Wednesday, September 25, 2013

More backdoor action at City Hall tonight

From the Inbox:
Please try to attend Wednesday's meeting if you can carve out the time!

On Wednesday, the Council is going to vote on actions pertaining to the Housing Element. It appears that they are trying to slip through a back door way to upzone the City--particularly New Encinitas and greenhouse properties. The following list are some problems with the report:

Specific Parcel Numbers Not Identified

The Staff Report that was available on Friday contains a map that shows areas that they want to upzone without identifying them by parcel number! Not surprisingly, the Sprouts/ McDonald's parcel is one that has been identified, as is the Ralphs/Trader Joe's parking lot. Although it does not indicate that it goes most of the length of El Camino like the original MIG map--by getting a foot in the door, they can easily extend it down the entire street. This is bifurcation in action!

RHNA Requirements Vary. Terms 'Affordable Housing' and 'Low Income' are Not Defined and Are Used Interchangably

In addition, there are many questions about the actual RHNA numbers that we must take since there are a range of figures presented though out the report.

No Red Line Version Has Been Made Available

In addition, the red line version of the Housing Element has never been created--even though it was requested by the previous Council almost 2 years ago. Without a red line version, there can be no accountability for the process since it is impossible to make a side by side comparison of what they have changed from the current General Plan.

They Are Back Interpreting Prop A--In the Wrong Way

They make claims in their power poing about Prop A which are not true.

The Stategic Plan is Also on the Agenda!

As if this was not bad enough, the issue of the Strategic Plan will also be on the agenda. Instead of updating the General Plan and its elements starting with our existing plan and asking for citizens to weigh in, they want to resurrect parts of the failed MIG plan and seemingly, want to run it through Gus' Strategic Plan.

Please attend the meeting if you can, and speak to the issues if you have background in these issues.

In conclusion, there is absolutely nothing in the report that is deserving of a vote or even a discussion in its current, unfinished form.  Please make every effort to attend Wednesday's meeting.

107 comments:

  1. We have weasels to exterminate it seems.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I don't agree. The Circulation/ Mobility Element was well written. I think alot the plan is worth saving. It just takes someone with a brain and strong Project Manager skills to vet it properly through the system and let the planning commissions and council do it job.

    If you don't like it, vote them out next election. Thats what I plan to do.

    Better yet, why don't you run?..... Oh yeah, your brain is so jacked up, no one takes you seriously and you can barely manage your own life let alone do anything good for a City.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We are going to be asked to vote on more than just Council Candidates for the next election. We will also be voting for mayor, and for or AGAINST a General Plan Update, to include upzoning, which we already voted against by passing Prop A.

      Council should understand: by voting FOR Prop A, we voted against raising height limits, upzoning, and FOR the people's right to vote, overall. This is a dramatic declaration of our right to do more than just elect representatives, whom too often let us down.

      October 2 is an important Special Council Meeting, re "All Things Election." We CAN get involved in more DIRECT democracy by voting for elected officials that are willing to place more items on General Election Ballots. We've got an intelligent population, here. People can make the right choices, if we are informed.

      Unfortuantely, the City, and also Encinitas Union School District, have, for years, been working "behind the scenes." Especially for the school district, public meetings are RARELY, if ever attended or followed by the vast majority of the voting public.

      Anon 6:08 keeps trying to distract from important questions being asked, or relevant comments being made by telling people who do care, who are involved, why don't you run for office? Obviously, not everyone wants to run. That doesn't mean we can't be involved in our local government.

      Another thing about our local elections, candidates are able to be elected by far less than a majority of those voting. They only need a simple plurality. That has worked to keep some terrible incumbents in office for many years. Incumbency, we all know, has a big advantage.

      People mobilizing against Jerome Stocks helped get up the energy and the motivation for us to pass Prop A. That grassroots mobilization is what got us a new Council Majority, it's what got Teresa as our new mayor.

      We didn't get what we thought we were going to. Promises were broken. But we do have another chance, on October 2, a week from today, to ask our "new majority" Council to put some issues on the General Election ballot that are important to us. They could save some face and regain some "political points," by listening to their constituents, listening, understanding, and acting to support what it is that we truly want and need.

      The position of mayor should be on a primary ballot. It would be worth the extra expense for us FOR ONCE, to have a representative elected by a MAJORITY of the voting public. That would be much more "representative democracy," not just favoring incumbents, who have political "leverage" with special interests backing them.

      Since there is a great deal of controversy about the facts gathered, analyzed, presented and "tweaked" through various workshops, the N101 Streetscape's plans including five roundabouts and lane elimination IN BOTH DIRECTIONS through four one lane, narrow diameter roundabouts, without cross streets, at three way intersections, could be put on the ballot. That would determine whether or not there's widespread community support, period!

      The GPU will be on the ballot. We can vote NO again to upzoning. If we don't have a certified housing element, it won't "kill us," and we'll be in the same position we already are.

      Delete
    2. You know the plurality "split," especially works well for those elected when three seats are open for Council. Tony Kranz couldn't "make it," when only two seats were open. Despite even more bad press, he was elected when three seats, not two, were open.

