We must admit we're a little confused about the SavePacificView.org web site. When we first saw it, and linked it supportively both in a post and the sidebar, we thought the purpose was to encourage the school district to come back to the negotiation table. We had absolutely no inkling that the idea was to encourage the city council to completely capitulate and pay any price.
Others appear to share our confusion. At least one public speaker at city council recently stated that she was among the 750 supportive e-mails, but she had absolutely no intention of meaning the city should have paid such an inflated price. And both letters in this weekend's Coast News share a similar sentiment.
How many of the 750 e-mailers cited by the council majority as a reason to capitulate and pay $10 million actually intended no such thing?
Not I, said the little old lady.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I think there were 750 letters, but not 750 different people sending in letters.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, I feel most of us who have worked to save Pacific View for more than ten years, and had a vision of a true community arts and learning center, continue to feel that the City could have negotiated a much better price.
We don't need to give up. It's not a done deal. The City could still insist that EUSD carry the loan at 0% interest for a minimum of 30 years, to help mitigate for the outrageous price, and the bad faith on the part of Superintendent Baird, and the Trustees, with the exception of Mo Muir.
It's tough to let go when reality intrudes into your world. Let the brick buying begin!
DeleteAfter repeating over and over again that the city should acquire PV, you're all now saying "not that way". Sorry. All those who beat the bushes share in the responsibility for the $10M.
ReplyDelete2:03 your logic falls flat-
ReplyDeleteEU and residents for years have recommended, suggested, advocated the council take action to acquire PV under the Naylor act. Gasapr's recusal in 2011 was shameful, council failing to take action for years was shameful, even a few weeks ago residents spoke on march . The council file an injunction - all 5 ignored them and the taxpayers got screwed by a lazy council that follows the losing advice of a failed city attorney
It wasn't a recusal, she abstained, and yes I know that counts as a yes vote. The point is, she chickened out, and doesn't have the guts to take a tough stand on big issues.
Delete-Mr Green Jeans
It was recorded as a recusal in the minutes, but should not have been. Sabine should have told Gaspar, unless she stated a conflict of interest, she shouldn't have left the room, when PV was on the agenda. Sabine didn't warn her, didn't clarify the law, and she did leave the room. It wasn't an abstention.
DeleteAnd an abstention vote doesn't count as a yes, it counts with the majority.
Right, but she had no reason to recuse herself due to a conflict of interest. This is the key point. She wanted an out so she wouldn't offend someone. This is a landmark of someone who shouldn't be on the council. End of story.
DeleteExcuse after excuse! It wasn't us. We're to smart and the council is too stupid. If only they did it the right way. The council, what morons!
DeleteSure, EUSD and the council share the majority of responsibility but so many here (though not all) pushed strongly for the city to acquire PV, especially the Save PV letter writers, and now they're trying to wash their hands of it.
Nice try.
There are so many irresponsible citizens in this city... I'm sure more than half of those 750 had no idea what the were agreeing to...
ReplyDeleteThey weren't agreeing to anything. You can't use 2 or 2000 letters of support on a website to prove anything about buying PV. The council will have to stand on their votes, and time will tell if it was a wise purchase in the sense that it can be paid for without a sales tax or bond.
DeleteThis is why I wouldn't put a letter on the website. I'm not knocking the site, I think the property should have stayed as a public resource and I think that was the thrust of the site. Nowhere on there did it say or propose to say how the purchase should be paid for or how the city would negotiate.
Blame for the whole negotiating fiasco goes back 10 years before Baird when the property first went up for sale and it took Bob Nanniga to ask why under the Naylor act the property wasn't offered to the city first. The city didn't do its job, the EUSD didn't do it's job, and neither did Sabine or any of the legal people involved.. There's plenty of blame to go around, don't blame the web folks for this one.
-Mr Green Jeans
Agree!
DeleteDisagree.
DeleteSee 7:49 on 4/20 for an interesting narrative...
DeleteThis city needs to stop targeting individual citizens with unreasonable punitive actions and needs to start holding itself and other organizations like EUSD responsible for professional behavior and following the letter of the law.
ReplyDeleteThe only thing they seem good at is overpaying with our money to support special interests. The fact that Barth made calls and has asked citizens to do her job and Sabine's job of enacting the Naylor Act is unreasonable and another example of poor leadership from this mayor.
