and families in Encinitas is DECREASING. Please show the data to support your claim that "Long term there will be more kids in Encinitas" data shows the number is decreasing not increasing.
DeleteWe are all taxpayers but not all of us want to pay $80 million for a sports park, it is arrogant for you to try and speak for "all taxpayers"- really, who do you think you are?
$80 Million for 5 un-needed soccer fields, 3 un-needed baseball fields and 1 un-needed skate park is not a bargain, it is a waste.
I just is not true that WE NEED MORE SPORTS FIELDS. Without the Hall sports fields Carciff has 10 sports fields within a quarter mile.
DeleteSome are schools that could be in better shape for all if the city partnered w the schools.
The state park requirements for parks and sports fields are 1 for every 10 thousand residents.
That wiuld require seven. This is in the Hall EIR. The sports leagues now play in over sixteen fields. There are close to 23 sports fields in the city that could be use before hall sports park opens. There are tourneys and no problems.
As a reporter once stated in 2003, "Encinitas does not need more sports fields, it needs an unlimited amout of fields on Saturdays."
Yea, and try to reserve a field on the weekend if you are not in a league. SOL
$80,000,000.00 is a lot if money when you really don't need more sports fields.
3:17 states "We are all taxpayers but not all of us want to pay $80 million for a sports park, it is arrogant for you to try and speak for "all taxpayers"- really, who do you think you are?"
DeleteExcuse me, but aren't you quilty of the same thing? If I don't speak for all taxpayers, it follows you don't speak for all taxpayers.
As for demographics, I agree, but the horizon should be at or similar to the horizon for the park. That's not 5 years, more like 50. Why do you think they built airports in the middle of nowhere? Because the town would grow into the airport. Same here. While Encinitas continues to grow, the Hall location will become more and more desirable and important as a community resource. in 20 years it will be irreplaceable - so $80 million is a steal!
3:38 - clearly you have never participated in, organized, or been involved with running a sports tournament. It would be very generous to label all 23 sports fields as real sports fields - more like unmaintained open areas.
- The Sculpin
Scuplin your logic is more dysfunctional than Sybil. That there is a single taxpayer that does not want to pay for the Hall Park exposes your arrogant and condescending claim that "we're all taxpayers and we all want more sports fields" for what it is, a lie. Live with, own it.
DeleteInstead you attempt to seek cover by claiming 3:38 made a claim they never did, in fact 3:38 said "not all of us" and I agree.
As for demographics, they don't lie. Encinitas is not having the growth in the child demographic to justify an $80 million expenditure on sports fields for kids who will never be in town. Our kid numbers are going down not up. That it is a fact that doesn't support your position does not make it less relevant.
OK-you can have your "facts", and I'll stick with my opinions. Fair enough?
Delete- The Sculpin
And there was NEVER a vote from the public.
ReplyDeleteThe public was most definitively heard from. All sides from all over the city told the Planning Commission what they wanted.
What further proves that that the vast majority wanted a community park and not regional sports park was the GODBY SURVEY.
It is not a regional sports park.
ReplyDeleteIts an Encinitas community park with sports fields. The public voted indirectly twice on the issue by electing the sports-field-park proponents to the City Council. The demand for basketball courts and tennis courts is met at other parks (Glen Park for example) or non-city facilities. The dog park is there. The landscaping will hopefully be worthy of an Encinitas park (it should be).
The council recognized that the "community" input did not represent the entire population and was largely skewed by locals who were worried about a park appearing in their backyard.
The EIR says it is NOT a community park.
DeleteThere was never a vote to make the park a special use sports park.
The GODBY survey shows that 84% of the community wanted a more passive park.
It was never addressed, publicly, that there was not a need for tennis, basketball or any other court sports.
Glen has one tennis court and one basketball court.
There is no money for landscaping. Jerome Stocks put forth the initiative that the plants only be put in pots not in the ground cause the city can't afford it.
DeleteSpeaking of can't afford it, how is Vina and the council planning to pay the $500K annually to pay for operations of the Regional Sports Park? Right, the city is raising fees on taxpayers and residents. See how it works?
1:09 PM
DeleteRegional Sports Park maintenance is a million dollars.
From your own site:
ReplyDelete"The proposed park is consistent with the description of a Community Park as defined by the Recreational Element, except that a Community Park is limited by City standards to 10 to 20 acres. For that reason, the proposed project is designated as a Special Use Park.”
So its a special use park on a technicality, the technicality being that its greater than 20 acres.
That is one reason it is not a community park, as that site shows. There are two other reasons, and the map, that shows that it is not a community park.
DeleteNo community center, no court sports at all, ampitheater etc.
That map that the city paid to show what the community wanted is very telling.
Its telling in that it looks very much like the park we now have. I'm for a teen center and amphitheater, and hopefully an aquatic center, someday. But we do have a dog park, a skate park, nice grounds, and sports fields.