      That three way plurality split is also one of the reasons we were stuck with Jerome Stocks and Jim Bond, far past the point of their fairly representing us. Jim Bond started out as a fiscal conservative. By the end of his 20th year, Bond didn't "stick to his guns," about that, either.

      Another item that should be considered by Council, although I don't know that we should have to vote on this, is having two Council seats be determined at each general election. The third seat would be for mayor, which we VOTED to have elected every two years. That is because we want to be able to kick the mayor out office in only two years, if she or he lets us down, as we all know could happen. Despite Lisa Shaffer's suggestion in a recent newsletter, or her "leading question," we don't want to go to a four year term for mayor. That need NOT be a question on the 2014 GE ballot.

      If incumbents don't want to "always be campaigning," then one could serve for ONLY two years, as mayor, if elected, then give someone else a chance!

      Another idea, allow citizens to vote, in 2014, on whether or not we want ALL Council seats to be elected for only two years, beginning in 2016, retroactive to whomsoever is elected next year! I am so tired of the incumbents having so much power, not keeping their campaign promises, and their essentially saying, well, you voted for us, this is what you get!

      Let ALL Council candidates participate in the primaries, too, along with Mayoral candidates. If any one council candidate got a majority of the vote, he or she wouldn't have to participate in the general election.

      For the rest, take the top three, or top four vote-getters, if no one gets a majority, and let them run, in the General Election, against the two who received the next highest number of votes, in the Primary, if there are that many candidates! Then the vote would not be split so "thinly," and a plurality would not be such a small percentage of total votes cast.

      We should all remember when Steve Asceti's wife, was it Becky? ran for office, and then mysteriously dropped out. People unknowingly still voted for her, ultimately affecting the election results, and leading to Bob Nanninga's again not being elected, because of the probably pre-planned "split."

      Delete
    3. What's your point, Tony shouldn't have run? Maybe he ran a better campaign the 2nd time. It's simple, if you don't like the incumbents, vote them out. The issue is people not A.) being involved in the process. b.) not voting. We already have term limits, it's called the vote. Everything else is a waste of time. There's a reason it's called "participatory" democracy. And if you recall, and this is a matter of perspective perhaps, Bob nanniga was king of the vote splitters. We may have been able to prevent guys like Danny and Jerome from getting in without Bob in the field. He certainly had every right to run, but he did the slow-development side no favors by running every time.

      Delete
    4. That Tony ran on Lisa's coat tails was plain to see. He oftentimes didn't bother to show up at his own supporter-run campaign events. He used Lisa...Lisa used Maggie...they're two of a kind. No wonder they teamed up.

      Delete
    5. My point, Mr. Leucadia, is that there are ways to make sure that people who are elected are elected by a greater number of people. For the mayor, if he or she ran, first, during the primaries, he or she could be elected by a MAJORITY. For Councilmembers, there could a way to insure that even if it were still a plurality, the plurality would still represent a greater portion of the voters, if Councilmembers also ran in the primary. Plus, power would not become so concentrated, and we could have more representative democracy, if councilmembers AND the mayor were elected to two year terms, only, ALL participating in primaries.

      Delete
    6. Right, but then we have to pay for more elections. I take your point, but I would counter that's it's the lack of participation that hurts us. How many times have each of us been asked by a neighbor "Who should I vote for"? Think about that for a minute. I'm personally fine with the way we had the rotation of the mayor, IF they just stipulated that it has to rotate to the next person in line. We saw how they skipped Maggie and Teresa. It's our duty as citizens to be involved and to vote every time. We have the power, but people have thrown in the towel, they let their "Busy schedules", disgust with the system and other factors dicate their lack of participation. I'm just as disgusted as the next man with a lot of the goings on, but I, as you do Lynn, participate. That is the answer, not making the voting system more complicated.

      Delete
    7. Mark Muir and Jim Bond pushed the elected mayor issue onto the ballot.

      Delete
    8. But the majority of people did vote for an elected mayor, elected for a two year term. Of all the cities in San Diego County, only Del Mar and Solana Beach now have appointed mayors. If Del Mar, a town much smaller than ours, with lower tax revenue coming in, could afford to put the issue of roundabouts on the ballot at the last General Election, then we should be able to afford that, here. Also, read the Coast News. Solana Beach was going to have angled parking and roundabouts, but decided "mid-process" against that because of cost and public concerns.

      Paying for more elections, such as participating in primaries, or more election measures, is FAR less expensive than paying for costly boondoggles that the people don't want or need, because of the power of incumbency and lobbyists, most of these same lobbyists NOT reporting their lobbying activity. For an issue to be placed on the General Election ballot is only about $23,000, or $17,000 per question, if there is more than one question per issue.

      The best way to determine if there is actual community support for a $20 MILLION project, like the N101 Streetscape, would be to put that question on the ballot. This could have been done BEFORE we wasted nearly $560,000 paying Peltz and Associates for invalid numbers from workshops, and faulty surveys, workshops where attendees did NOT enthusiastically or strongly support four one-lane three way intersection roundabouts adjacent to RR tracks. Attendees did NOT enthusiastically or strongly support the roundabout at El Portal and 101, which is now to be the first roundabout, only because "it's easier to install there," according to Diane Langager, and because that's where the Downtown streetscape "left off." Those are both bogus reasons.