When the top appraisal was $7 million, how did they arrive at $10 million? Yes, a failure of the council and city attorney. $abine needs to get his walking papers, along with Vina.
ReplyDeleteI am not generally a Muir and Gaspar supporter, but I have to agree with them when they backed out when the price went from $7.5 million and jumped up to $10 million. Barth, Kranz, and Shaffer are so intent on mending their reputations that they would have spent any amount of our money to show that they were listening.
ReplyDeleteThey were outfoxed by Muir and Gaspar once again, and as usual, citizens will be stuck with another unreasonable bill.
I say Council needs to reverse this bad decision and don't buy it period.
ReplyDeleteWe Don't Need or want any more trophy projects. If PV arts center was such a great idea, the non-profit to buy it would have been successful.
PV on the City list, just means more delays by 5 to 10 years for other needed projects. Hell we haven't even figured out how to pay for the regional sports park and City Council is off buying more overpriced trophy projects.
If they chose to use the Naylor Act, they should be able to get it for between 4 and 5 million. All of the speakers on this topic who I heard asked for the 2 agencies to work towards a compromise. I don't think that anyone except Baird and his board (except Muir) wanted to put the screws to citizens this way.
ReplyDeleteI never sent an email through the SavePacificView.org website, although I am in favor of keeping the property public. I suspected the city would pay too much because the negotiating team was totally and completely outsmarted by Baird. I also suspected there would be no bidders for the property because of the up zoning question and appraisals. Better to have waited or put in a low ball bid as a land use attorney recommended.
ReplyDeleteAs part of art pulse offer for PV John Dewald agreed to pay 4 million for one third of the property,let's see its almost 3 acres .Does that make the property worth 12 million .This is one block from the beach withe some ocean views.
ReplyDeleteJohn DeWald tentatively agreed to pay $3 million, for the right to develop seven to nine twinhome lots, plus at least one residential unit in the monolithic "regional art center," which he would also be paid to build. More residential units could have been built after the rezoning.
DeleteDeWald was going to finance the purchase, not Art Pulse, which had only a $600,000 loan as a source of revenue, and had been recently been rejected for a grant because of this lack of revenues.
When DeWald saw how risky it was to count on the City to rezone, he was able to get back his $100K deposit. Had he not dropped out of escrow before Oct. 31, 2012, he would have been required to put in $200K, more, and the entire $300K would have been non refundable. He was too savy to do that. He dropped out of the risky escrow contract. Baird was furious with the City for not starting the rezoning process, which Teresa Barth seemed ready to do, at that point.
Teresa Barth and John DeWald are friends. He developed Pacific Station and intended to do high density, mixed use development on the historical, donated school site that is Pacific View, after the City privatized the land, taking it out of the public domain.
Baird, especially, let Pacific View fall into disrepair, so he could claim it had no value other than privatization and massive redevelopment.
Thank you. I share that in October 2012 when the DEWALD deal was in play Gus Vina cancelled a council meeting, illegally. Vina claimed the city had no business. Moreover there is no code empowering the city manager to cancel a meeting. Vina cancelled the meeting in collusion of some sort with then Mayor Stocks who the week previous had been in the news for sign gate. One week later Baird came to the council meeting threatening a lawsuit and chewing Vina and the council out. Shameful. Muir Gaspar and Barth were all present and did nothing.
DeleteAndrew Audet
Kind of late now, ins't it Andrew? No one is willing to hold any of them accountable in the true sense of the word. More complaining than anything.
DeleteAs one of those who sent an email trying to save PV from the greedy hands of baird and his fellow community traitors on the eusd school board I couldn't be more disappointed at our city council and city attorney for not pursuing stronger measures to deal with this interloper baird and his fellow sell outs on the school board, excepting of Mo, of course. No one had any idea that our council would offer such an outrageous sum to those money mongers when there were avenues available to lessen the impact. Sabine is an abject disaster and has never represented out towns best interest. How is he still here? And god, the funds that have come his way is an abomination. A sunshine ordinance is called for as in a forensic accounting, to be clear. Hundreds of thousands of our needed funds have been diverted to cover his ass over the years to his law firm. This needs to be made clear. Most of the issues we are having to deal with can be traced back to his bad counsel over the years. Of course, our city council has allowed his incompetence to be rewarded without question. Wake the freak up!!!!!! and wake up to gus' mismanagement if you have any ideas on staying around here. I keep looking for a sign of hope with these five but have yet to glimpse any vision that we, the, their public, can rely upon. The usual suspects are our saviors through this maelstrom and bless them for their weekly efforts. We have a couple of months before there will be no viable choice for true change unless two of them step up and present a united front for real progress. Our community has more than enough capable citizens to truly represent us and not have to rely on outside interests for cm and ca and the two positions up for election this fall. Once a well known and vetted candidate steps forward there will be a landslide of support coming to help in any way we can. We have not had such a person yet that we can rely upon and we have every right to be suspect at this moment. Out of space and time for now so please join in.You know who you are and you all rock with your weekly commitment to try to stem the mismanagement that our council is so blind to.