DeleteThe city has a community and senior center on Oakcrest.
the city also has sports park on Lake, Leo Mullen, SDA, Cardiff Sports Park and all the schools. The city also has a paid for skate park at the Y. The dog people had to pay for their park at the Hall property. What a waste of $80 Million dollars.
DeleteThe technicality being $80 million dollars of taxpayer money was squandered so Dirty Dan Dalager could broker the land deal with the Hall's and Jerome Stocks and James Bond could leverage community dissent to scare up votes from a small group of the community
DeleteWord
Delete1:05pm, sports park on Lake is the same as Cardiff Sports Park. The schools fields are a disgrace, somebody at EUSD thought it would be a good idea to stop watering two years ago. (Solana Beach school fields are beautiful, btw.) Have you driven by any of the school fields this past week? I've got 12 K and 1st grade girls playing on the side of a field with dead grass clippings covering the dirt and mud. Not "on" the field mind you, but on the side of the field because another team is on the real field.
DeleteConstruction costs: ~$19.5 Mil.
DeleteHow much did the dog people have to pay?
It is amazing that the city of Encinitas does not work with the schools and help maintain their sports fields. Instead a lot of the kids play for free on the city fields.
Delete1:26 Please- the property alone, the dirt, cost more than 19.5M, really you sound like incompetent Jerome Stocks who thought we should ignore all the interest payments associated with the cost of the park. All in the cost is dirt-
Delete1:20 if the city can't afford to take care of the fields the kids play on now what makes you think the city will be able to afford the $500K to take care of the Hall park? You are arguing against yourself, unless of course you know the Barth Gaspar led council plans to raise fees and rates on residents across the city.
DeleteJust saying
2:31pm, EUSD and the city are different entities. Different budgets.
Delete$17 Mil purchase price.
Delete2:53 better check that cost to own, really, you sound like the idiot who budgets to buy a car but doesn't take into account the interest payment and then has the car repo'd- come on, take that $17M and buy a clue- you sound like Jerome (I got my ass voted out of office while breaking city codes) Stocks
DeleteNo, but i'm not a fear monger blathering on about "regional sports park" this and "regional agenda for sports fields" that either. And i'm not using 30-year costs to exaggerate a point.
DeleteSo how much did the dog people have to pay? Just curious.
Delete3:21 you state the park coast $17M to purchase. THE truth is the park will cost $80million to own - that is no exaggeration, only the facts.
DeleteThe bond issue to buy the Hall property was for $23.2 million. Two other smaller properties on the north end of Somerset were included, along with other miscellaneous costs. Total repayment cost over 30 yearly is around $44 million. Add in the interest for the new construction bonds, plus all the others costs to prepare the EIR, hire lawyers and consultants, design the park, and pay for relevant staff time and the cost approaches $80 million. This figure doesn't include costs for park maintenance and new traffic infrastructure to handle the traffic for tournaments.
DeleteThe contracted construction cost for the park on the former Hall property is $19.3 million. That's on the City's website. How what is mostly open sports fields could possibly cost that much is baffling. I think most of us are in the wrong business.
DeleteAnyway...watch for the money behind whatever Vina/Council tries to tell us we want re: PV.
ReplyDeleteNo city purchase of PV. Sell to highest bidder, city should notbeinvolved.
ReplyDeleteWhoever buys, they should not be duped into paying some inflated "opportunity" price.
DeleteThe people who we elected to represent us did approve the park - then (build the park 5-0) and now (pay for the park; recent bond to approve park 5-0). Which elected representative is against the park? I can't think of anyone.
ReplyDeleteThe Planning Commission rejected the plans, and then the council approved them 3 to 2
DeleteWhat was the planning commission vote? The 5 volunteers that don't reflect the population of Encinitas (think Senate versus House).
DeleteThe Planning Commissioners are paid appointees. The PC denial was 4 to 0, with McCabe absent because he had to recuse himself for living too close to the Hall property. One commissioner is selected from each of the five communities of Encinitas. They do reflect the population of the city. You can see the reasons for denial in the minutes of the PC for the first meeting in September 2008. Everything is on the city website.
Delete6:42 are you sure planning commissioners are paid? they might get a stipend, but do they get a salary??
Delete6:42pm, have some of the reasons for denial been incorporated into the implementation plans? was there a description of passive-use field versus multi-use field? my understanding is a muti-use field could still support passive use, but not the other way around. are there lights at the dog park?
Deletehere's the link:
http://archive.ci.encinitas.ca.us/weblink8/0/doc/634299/Page1.aspx
Call it a stipend or what ever you want. They still get paid. They are not volunteers. Volunteers don't get paid.