      Collision statistics provided by City Staff in the 7/18/12 don't support a roundabout at any of the designated intersections, including El Portal and 101.. Safety doesn't support the need; the community doesn't enthusiastically or strongly support the roundabout at El Portal. Adjacent residents do not want it or need it.

      We are concerned about lost lives due to slowing already subpar emergency response times; we are concerned about adding to cut through traffic on our residential streets. There is a no right hand turn sign at El Portal for peak morning commute hours. The roundabout would eliminate that sign and defeat its purpose of minimizing morning cut through traffic, going south.

      Delete
    9. I meant: Collision statistics provided by City Staff in the 7/18/12 City Council Agenda Report don't support a roundabout at any of the designated intersections, including El Portal and 101.

      Safety doesn't support the need; the community doesn't enthusiastically or strongly support the roundabout at El Portal. Adjacent residents do not want it or need it.

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

      Delete
    11. Who said past collision statistics are the reason for our roundabouts, Lynn? The truth is, without roundabouts more stops and lights would be inevitable on 101 no matter how often you say they are not. Safety, efficiency and beauty are the reason they're coming, and as Ben said: An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Who would knowingly stand in the way of making life better for everyone with them? Probably the sampe person who would tell their neighbors its safer to navigate 3 lanes of 35 mph traffic for a left turn than it is to enter the hwy with one lane of 15 mph traffic. 50 ft breaks in traffic occur for the vast majority of time for traffic flow on 101 and that's all you need to enter a roundabout safely.

      Delete
    12. The low collision statistics at the intersections where they are to be installed demonstrates that they are not needed for safety, Fred.

      Bottlenecking a former four lane highway, Historic State Highway 101 through four one-lane, three way intersections, adjacent to the RR tracks is NOT efficient, particularly during peak traffic periods.

      Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Most residents, including adjacent residents, and most local commuters, do NOT find the prospect of five roundabouts that turn our Major Roadway, primary circulation element to a two lane street, with frustrated motorists going through four one-lane roundabouts, at 15 MPH, "beautiful!"

      Delete
    13. And, Fred, sure, you think an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, as long as the City, through us taxpayers, is paying for it, and not business owners, through imposition of a special property tax assessment district!

      Your theory that 15 MPH is safer is illogical. While it may be true that 15 MPH crashes are less severe, it is illogical to suggest that every intersection in Encinitas, or in the State, should be reduced to 15 MPH speed limits so that we would prevent more severe accidents. That's not going to happen. And installing roundabouts is no guarantee that stop signals would not latter be added to the roundabouts, as has happened in roundabouts throughout the U.S., and in Mexico, specifically, in Tijuana.

      Intersections with roundabouts have more collisions after their installation, than before, including bicycle accidents, which statistics I have provided to our City, and here, before. You CONTINUE to fail to answer the question, Fred:

      If you are so certain five roundabouts and lane elimination as a plan for Highway 101 streetscape from A Street to La Costa has such widespread community support, because it, according to you would be safer, more efficient and "beautiful," then why don't you support putting the question on the General Election Ballot in 2014, as you favored the people's right to vote on Prop A, including our right to vote on upzoning and raising height limits?

      Potential upzoning is tied to roundabouts, as I've repeatedly reminded you, because they count as "traffic calming devices," even when they are NOT, because intersections where they are installed no longer have to be graded for Level of Service. Thus developers far more easily can get negative environmental impact declarations with regard to the increased traffic, and lower level of services, on the roadways, that increased density brings, without fail.

      Delete
  3. Sad Sac's Strategic Plan is a huge failure.

    Time to bring in new leadership. The longer Sac stays, the more adamant my vote against incumbents.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A Strategic Plan for Encinitas should not be a Strategic Plan for one person--Gus Vina--at the Encinitas taxpayers' expense.

      This council only has 2 employees to evaluate, Gus Vina and Glenn Sabine, and both of them are still there. The council members days will be numbered unless they start showing leadership and stop letting Vina and Sabine run the show.

      Delete

  4. Question to anyone who knows/Has background, is Vina better or worse than Phil Cotton? When we say "They" above, are we talking about the specific staff who prepared this report?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that Gus Vina is the WORST that we have ever had. Cotton had an extra $10,000 paycheck prepared for himself and gave himself a 3 week vacation for which he was not entitled as a contract employee.

      Gus Vina has taken over everything and will spend our tax dollars to hire as many staff members and consultants it takes to bolster his own personal power.

      The difference is that Cotton got away with about $40,000 worth of unintitled pay and benefits, and Vina is ensuring that his $250,000 paycheck and 6-figure retirement benefits continue for the rest of his life--even if he kills the host--Encinitas taxpayers!

      Delete
    2. What Maggie didn't leak to the press is that all the employees and council people also received an extra check. She and Teresa neglected to release that info to the press. Check it out.