ReplyDeleteSabine is an abject disaster and has never represented out towns best interest. How is he still here? And god, the funds that have come his way is an abomination. (this deserves repeating).
ReplyDeleteAnd this as well! Most of the issues we are having to deal with can be traced back to his bad counsel over the years. Aint that the truth!
ReplyDeleteWhat I really don't get is why 500K more than the asking price? Given the politics $1 over bid price would have secured it, how dumb is this council?
ReplyDeleteI don't think those people who emailed the council asking to negotiate further with the school district had any clue that the purchase price would be $10M. I'm sure that were as surprised as all of us. If Shaffer put her two cents in, no wonder the three amigos voted for it. She has said more than once that no one will know or care 50 years from now what we paid for the PV. That is just plain insanity. Is this the way she runs her own financial affairs? Barth can't see beyond her granny glasses, and Tony just goes along to get along. Gaspar and Muir have no say in anything, so they don't count. It would be interesting to know how the city plans to pay for this, plus all of the other things that previous councils have done. In the meantime, we suffer without getting the things fixed that need fixing. We are beginning to look like Tijuana North.
ReplyDelete50 years from now everyone will remember the odd ball narcissist that came out of her ivory tower asking about AC.
ReplyDeleteALERT!!!!!
ReplyDeleteTired of the engineering department bulling residents (and new development) into a generic so called function based, but it is really one size fits all curbs, gutters, sidewalks? Make your opinion The engineering department is giving the Council the following choices:
1. Do not require street improvements;
2. Establish an in-lieu fee and assess a fee in lieu of street improvements;
3. Continue the current practice and require function based design for street improvements;
4. Use the existing codes for Public Road Standards and require concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk at all project locations;
5. Direct staff to develop street by street design standards based on the specific community/neighborhood location and the right of way width;
Read the agenda item on the city website.
The council will consider ordering a new ordinance next week, April 23, codifying how streets will look now and forever.
DeleteThe agenda item is #10D.
Doesn't the city already require street improvements like curb and gutters and wider streets. They've been requiring it the last 15 years up and down Vulcan, including the new Shea Homes Dev.....
DeleteThis is different. The Council will decide a new policy with the 5 choices above. The first choice do not require street improvements and should be the choice for the council. This won't happen without residents speaking up for it. The city can still keep the right-of-way but prohibit the property owner from building into it. If you want to keep community character tell the Council to choice #1 - Do not require street improvements.
DeleteI and at least dozen others sign it ONLY to get the school district to negotiate in good faith - NOT to pay 10 million.
ReplyDeleteThis entire fiasco goes back 20 years: the district trustees attended a seminar on how to turn 'surplus' district property into dollars. After identifying the sale of PV as their choice for district ''surplus', the first thing they did was change the attendance boundaries to make it appear to laymen that the school attendance was plummeting. When Supt. Doug couldn't close a deal, they retired him and went with Supt. Lane: they helped Lane out with a 'developer' consultant named Dee Snow whose husband, Bill Snow was on the Planning Commission: they also has Patrick Murphy and Peder Norby assigned to make a 'deal' happen: yes, Murphy and Norby were working for the City of Encinitas to help EUSD get around The Naylor Act and it was a reporter from the UT who had covered the Naylor Act being used in Del Mar who first brought the Naylor Act up in her news coverage.
DeleteDalager, who was Mayor at this time didn't want any money being spent on PV that could be better spent on the Hall Property: hence the involvement of Norby and Murphy; so he and Stocks cooked up a plan to park city vehicles on the playing fields of the 'surplus' school that negated the Naylor Act.