DeleteThe reasons for denial were not incorporated into the plans. The City's own Parks and Recreation Department appealed the PC decision, and the council voted 3 to 2 to support its own Parks and Rec Dept. The council majority voted with "overriding considerations." In other words their perceived "public benefit" trumps any impacts, which then don't need to be mitigated.
The dog park will have lights, but only up to 30 feet. The sports field could support passive use when not scheduled for sport use, which is most afternoons and weekends. Even then it would be limited with only open grass with no shade, dogs, trails, benches, or tables. Not very attractive to most folks.
OK, how much is their stipend a month?
DeleteGoing ahead with the Hall property park construction was a manipulation by Stocks to get him re-elected. The park is under way, but Stocks is gone. He cooked the manipulation up with Bond ahead of time. When Stocks outlined the plan and made the motion, Bond instantly seconded it. Gaspar didn't come on board immediately, so Stocks muscled her in. Muir was coming up for election, so he wouldn't have voted 'No' regardless. There would have been no point in Barth voting 'No' cause she was outnumbered 4-1, and with all the dog owners, skaters and other vocal supporters in the audience, she would have looked like a party-pooper. So it went 5-0, and taxpayers are paying a bundle for more sports fields that only a small minority of residents will use.
DeleteYeah right, i'm sure Barth was worried about being the 'party pooper'. It was 5-0 because the residents resoundingly support the park being built, and the council members know this.
DeleteYes, the fiscal spendthrifts Barth and Gaspar and Muir voted to raid 15 accounts of $7M and go in debt another $9M. Barth Gaspar and Muir needed to be voted out of office. They are horrible.
ReplyDeleteTechnically, the Pacific View site is owned by the people. It should be kept in the public domain. What if the County sold the land on which our library sits to the highest bidder? Why can't EUSD continue to rent the land for $1 per year, for public use? All that "flipping" the property from one public entity to another does is to line the pockets of of a bunch of self-interested power brokers and enhance the resumes of overpaid bureaucratic administrators, at taxpayers expense. The taxpayers pay for EUSD, through Prop 30, through Prop O & P for about $44 Million each, for the local school bonds. This doesn't count the nearly half billion dollars we are paying for the San Dieguito Highschool District Bond. Each of these bonds go on our property tax bills. Baird has admitted the School District is now in better financial shape. EUSD doesn't need to profit from donated land, at Encinitas taxpayers and fee/rate payers expense.
ReplyDeleteSchool Bonds can now pass at 55% instead the 2/3 majority formerly required. We support our school children, but 49% of EUSD's enrollment is from outside of Encinitas. The school site was donated for LOCAL community use. Carlsbad children would still be welcomed at a true community arts and learning center.
Not every piece of land in this community should be "up for sale" to the highest bidder. Since the land was donated, this is a special case scenario.
The reason City Attorney Glenn Sabine says there is no precedent for the Government Code that Baird before sued under, is because EUSD, through Baird and school district attorneys is misinterpreting and misrepresenting the relevant government code.
Govt. Code 65852.9.
(a) The Legislature recognizes that unused schoolsites represent a potentially major source of revenue for school districts and that current law reserves a percentage of unused schoolsites for park and recreational purposes. It is therefore the intent of the Legislature to ensure that unused schoolsites not leased or purchased for park or recreational purposes pursuant to Article 5 (commencing with Section 17485) of Chapter 4 of Part 10.5 of the Education Code [which includes the Naylor Act] can be [emphasis added: this is not a shall be mandate] developed to the same extent as is permitted on adjacent property. It is further the intent of the Legislature to expedite the process of zoning the property to avoid unnecessary costs and delays to the school district. However, school districts shall be charged for the administrative costs of this rezoning.
b)If all of the public entities enumerated in Section 17489 of the Education Code decline a school district's offer to sell or lease school property pursuant to Article 5 (commencing with Section 17485 of Chapter 4 of Part 10.5 of the Education Code), the city or county having zoning jurisdiction over the property shall, upon request of the school district, zone the schoolsite as defined in Section 39392 of the Education Code, consistent with the provisions of the applicable general and specific plans and compatible with the uses of property surrounding the schoolsite.” Nowhere is it specified that the zoning must be identical to contiguous properties. {This code pre-supposes that some sites are zoned specifically for school use. Pacific View’s current zoning, public/semi public IS COMPATIBLE with “uses of property surrounding the schoolsite, and is consistent with our General Plan (including the new ordinance created by passage of Prop A, and our Downtown Encinitas Specific Plan”
Mayor Barth is wrong. State law, which is being misinterpreted by EUSD lawyers, paid to twist the intent of the law and to find "loopholes," does NOT trump a local law passed by the voters. Courts have consistently found in favor of initiatives, because they represent the will of the people.
DeleteThe only exceptions that I know of are when laws passed by initiative are found to be unconstitutional at a Federal level. But please share with me any other local initiatives that have been "overruled" by state law!