      Delete
    3. Wouldn't Phil Cotton be receiving a similar paycheck as far as a pension? Let's do a 1:1 comparison if anyone has the data. Clearly you're no fan of Vina, and maybe with good reason, I don't know, but Cotton was pretty weak as a city manager. Per the UT "Cotton retired in July and continues to serve as city manager on a $15,000 monthly contract while city leaders hunt for his successor. A retired Marine, Cotton also gets $6,454 a month from his city pension." Trust me, Cotton is going to want his pension for life as well. Looks like he got $50k less a year than Vina...

      Delete
  5. Yes and Teresa voted against giving Phil Cotton that extra money and vacation time . Staff got nothing extra they have a separate labor contact.Jim ,Jerome and Kristin voted for it!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What happened to THAT Teresa? She wanted to be mayor and now that she finally got her wish, she has become a ribbon cutter and turned all of the decision making over to Gus.

      Every decision that Gus makes is for Gus!

      Delete
    2. She might have finally realized that everything Bruce, Bonde and Sheila told her was completely untrue. Jes' sayin'.

      Delete
    3. Since representing developers and other special interests, Teresa is lonelier and more left out than she has even been. When we see her at events, she is wandering around alone since she has alienated her base, and the other side just use her for their purposes and laugh at her behind her back. If this problem were not of her own making and if she were not doing so much to destroy Encinitas, I would feel sorry for her.

      Delete
    4. 7:44 interesting point, it is likely why there are rumors she will not seek re-election and possibly move to Hawaii on a California taxpayer funded pension. She could turn it around and begin leading, she could silence Vina (really, the council looked like idiots last night hanging on Vina's every word, and let's face it, while I only oppose his policies he does look a bit like Lucifer) and proclaim before we spend any more taxpayer money on this we are going to challenge the state HCD and Sandag number, but she likely won't. Her supporters no longer support her, her whole trust and transparency was a ruse, her whole protect community character was fiction.............very sad for the community, we need more.

      Delete
    5. I think people are entertaining a lot of fantasies. Teresa does not have a big pension aND and rumours are just that, rumours. You won't know until August of 2014 when papers have to be filed who runs for what seat.

      Delete
    6. During all of her time in office, Teresa has shown a magnetic pull to the spectacle of self harm, instead of a focus on modeling leadership and representing the people who elected her.

      Because she has done outrageous things from the her first days on council, as mayor, she has now turned to the dark side to feed her adiction drama and negative attention, and to become the ultimate martyr. She has become a characture of self destructive foolishness and is attacking people who have been loyal supporters.

      It looks like Jerome Stocks was not the only narcissist mayor that we have had in Encinitas.

      Delete
    7. 11:14- I have no taxpayer funded pension, I am however taxed to pay for the pensions of those who have them.

      Not much? If Barth gets $1,000 a month that is $12,000 a year, If Barth gets 25 years of pensions then that is $300,000 dollars, more than a quarter million. Then let's add to Barth's pension the free health and dental coverage for life. In todays market that is $800 a month. Using the same math over 25 years that is about another $225,000 dollars. So that Barth pension you want us to believe is small is actually more than a half million dollars on the backs of private workers.........................Shaffer get's 4 pensions, Muir gets a pension of $170,000, City Manager Vina may get a pension near $200,000 for life. Is this stealing from private workers? Should this money go to service our city debt and improve services for taxpayers?

      TEA= taxed enough already

      Delete
  6. What happened to televised council meetings. It went from lousy video to dead air.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Omg they are praising pacific station as a good example of their dense vision. Ugly gets their vote, this city is too messed up!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They will praise anything Vina tells them to.

      Delete
  8. Just saw Katleen Linderman on tv: she is batshit crazy and no one can deny it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Never mind about her. Watch the council trying to bury this town. Now that's some batshit crazy.

      Delete
    2. Nice personal attack. Kathleen has done solid work for the slow growth side and is a great person. Possibly not the greatest speaker, ok, but c'mon. Use your name if you're going to swing below the belt...

      Delete
    3. Personal attack to divert attention from developers and Vina trying to run the show.

      Want to name names? Notice the Leichtag guys in the audience. Bet they can't wait till the talk turns to their "underutilized" land.

      Delete
    4. 9:20 what are you talking about? Lindeman outed the lie the city staff is telling about siting requirments. That was great. Barth Kranz and shaffer can stand with the .liars or they can stand on the side of honesty and openess, which do you think they will choose?

      Delete
    5. Marginalizing critics is a longstanding tactic for city insiders.

      Sad to see that it's continuing with the new council.

      Delete
  9. Murphy talking about reducing the RHNA number and sites "we have to rezone." Not if Prop A doesn't say so.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. State law trumps local law. Besides, again, for the 500th time losers, there is no nexus between the report for the state and actually building anything. As to attacking people, W.C. is as guilty of that as anyone. Hypocrites!

      Delete
    2. Anon 6:47 is just chanting the same old mantra. What developers DONT tell you is that once zoning has changed, they can't PREVENT them from building. They are just taking baby steps for the same goal. Hypocite!

      Delete
    3. Yep, same omitted yet critical truth: once you plan for it, you CAN build it.

      The "we just have to plan for it" lie might be understandable coming from unscrupulous developers, but from our elected and appointed officials and city staff? Criminal.