However, that would NEVER be the case, here, with respect to Pacific View, because even without Prop A's passage, the City would NOT be forced to rezone. Any open space we gain (.852 acre at 25% of the appraised value) through the applicability of the Naylor Act would be compatible with the current public/semi-public zoning.
The appraisal reports from EUSD and from the City of Encinitas should be publicly released. They've already been (selectively) publicly shared. There is no advantage to secrecy in negotiations. In fact there are obvious disadvantages. The public should be allowed to know what the appraised value of public property is before that property is bought or sold. Period.
Join the KPVCC. Our motto.. We like it crappy but without roundabouts.
DeleteOh buzz off.
Deletesame ol boring comments.
DeleteWhen you say "49% of EUSD's enrollment is outside of Encinitas", are you implying (wrongly) that we are paying for other cities kids?
DeleteThe property tax paid by those children's families go to the school district in which they reside, even if they are in Carlsbad zip codes. EUSD has schools that are physically located outside Encinitas zip codes (El Camino Creek, Mission Estancia).
Yes, those mostly Carlsbad families do pay property tax, and get to vote on passing school bonds. However, Pacific View was donated for the LOCAL community's use. As I keep saying, Carlsbad children would be welcome at a Pacific View community arts and learning center.
DeleteTim Baird expects land, donated by Encinitas locals FOR locals, to profit a school district, with only a little over half of its enrollment in Encinitas, at the EXPENSE of Encinitas taxpayers, rate payers and fee payers, through the City of Encinitas' purchasing it at Baird's exorbitantly inflated price.
Got it and don't disagree..
DeleteThats because this blog is run by KC.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was run by WC?
DeleteWC=KC They are the same.
DeleteJerome Stocks brought us unsustainable hug pensions at 2.7 at 55 for his only measly gain, and also bought a 80 million dollar regional sports park with our money that will cost us $2 million per year to water and maintain.
ReplyDeleteBarth- I thought we were living in a desert and shouldn't be pumping all the water from N. CA and the Colorado River? WTF?
This regional sports complex will use millions of gallons per year as all the existing trees in Encinitas DIE from staff not properly watering them. What gives?
Get some brains and fire Gus and the failing management. There are so many incompetent midlevel manager in the City its pathetic. They are there through attrition only. Look at the 10+ year employees as the really stinky ones. The fact is they have no ambition to do better work, only to coast at work and wait for the big retirement pay like Vina and Muir did.
Pathetic. Council better wake up and take control of this situation, or I am voting against every one of them in the upcoming election.
The problem is the growing human population. All these pressures and problem come from the ravaging consumption of the exploding population.
ReplyDeleteSupport Negative Population Growth. Its our only chance.
I think that population growth in CA has slowed. SANDAG had statistics that showed that people were actually leaving San Diego County but they decided to hide them to support the building industry.
DeleteThese builders really don't have risk when they run the show and work with the Planning Department against the citizens. There are still a considerable number of empty houses in Encinitas.
6:32
DeleteI think you're right. And for the relatively small increase of residents we've had in 20 years, the increased figures for state requirements of affordable housing is proportionally WAY off the charts - for the same reasons you cited.
Last night's SANDAG population projections for the next 40 years:
Delete• 50 million CA population by 2050
• 973,000 more in San Diego County region
How ingenious that they can estimate San Diego's population in 36 years within 1000 people! Wish I could live long enough to bet one ounce of gold they're wrong.
Delete4:23
DeleteWhat's SANDAG'S estimate for how far behind Encinitas will be in affordable housing in 2050?
California's birth rate is near replacement rate (zero growth). Net domestic migration is out of California to other states.
DeleteIs that all illegal aliens that SANDAG is counting on?
WCV
Good question. I just emailed the webmaster at SANDAG and asked what their projected estimate increase of illegal aliens hopping the fence will be in the year 2050. Thought I'd do that before Bart beat me to it. I'll get back when they have an answer but I'm not going to hold my breath.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWell whadaya know. I got a response from SANDAG when I wanted to know their projected # of fence hoppers will be in the year 2050. Looks like no improvements will be made in San Diego keeping residents legal.
DeleteHi Mr. Caldwell,
Our population forecast includes everyone who lives in San Diego County, regardless of immigration status (The same way the Census Bureau does it). We don’t have a separate statistic for illegal residents.
Best,
Helen Gao
I wish it was an election year and we had a nice group of fresh ideas and integrity that could be elected and punt the bad players like Gus. I guess Tony and Lisa don't have it in them. Next election the residents can show their displeasure with the City Council's decision to support a guy like Gus that has a history of running Cities into the ground.
ReplyDeleteI for one and voting against Gaspar and Barth. Gaspar really stinks- She supports the failed beliefs of Jerome Stocks Era which really put the screws to our City.
Barth and Gaspar failed by saying Gus is "Excellent" without saying one excellent thing he has done for our City. I don't call ushering in a huge Regional Sports Complex without accurate financial information about the true impact to the taxpayers is being a good City Manager. You both get a whopping F in my book.
Sad but true.
-Orca
Hi Orca how is Barth any different than Gaspar? They both vote the same way on 99.9% of things. Increased pensions, you got. back room deals, done. insee Barth and Gaspar as the same, they want us to believe they are different but when it comes tocthier votes they are not.
DeleteBarth wears Birkinstocks, Gaspar wears Louboutin.
DeleteA staffer heard Dr. Lori being yelled at by one of the Parks and rec. staff yesterday. I think it was the new person in recreation. Anyone know anything about this?
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't get any more "insider" than this!!
Delete- The Sculpin
No, but not surprised. Stories abound of staff threatening and yelling/speaking harshly to residents. They have forgotten they have their jobs thanks to the person standing in front of them. Perhaps the concept is too foreign.
ReplyDeleteBet anyone $100.00 Vina is somehow involved in this. He is slowly taking over and Council seems unaware of it. What I heard is Dr. L was asking whether staff or the City Council had control over the Commissions. She is Chair of the Parks and Rec. Commssion this year. Seems like she was being told that staff has control and she needed to do what they say. Maybe someone who knows Dr. L could ask her? This is a big deal, even if you don't like Dr. L If staff is yelling at volunteers, and all commissioners are, then something is wrong. I also heard that the Council is thinking about each councilperson selecting one commissioner that they want on each commissioner. If you don't know a council member you are screwed if the is true. Suposedly she was also speaking talking about that to Frankan and Gorham. I did hear that she gave city council her info on Sabine and they brushed it off and are keeping him. This city is becoming a dictatorship run by Vina.
ReplyDeleteDr. Lori is taking a beating these last 2 weeks. Marco Gonzales gave her a verbal tongue lashing on FB telling her she was basically an idiot. I think it had to do with Desert Rose but not sure. He deleted the post after he finished.
ReplyDeleteIsn't Marco the guy running the hospitality committee? That;'s on the City Council's agenda tonight. I don't trust him anymore. He has sold out.
ReplyDeleteRetributions against residents happened under Stocks, sounds like Vina under our new Council has taken abuse to a new low.
ReplyDeleteMaggie was the code enforcement retribution Queen, followed by Hano. Try and get it right.
DeleteI'm talking creepy crap that happened to a number of people I know under Stocks. Don't know about the others, but the Stocks facts are right.
DeleteGood grief folks. I just checked this blog for the fun of it, and found out lots of things about me and what happened yesterday and with Marco. Happy to share if you are really that interested in my life. However, I would prefer an email. My email is: lgreene98@aol.com. To quickly review the answers are Sort of, Yes, and Yes. Best I can do right now.
ReplyDeleteYou need to get this into the light of day or things won't change for you, Dr. Lorri, or anyone else (you are not alone). Is the entire council, city manager, city attorney, department head aware, with a copy to the offending party?
DeleteHave you considered speaking at council during oral comms?
At some point in the future, after this Hospitality thing is over, I do intend to speak during oral communications to the Council. If you all want, I will let you know when that will be. I still work, so it is hard for me to get there at 6PM, which is the only time I could speak to something that is not on the agenda. As far as Marco, it is not City business, so I won't be talking about him there. I am writing an email today to the people at City Hall so there will be a written record for those who want it.
DeleteNo, not Marco. You need to get the city stuff though into the record, so good.
DeleteFrankan and a few others in parks need to go
ReplyDeleteFunny,Lynn has her new best friends Gaspar and pension hog Muir I don't get it.
ReplyDeleteIs it the water
Not so funny, no mystery, it's called election year. Hello, they're trying to set themselves up for 2014!
DeleteGood. they deserve each other!
DeleteYes, the world has gone crazy. And, perhaps it was needed to move to the next level.
ReplyDeleteYes
ReplyDeleteI think a lower level
9:40PM, some lady complaining about the noise from bars in downtown....funny, she didn't care about the years of noise from the bars in Leucadia or Cardiff. But then I guess her ox wasn't being gored now was it??
ReplyDeleteNow Hotlz is boring us...Hey Dennis, if it can't be said in 1 minute it's not worth listening. Oh yeah, why do I have to wait at so many red lights, didn't you promise to fix the traffic??? you did....
ReplyDeleteLady talking about El Cajon...Huh???
ReplyDeleteLeucadian telling us that SRF cleans up after itself...
ReplyDeleteYou know I blame ALL of Encinitas for this problem, if you people had simply embraced
ReplyDeleteWhen In Rome restaurant, they never would have sold and this never would have happened. Shame on you Encinitians for not enjoying the best Italian food ever.
The 'I hate the sucessful downtown restaurants and bars' crowd is out in force tonight.