      Delete
  10. Gas par makes fakey fakey - what an obvious act. Git rid of her.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Council did it again. How do they live minus a conscience?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Vina pretending he knows about budgets and resources. Wonder whether this is the same expertise he brought to Stockton and Sacramento?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Why is Gus sitting behind the speakers? Weird. Intimidating and weird.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, the City is allowing each of the five communities to choose their own locations for affordable housing that will never be built, ever. It's hard to believe most of those cranks at the podium last night are college educated.

      Okay Lynn, you've had your coffee, it feels like a 20,000 word day today, doesn't it?

      Delete
    2. Gus and the council are doing the divide and conquer ploy. Shameful on the part of the council.

      Delete
    3. "Choosing their own locations" is like selecting your own noose - how very big of the city!

      Declining any location choosing/upzoning is not a choice. The "submit or else" tactic is empty, as the only "or else" is a number on a piece of paper from the state, assigning more penalty units to our existing tally.

      How about we talk an amnesty program that has, say, a 20-year cap on it instead of in perpetuity (assume that timeline changed thanks to a city that wanted to discourage enrollment)? How about we get our mobile homes counted (even Jerome let that one slip)? How about we refuse to work with grossly inflated population growth forecasts that SANDAG itself admits are wrong?

      THEN let's talk location, and only then.

      Delete
    4. "Actually, the City is allowing each of the five communities to choose their own locations for affordable housing that will never be built, ever."
      This is exactly what Stocks said at a council meeting, that this was all just "a paper exercise" and he didn't know why people were getting all worked up.A more irresponsible statement by an elected public official couldn't be said.
      This is all about zoning that allows dense residential units in areas where that cannot happen today. It is true that these are only zoning changes. No one knows for sure what will happen, whether or not the residential units would ever be built. But the new zoning is the first step that makes it even a possibility. Any building of residential units may not happen for years, but the new zoning would allow it to happen eventually.
      It is probably true that the affordable housing would bever be built because the prices would be at market rates and not be affordable for low income people.
      All of this is being rammed down Encinitas throat. Nobody wants the upzoning. But it is going to happen, so it right to be concerned about the specifics of how the upzoning gets done.

      Delete
    5. It is "going to happen" if we take that attitude and roll over. We have Prop A, a powerful start; how about we stand behind it and stand up?

      Push for use of correct pop growth numbers, push for an amnesty program at the old 20-year cap, and push for mobile home parks to be counted. Then "it is going to happen" turns to "we met the numbers, no up zoning required."

      City workers whose pensions depend on up zoning and developers whose lifestyles depend on up zoning will need to forego destroying this town to pay their personal bills. We owe them nothing.

      Delete
    6. The Staff is counting on Ehlers/Delano advising everyone to 'put their dots in the Pacific Ocean' in this exercise. When the regular suspects refuse to locate any potential affordable site, the City will then be free to locate them where THEY want.

      Delete
    7. 6:30, I've got a news flash for you: the City will locate them where they want to, anyway. Only problem is, they've got a little problem called Prop A and an increasingly-educated public that knows "none, thank you" is actually an option.

      The last dots exercise was a sham that even Barth admitted to - in private, of course.

      Delete
    8. That wasn't Gus behind the speakers.

      Delete
    9. You are DEAD WRONG, Fred. Check out the video webcast at 4:54:57, when Dennis Lees is speaking. Gus was sitting behind the public speakers, as he came "down" to use the public speaker dais during his Strategic Plan presentation.

      Delete
    10. I'll take your word for it. Life's too short to hunt for 4:54:57. How's that for admitting when I'm wrong?

      Delete
    11. Fred, it was Gus. He sat behind a couple of speakers, and it was weird. Not that he's unacquainted with the tactics of intimidation....

      Delete
    12. If only our stubborn council would allow the majority of the public to vote on a revolving tomato proof dome for speakers at city hall, huh?

      Delete
  14. There it is! Vina wants to take the outreach to the INDIViDUAL communities. The city's back to it's Socks and Patrick Murphy trick: pit the five communities against each other. Classic Encinitas. Ugh.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The outreach has been done for 3 years....

    We all know this whole strategic plan is just delay tactics to get Sad Sac to his finish line which is his retirement. Another few months have pasted and only about 11 to go until his retirement announcement.

    Will he pull off his plan with perfection and fuck the Encinitas tax payer in the process, or will Council wise up and fire this clown?

    From what I've seen, the later..... Sigh.

    Anyone Councilmember suckered into this Strategic Plan (for Sad Sac's Retirement) BS doesn't have my vote next election. Barth and Gaspar better change course or they are out!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

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

      Delete
    3. Lynn, you're both wrong. The poster obviously meant another few months have passed.

      Delete
    4. If it's so obvious, why did you try to degrade anon 6:05? If you knew that poster meant passed, why do you try to use humor at his or her expense. As I said, you make typos, too, as I do, as well.

      I meant months past, not months passed, but I get your point. Do you get a kick out of playing homonym police? LOL.

      Delete
    5. Yes, and because you still don't say what you mean, you're under homonym arrest. You have the right to remain silent.
      And I was not degrading 6:05 just having a little fun. But to his credit, he's spells expletives right every time.