ReplyDeleteBottom line: there are laws on the books, but following them means the city is going to piss off some businesses, and that they would never, ever want to do, no matter what the cost to resident quality of life.
ReplyDeleteDoesn't matter if it's the Saloon or developers looking to supersize us, the city will choose revenue over residents every time. Gotta pay for the pensions and gotta cover up the mismanagement somehow.... Thank heaven for Prop A, one problem solved - for now.
Someone else complaining about the bars and grills.
ReplyDeletePeople, where is the sheriff that you pay so much for to keep the peace in Encinitas??
Funny you should mention as Encinitas is taking the same path as Rome. Loud music from UNION tonight, what a delightful establishment that needs to beam it's self down to PB.
ReplyDeleteShaffer not getting to the point and wasting time...Why isn't there a 3 min limit for council members, perhaps they would get to the point. Imagine having to listen to her at UCSD everyday....OyVEy.
ReplyDeleteShaffer calling for KILLING downtown bars and restaurants....
ReplyDeleteWants to expand city govt to include 24 hours call answering service.
Gaspar looks like a deer caught in the headlights of a big rig truck.
ReplyDelete3 minutes Kristin, 3 minutes....
ReplyDeleteGaspar is so fired.
ReplyDeleteRabid dogs????
ReplyDeleteBlah, blah, blah. She's not saying anything we don't already know....and she stated 8 minutes ago that her children are noisy.
ReplyDeleteMuir making "fire" joke. HAHAHA.
ReplyDeleteNow seems to be ordering #'s 13,14,15,27 and 29 from a menu??? That explains some things.....
And you all caught that the "Legacy Protective Services" the hospitality club led with as their big selling point consists of ONE security guy, yes? ONE guy they're all pooling their pennies to hire.
ReplyDeleteBarth calling for more regulations, wants all bar employees to have training.
ReplyDeleteWants the code enforcement of city to work nights,(overtime).
Barth says successful Rest and bars are a problem downtown.
Says Enc must change.
Gotta take care of her Millenials, you know!
DeleteShaffer motion fails, but it was unclear what the vote was about...
ReplyDeleteCall Ghostbusters! Just get rid of Union, problem solved.
ReplyDeleteShaffer wants CM to provide contact ph#'s to call if someone is making noise...
ReplyDeleteYoga means Union. UNION means blitz out of mind staggering drunk barfing flatbread.
ReplyDeleteShaffer doesn't even understand what her motions are about.
ReplyDeleteShe never does....
DeleteJar jar Gaspar refuses to listen to citizens once again. Her career is over.
ReplyDeletePlanning director says an ordinance to kill bars in downtown will pull staff from other city projects...like what?? Planning for road repair?? Hall property?? Retirement parties??
ReplyDeletePilfering for pensions will suffer without staff.
ReplyDeleteKranz ask for a motion to ask Code enforcement to do the job they are being paid to do...
ReplyDeleteNovel idea.
DeleteShaffer calling for more fines against business.
ReplyDeleteEnc fir dept telling council they want more $$$$. (no surprise).
ReplyDeleteMuir telling council that we need more fire fighters.....
ReplyDeleteCouncil slaps down Muir motion.
ReplyDeleteFire dept(Muir) wants to accept grant to hire 3 new firefighters and then accept them as new employees after the grant is over.
ReplyDeleteSetting them up for pensions we can't afford.
DeleteMuir sucking up to Olivenhain.
ReplyDeleteYou mean "representing" Olivenhain.
Delete-The Sculpin
Your representing is my sucking up....have the record show that he is committed to 6 full time fire fighters in Olivenhain is sucking up to his political contributors. Sculpin, if you're not part of the solution then you're part of the problem. Stop
DeleteSucking up to Muir.
Olivenhain has land dedicated for a fire station off of Lone Jack Rd. Council then decides that it's not needed and sells land to a developer for homes. Olivenhain grows a little, there's a little more traffic, and low and behold response times climb to unacceptable levels. Meanwhile, Olivenhain has been squaking about it non-stop. Finally council rights a wrong and puts in the fire station they were supposed to put in decadeds ago - at an increased cost. The way I see it, that's being part of the solution. They finally got it right. It's clearly not your solution, but it's mine. It's not sucking up - it's congratulations for a job well done.
Delete- The Sculpin
Don't you mean a job finally done?
DeleteSheriff deputy says sheriff dept is HUGE...so where are they when there are noisy people late at night??
ReplyDeleteLast month they were short on resources - which is it?
DeleteBarth tells sheriff to hurry up.
ReplyDeleteBarth wants sheriff to use smart cars.
Sheriff telling us stuff we already know, but this is govt and they get paid to waste time.
Is this sheriff being paid overtime for presenting this information??
ReplyDeleteHazards Materials SWAT team?? WTF???