      Delete
  16. Teresa has said she is not running,That means your stuck with Gaspar and Muir.,good luck with that

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Teresa has been horrible. IF she were truly for community character she would got to the state and argue that there housing numbers they are forcing on Encinitas are based on incorrect numbers.

      Rather the represent the residents Barth and the council have instead chosen to represent the special interest groups of for profit developers and social engineers pushing stack and pack. Barth and Shaffer, Muir, Gaspar and the increasing condescending and bullying Kranz will seek to hoodwink the public to increase the housing densities for Barth and Shaffer in the name of social engineer, for Muir and Gaspar in the name of profits and for Kranz in the name of getting himself re-elected by getting in tight with Harwood and Ecke-

      Barth will destroy the community character of Cardiff and then she and her husband will leave for Hawaii where she will collect her pension paid for by California taxpayers...............see how it works?

      Of course I could be wrong and Barth and Shaffer could decided to represent residents and stop following Vina's recommendation and begin confronting the state on the their bogus housing numbers, but will they? What do you think?

      Delete
  17. Lynn marr spoke 7 times at city council meeting last night.Question,is she an expert on everything.I think she needs to get her on house in order

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lynn Marr is more respected by people who watch these meetings than any of our sitting council members, Gus Vina, and most of the City staff.

      Delete
    2. That's not saying much....

      Delete
    3. You can't count, 8:19. I never spoke for more than three minutes. Twice when I spoke, I had over a minute left of my three minutes, once a minute and 58 seconds.

      If Council doesn't want public input, then don't put so many important issues on the Agenda. The Army Corps of Engineers' dumping too much sand on our beaches should never have been on the consent calendar.

      One of the times I spoke was before the 5 p.m. closed session, which was SUPPOSED TO BE a separate OPEN session. What's it to you, anyway? I didn't ask YOU for a time donation; I didn't ask anyone for one. Because you choose to speak only once or twice, doesn't limit me, and neither does the hypocrisy of any of those complaining, sitting on the sidelines and playing "kibitzer."

      You are no expert on what I need to get in order, meatpuppet.

      Oh, and by the way, Steve Shakleton, who argued against Prop A at the Library forum sponsored by L-ETC, with Shakleton telling lies about three story structures, under the N101SP, not being allowed to "overshadow" a one story structure, like Fred's business, was at the 9/25 CC meeting, speaking at Oral Communications and, again, on the General Plan Update. He is blatantly lobbying on behalf of Leucadia 101 Mainstreet Association. Shakleton, as you may all recall was "slaughtered" by Bruce Ehlers, who understands the facts, and logic, at that "ill-fated" forum. The forum was ill-fated for L101MA, DEMA, EPA, all the mainstreet business groups, as well as for Shakleton, City staff, and Council. They were all proven wrong, but have never admitted their error.

      Well Planning did publish, online, on July 29, since being updated, a FAQ sheet, re Prop A, which admits all the speculation of Rutan & Tucker and all the lies of City Attorney Glenn Sabine were DEAD wrong. Height limits imposed (without a vote) according to Prop A do NOT raise pre-existing lower height limits in residential zones. The Coastal Commission did not bifurcate our community, as CCC review was not necesary and a LCP amendment is not required, just as Environmental expert Attorney Everett DeLano, who wrote Prop A, stated.

      Shakleton's running theme, then and now: how wise Council is, what great judgment they have, how deeply their decisions are appreciated, how Council should push forward with developing five roundabouts and reversed angle back-in parking.

      Peltz & Associates, L101MA and City staff have conspired to force upon an unwilling public, through massaged data and twisted or non-existing numbers, four one-lane three-way intersection bottleneckers, slowing traffic down to 15MPH and changing a Major Roadway, four lane primary circulation, arterial, within the Coastal Zone, into a two lane street, one northbound and one southbound. Motorists would be stuck, when they are moving at all, driving around in circles including through three one-laners that were that were only "discussed," NOT enthusiastically or strongly supported at P & A's bogus workshops, where the number of people participating and supporting particular themes was not accurately tracked. As with MIG, the numbers are invalid, because there were no controls. This is shoddy work by staff and city funded contractors. There was never a traffic study during peak SUMMER periods from BEFORE the lane elimination northbound on N101, either, as a basis for comparison. If they pretend there is community support, then why not support a Council placed ballot measure, for $23,000. That's a miniscule cost compared to the $20 MILLION projected cost for five roundabouts the public does NOT want or need.

      Put the question, to rest. Council could and should put it on the ballot, to show they do support the public's right to vote, as Teresa Barth, Lisa Shaffer, and Tony Kranz, had all promised, before Shaffer and Kranz were elected.

      Allowing the public to vote would help to reveal and correct shoddy work by shady characters under the color of authority.

      Delete
    4. Not a conspiracy Lynn, but over two decades of the vast majority of locals wanting attention for Leucadia from the city for improved infrastructure and landscaping. Now that we're getting that, certain people who'd rather spend the money on other projects in Encinitas are campaigning to thwart all that work. Period. Sad you've joined forces with them and want to send all that good stuff to Disneyland.