ReplyDeleteUnlike these yahoos, I have to work in the AM, so I'm off to bed. Plus, I can't take this crap any more...
ReplyDeleteMuir is all about giving all our money to keep three well paid fire princesses in a $10,000,000 with the best Big Screens and 5-star accommodations so they sleep great after their workout, BBQ, and movie.
ReplyDeleteThen when they retire at 50, they can bring home over $150k for having that cake job for 30 years. Boy great plan Muir.
The only problem is it consumes all our tax dollars and the rest of the City goes to crap while a hand full of Fire Retirees live the good life and party like Rock Stars. Sigh...
Nothing he doesn't already know...he just doesn't care. He is using his position to pay back favors and feather the nest for his "brothers."
DeleteRemember how he was installed in the first place: no vote, just a favor paid by Stocks. Muir is a dangerous man, and the longer he stays on council, the worse it will be for Encinitas in the short and long term.
Lynn,I am confused you say prop A is the greatest and you don't get that Kristin and
ReplyDeleteMark want pacific view for there developer friends. Oh maybe you're confused. Ya Ya
That's it
No, Mark Muir and his wife, who is a Trustee for EUSD, have been in favor of saving Pacific View, and both have opposed redevelopment of it through upzoning. They've opposed taking Pacific View out of the public domain, as it was land donated for the local community. An arts and learning center would honor the pubic's wishes and the intent of the original donor, J. Pitcher, and the volunteers who built our historic Old Schoolhouse.
DeleteKristin Gaspar recused herself on the issue of Pacific View, because she didn't know enough about it, she said. After the 2010 election, she had replaced Dan Dalager, who had before recused himself because of a conflict of interests.
When Kristin did begin to participate on Pacific View, after EUSD dropped its bogus lawsuit against the City, she voted, along with the rest of Council, to get independent appraisals in anticipation of negotiations to purchase the property.
I am well aware that Kristin Gaspar and Mark Muir were also in opposition to Prop A, which I am eternally grateful the voters PASSED! However, Kristin Gaspar and Mark Muir did not "change their stripes" on the issue of Prop A "once the new council was seated," as the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Councilmember Kranz did.
Also, Barth, Kranz and Shaffer have back peddled on their positions of more open government. I don't see that Kristin Gaspar has done that. Gaspar may have developer supporters. So has Pam Slater-Price. Not all developers are "evil," as some would have us believe. We don't need to polarize our city more than it already is.
Prop A, the law created by its passage, simply allows THE PUBLIC to vote on whether or not we want to upzone or raise height limits. Teresa Barth, Lisa Shaffer and Tony Kranz led us to believe they supported that concept before Shaffer and Kranz were elected. Afterwards, they "changed their stripes." That is seen as a betrayal by me and many others who campaigned for them.
and what is new?
ReplyDeleteObsess less about Lynn and turn your attention to the five Stooges. They need to wake up and figure out Vina and Sabine are taking us DOWN.
ReplyDeleteNever re-elect anyone.
ReplyDeleteBarth has served her terms.... shes out.
ReplyDeleteGaspar sucked since day 1.... literally....
Time for two knew Councilmembers.
Plus Bingo- Next election - elected Mayor.
Barth destroyed her chance by supporting Sad Sack.
Stocks---- pffff- has been pension collecting fool.
Gaspar- Maybe? Voters love a good MILF.
Kranz- He should run, but is to scared.
Lisa- to much conflict. She's out.
Others?
Word on the street mixed with speculation about the 2014 election:
ReplyDeleteBarth will bow out, ending her political career.
Shaffer is a declared one-termer until 2016. Whether she'll try for elected mayor in 2014 is anybody's guess. She's been very public with her newsletters and accessibility, so maybe that's a hint she'll run for mayor.
Kranz's electability as mayor is doubtful, so odds are he'll stick with his council seat till '16, decide he's suffered enough abuse and then bow out.
Gaspar is presumed to be politically ambitious, so maybe she'll go after Issa's seat. Doubtful she is electable as mayor or for another council term.
Muir has his seat till '16. He'll probably stick with it and then bow out. He's rich, set for life and generations to come, has paid his crony debts and doesn't need any more grief.
A vast collection of knowns and unknowns will come out of the woodwork to run for mayor and council. It should all be very entertaining.
Thanks for the insight.
DeleteI agree that Gaspar is ambitious, but think she is very unlikely to challenge Issa. She's a Republican, so that would be a primary challenge, and he is very powerful and fairly well-liked in both the district and the party. Primaries don't tend to succeed unless the incumbent has a RINO issue or some huge scandal. Issa has neither.
Gaspar has failed to distinguish herself on the council and has no legislative accomplishments (to say nothing of her coronation temper tantrum or her not understanding the difference between recusing and abstaining).