      Delete
    5. It IS a conspiracy if you, including councilmembers breaking campaign promises, refuse to allow the public to VOTE to determine if there is community support for four one-lane, three way intersection roundabouts and lane elimination in both directions, reducing the speed limit to 15 MPH through these narrow diameter roundabouts, with LESS safety features.

      Because we want "improved infrastructure" and landscaping, does NOT mean we want these one lane roundabouts, or speed reduced further down from the 35 MPH it's already been reduced to!

      Again, you are using FALSE LOGIC, Fred, but you are too stubborn and closed minded to realize.

      Delete
    6. The one lane north worked fine for our busiest summer on record Lynn and it was a GOOD thing the city striped it off to try it out first. Now you want to see how many people want to widen it so that more cars can fit on it. Whatever.

      Delete
  18. Agreed. Lynn is swiftly on her way to being a folk hero in Encinitas. Every council shenanigan gets her more applause!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lynn is not any Folk Hero, more of an obstructionista for the KLCC.

      Delete
    2. Funny, those are Teresa's sentiments, too....

      Delete
    3. How can our council be so out of alignment with the people who put them in office in terms of opinion of Vina, Sabine, and the votes that they have cast for the past 10 months?

      They are voting no differently than the council they replaced would have voted!

      Delete
  19. 6:50 with all respect your point makes no logic, if they "will never be built" then why are they being forced on the community?

    If the speakers are as you suggest 'cranks' then will the city council provide the option to residents of saying no to all of the above?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 6:50 means "they MAY never be built." But let's not kid ourselves: developers are dying for the chance to maximize their profits and the city is dying to meet pension costs.

      They WILL be built if we allow up zoning in.

      Delete
    2. You know, when Council approved the four underpasses for pedestrians and bicyclists, the "bridges," then Council Member Teresa Barth said, these are so expensive, they will not be built for years, if at all. In other words, they "may not be built." But despite public opposition at the Planning Commission, and before Council, they voted FOR the underpasses, including Teresa.

      When five roundabouts and lane elimination was approved by Maggie Houlihan, Jerome Stocks and Teresa Barth, only, on 1/13/10, Teresa Barth suggested that realistically, later phases "may never be built."

      She has suggested the same thing, again, now. That only Phase 1 of the Streetscape planned from A Street, north, to La Costa "may be built." No one has EVER justified the first roundabout being at El Portal!

      Delete
    3. "No one has EVER justified the first roundabout being at El Portal!"

      Where would you want it? Nevermind. Disneyland.

      Delete
    4. If we HAVE to have a roundabout, if most of the public supports it, I would support the first roundabout, the only roundabout, as a two lane roundabout at La Costa, Fred.

      Delete
  20. If you recall in the election forums Teresa spoke of her pension from the state and she said it was about $1000 dollars a month.I don't see Hawaii in her future.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Teresa has too much vindictiveness. She could have stood up for the issues that are so important to keeping the community character. Instead she treated her supporters as the enemy. In December she is out as Mayor, and she can live in her sad shell as just another council member.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, her supporters turned on her. Even those who don't care for Teresa personally have been dismayed by her supporters in both their ignorance and at the vehemence with which they have treated her and Tony and Lisa. Why is it so difficult for some people to determine that since 1986 the City of Encinitas has been required to 'present' a housing element to the State? During 26 years only a small % of these units listed in the 'element' have been built; around 10%. That's a fact. The new director of Planning got hired and did what the public wanted, negotiated with the State to reduce the number of low income units allotted Encinitas to about 670 from 1300. Why isn't he getting any kudos? Because Ehlers' Prop A caused the amount to be increased by another 360 units. So the City still has over a 1000 units to rezone in a report. Even though the City has had thousands and thousands of affordable units allotted to it for 26 years in State housing cycles on average only a little more than 10% were ever built. The State mandates the 'zoning' of the low income units, but it is the free market that underwrites the units and no one can get a loan to build them: the State does not mandate any building and before you paranoids begin blubbering about 'what if', for 20 years previously there were loans available and almost no one built them.

      Stopping the City from creating a 'housing element' is much like the Tea Party stopping Obamacare.

      So far the only density that has been increased appears to be in the space between the ears of so many of the Prop A's proponents.

      Delete
    2. Conceding, for the sake of argument, your position on Prop A and development, what other actions of Barth and the new majority have been consistent with their campaign promises?

      What ever happened to open government, fiscal responsibility, and pension reform?

      Which council votes this year have gone any differently than they would have under a Stocks/Bond/Dalager council?

      Delete
    3. I lost my health insurance- you know, the plan President Obama told all of America "If you like your plan you can keep it"- turned out to be a lie. Aetna is moving out of California and will not be offering private plans in the exchanges - remember President Obama promising we would have competition- another lie. While I have lost my plan the congressional staffers- Pelosi, Reid, McCain, McConnell have all be exempted from Obamacare and we the taxpayers will be giving this new ruling class checks so they can buy private plans while I am hearded into state plan, the congressional exemption is from the Grassley Act-

      Thousands of employees at SeaWorld have had their hours cut because of Obamacare, millions of employees around the country at Darden restaurants, McDonalds, and other franchises have had hours cut to 29. Hundreds of thousands of employees at state universities have had their hours cut to 29 weekly because of obamacare. Obama care has in fact created death panels called the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) IPAD is made up of unelected non-medial professionals who can not be fired- according to Howard Dean and Paul Krumgan these death panels will determine who does or does not get care. Obamacare increased medical device costs by 4.5% that has been passed on the consumers in higher prices, Obamacare has 17 new taxes on citizens when President Obama claimed in 2009 there would be no new taxes- these are all facts, live with them.

      The state housing number is based on faulty math, the census shows we do not need these units. Rather than represent citizens Barth and Shaffer are representing their socialist engineering ideologies. The unit to be built are market rate, not affordable, another government lie. City staff presenting information to the council misrepresented the state statute- a public speaker outed the city staff lies.

      Rather than represent citizens Barth, Shaffer and Kranz are now representing high density developers and special interest unions. It is who Teresa is. She gets a pension and will now be getting s second pension for Encinitas. Shaffer gets 4 taxpayer pension. Kranz is desperately hoping to get elected to a second term so he can get a pension and health care, Kranz was unsuccessful competing in the private job market. Again, all verifiable fact.

      Parnoid? The government is out of control, public officials are creating rules that only apply to some and benefit their cronies and insiders.

      TEA = taxed enough already.

      Delete
    4. 8:53am, its not very complicated to understand the general public's cynicism when the ideal of providing affordable housing is used to create higher density of unaffordable units. You surely aren't defending the current implementation of density bonus are you? In that context, anything that upzones in order to meet an ever changing (ie political) requirement will be met with derision. Btw, *we* are the State. However we don't have the lobbyist to help craft favorable mandates that we can use to our advantage.

      Delete
    5. Many banks, and many other employers have already kept "non officer" workers at 30 hours per week, or less, so that they wouldn't feel obligated to provide healthcare.

      Even those in the healthcare industry have not always provided health insurance for their employees.

      That was long before national healthcare. Many insurance companies had tried to stop doing business in Californoria, with respect to offering homeowner's insurance, before. The Insurance Commissioner told the big companies that if they offer full service coverage, they cannot just pick and choose states where they will offer that full coverage. So some insurance companies wanted to move out of California, anyway. I suppose they felt the "odds" were against them with too many claims being made, here.

      National healthcare works in Canada. Citizens, there, have access to much less expensive pharmaceuticals, too.

      I'm not going to blame everything on Obamacare. I feel the system could be improved, but at least pre-existing conditions will no longer be a basis for being turned down, and there will be caps on how much anyone, or any one family must pay "out of pocket," for catastrophe.

      Insurance and healthcare rates have gone up MUCH FASTER than the rate of inflation. There are far too many middlemen. The Senate can keep messing around, but this is going to happen.

      Delete
  22. Who run Barter Town? Developers run Barter Town!

    ReplyDelete
  23. Barth is just another Stocks - vote her out!

    ReplyDelete
  24. Lynn Marr is informed - the 1% of the citizens.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. More than 1 % voted in favor of Prop A! The level of interest among city residents is growing and the number of people who are aware of what is happening at the city is increasing every day.

      Delete
  25. The tea party the----------- now percent

    ReplyDelete
  26. State law rules Prop a means zip nothing 0 get used to it !

    ReplyDelete
  27. There are a LOT of homes in Encinitas that were paid off long ago. But the state tells us (or SANDAG?) that those dwellings cannot be counted as affordable units. That's called skewing. Also, in 1995 Encinitas was deficient 500 affordable places to live. Since then the population has only increased 8%, yet the need for affordable homes has increased over 400% (or up to 2300 homes now needed). That's called highway robbery.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are also a lot of vacant housing units in Encinitas. We discovered that many houses are uninhabited when we
      walked to promote Prop A. I see no evidence of housing shortage--only a lack of income streams to support the pensions and top-heavy city workers.

      Another approach would be to cut the number of people on the payroll like actual work places that don't operate like Encinitas County Club.

      Delete
    2. Clown Club, Criminal Club, Crony Club, just don't call them the Citizen's Club!

      Delete
    3. Fred, How can they be affordable? If they were to be sold, it wouldn't be at yesteryear's prices.

      Delete
    4. That's the joke - on us - that they are NOT affordable, they may be sold at market rate, everyone knows this including Council/Murphy/Vina those trying to sell us this bait-and-switch bag of goods.

      Yet the city soldiers on..."working for residents." Working for their pensions is the truth.

      Try telling that to Council. You'll be met with identical stares while they wait for your mouth to stop moving.

      Delete
    5. Patrick Muryphy and the Planning Department put out a document for the building industry that contradicted their oral presentations and their communication with citizens in August, 2011. In short, they said that all upzoned units would be market rate--despite telling the citizens it was for low income. Bait and switch is a good word for it. And we don't need a Stratigic Plan for the city--we need employees council and a managers who don't lie and misrepresent.

      Delete
  28. Fred, How can they be affordable? If they were to be sold, it wouldn't be at yesteryear's prices.

    What's more affordable than to live in a house that's paid off?

    ReplyDelete