Her best bet from here would be to run for mayor and then try to actually accomplish something (here's a thought: fiscal responsibility, Kristen! You'd be amazed how popular that issue is!).
WCV
Total fluke Gaspar was elected in '10. No way she would be elected as mayor or for another term on the council.
ReplyDeleteI completely disagree.
DeleteGaspar has Rotary, soccer moms, and her husband's money and political connections. That is more than enough to overcome her intellectual levity and lack of accomplishment.
And who's going to run against her? Gaspar would likely beat Barth, who has destroyed her base with the dishonest War on Prop A. And Gaspar would certainly beat an inexperienced, yahoo candidate who emerges from the clown parade of a wide open election.
Maybe someone from the Prop A gang steps forward, or some other respected community figure, but until that happens, I'd say Gaspar is the favorite.
WCV
plus with some adjustments. Gaspar is a pleasure of the eyes.
DeletePlastic beats perfect.....right?
i have to agree. People are soooo shallow.
DeleteIf Jerry Stocks looked like brad pit in stead of a homeless dude, he would still be in office.
No one really cares about his 30% increase in pension in 2005.
I care, and so do a lot of others. Also, permitting fees went up ASTRONOMICALLY in 2005, and again in 2009, so if someone wants to repair his or her roof, or add on a room, there's going to be a LOT more expense to do so, in higher fees paid to the City.
DeleteThese fee increases hurt "the little guy" much more than developers, because at the same time our fees were being raised, in 2005, developers were given a 40% discount for permitting fees relative to "multiple units." This was part of a settlement after the City of Encinitas lost a court case, Barratt American vs. City of Encinitas. The City lost because it had allowed planning officers to have "unfettered discretion" in setting fees, without first getting Council approval. Barratt would have faired even better against the City, but some parts of its lawsuit were outside the six month statute of limitations (according to when fees had been illegally raised).
Government entities have a VERY SHORT statute of limitations, unlike private individuals, or private corporations.
The prospect of Gaspar as mayor or on the council for another four years will be enough to generate a candidate who can send her packing. The Prop A vote showed where the majority of Encinitas voters stand, and it's not with Gaspar.
ReplyDeleteDelusion.
DeleteAlso, lately, Kristin Gaspar has been more responsive to public speakers and to Council's actually standing behind its commitments for more open government with respect to not having more secret subcommittee meetings.
ReplyDeleteGaspar also was the ONLY council member who QUESTIONED defunding Open Space and Habitat Acquitision and chronic flooding funds, and questioned Council's capital improvement priorities with respect to the way money was being spent at Moonlight Beach and the Hall Property Park, on July 18, 2012. Jerome Stocks LAUGHED at her. Teresa Barth went ALONG with all of Jerome and Council Majority's plans, WITHOUT QUESTIONING, as Gaspar had done.
Gaspar is political, period. She was strongly against Prop A and had no problem lying to show just how far she was willing to go for her backers.
DeleteAll politicians are political. So you are stating the obvious, anon 9:53.
DeleteAnd anon 1:29, in a sense, every politician is always campaigning. All elected officials should be mindful of the campaign promises they make, and of the wishes of the voters who elected them into office.
All are political: all don't resort to bald-faced lies. This has nothing to do with campaign promises, this has to do with basic decency for which Gaspar gets an "F," plain and simple.
DeleteLynn, don't take what you perceive to be Gaspar's kindness to you to be any more than a patronizing pat on the head. Surely your years fighting city hall have taught you how to read people; don't be so thankful for the crumbs Gaspar throws you...she is the proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing.
The election is more than a year away, and she's already started campaigning!
ReplyDeleteWhat about all of the de-facto hotels, in the form of "vacation rentals"? Home owners are allowed to rent out their homes for $2000 and up, a week! What does that do to rent prices? What does that do to our sense of community, when you have new "neighbors" every week and your old friends and neighbors, that you grew up with have to move to San Marcos, Vista or Oceanside because they can no longer afford to stay in their home town??? The city council needs to address this issue before any new residential units are built! Also, "mixed use" is just an excuse for developers to put residential units where they shouldn't be. How could any of this be good for quality of life???
ReplyDeleteI hate to draw a parralell with the policy of Disneyland, but when tickets for that place went to 100 bucks each, I thought it was pretty sad - making it impossible for a lot of kids and parents to enjoy. Then I realized if tickets cost half that much, twice the amount of people could go and the 45 minute wait for Pirates of the Carribean would be an hour and a half. The same seems to be the fate of coastal North County. Everybody wants to live and stay here but it just gets more expensive and I have seen many people move inland for that single reason. If someone can rent a mediocre place out for $2000 per week, they're going to want to. It's what the market will bear for our slice of paradise. I can see other reasons for not building more mixed use along 101, but I don't see how making other people's rent go up is one of them. Half the time they're vacant and/or fail to sell. Even during racing season.
ReplyDelete