Meanwhile, Houlihan and Barth were working with EUSD to negate the Naylor Act and 'up-zone' the property. It didn't happen so Supt. Lane was given the heave-ho along with an angry Dee Snow. Oh, side-note, who led the EUSD committee to claim that PV was surplus? Leichstag's Jim Farley.
Meanwhile, EUSD is out $3 mil so far in operation fees in trying to up-zone the property.
So, the EUSD Trustees double-down and after a lengthy Google-Search, they find a Supt. in Ojai that specializes in selling 'Surplus' school property and hire him. Supt. Tim. One step ahead of tar and feathers.
For 4 years Tim throws everything but the kitchen sink into the process until he seizes upon a last-ditch effort, a 'faux' auction.
Tick, tick, tick... and then the couch-potato that missed the limelight
he grew accustomed to from 'saving' our zip-code sees an opportunity for self-agrandizement and puts up a webite to 'Save' PV: several of the city council break almost every conceivable local and state law about back-room deals and Voila, Tony Kranz believes the long-con from Supt. Tim and panics, directing the city manager to agree to $10 mil in Magic Beans, wrongly assuming that the three of them (Kranz, Barth and Shaffer) will be greeted as 'heroes' rather than zeroes. You know what happens when you 'assume'.
Few people disagree with the actual purchase of the property: that was evaluated and valued at $1.98 mil in 2009: who knows who's brother-in-law appraised the toxic mess of PV at $7 mil, but no developer in their right mind was going to step up two weeks ago and offer $9.5 much less $10 mil.
The most painful joke is that almost the moment the ink is dry on this agreement for $10 mil: Supt, Tim is going to announce another Proposition to tax Encinitas property owners with another bond: crying poor-mouth. The most annoying part is that there is literally no prevailing authority to appeal the EUSD Trustees' decisions: one of them lives in Lakeside and was recently the President of their local rotary. What? You assumed you had to live in Encinitas to serve as a trustee? See 'assume' above.
The city of Encinitas is only as strong as its weakest link: and this affair has clarified who and what that is, for all to see and recognize.
But hey, as long as we as a people are satisfied concentrating on spending a fortune to grow 'organic' vegetables on school property rather than try and stanch the plummeting skills of EUSD's students: we will reap what we sow.
Roll away the stone.
Recently seen bumper sticker around town- my kid stared at the sun while attending Pacific View.
Delete7:57, love it. Not sure I buy the plummeting test scores, but I don't have kids in the district, or kids at all. I did see the presentation at the PV school board meeting, and the kids in that school looked real sharp.
DeleteI would also point out that Scott Chatfield was behind the save PV, website, that's public knowledge. If you know Scott or any of the Chatfields, they're not the type of people who do things so they can be famous. He also led the 760 area code battle, and has worked in the music biz successfully for many years.
Give the guy credit for keying the movement to save the school for the city, the issue of how the whole thing took place I'll leave to 7:49...
-Mr Green Jeans
7:47, thanks for that narrative. It helps put this into better perspective for me. A couple of corrections: First, I definitely wouldn't call Scott Chatfield a couch potato. There is no reason to portray him or the citizens who have worked toward realizing our vision in a negative light.
DeleteAlso, after Superintendent Doug DeVore retired, EUSD had Lean King, as the next Superintendent not Lane, but close. Lean King was the Superintendent when Dan Dalager and Chris Hazeltine of Parks and Rec engineered the Orpheus tree massacre incident. Dan Dalager violated the Brown Act by e-mailing staff, all of Council, the media, and Lean King about it. He also went over to Paul Ecke Central and yelled at some of the teachers about it, because the kids had tried to protest their shade trees being hacked down. But when it was too late, and the incident was on the agenda, Dalager recused himself, because his property on Hermes was too close? So glad that man is out of office, now.
But DeVore and company going to a seminar sounds right, too. And I had also before heard about boundaries being gerrymandered, so that Pacific View could be closed. And it is indisputable that secret development agreements were made between the school district, through DeVore and Kerry Miller, initially, signing the first lease on 2/2/04, and signed again, later, through 2007, by Lean King and Phil Cotton, with Dalager's hands in there. In fact, here is language contained in ALL the lease recitals, whereby the City paved over the fields to create a parking lot:
"It is the intention of District and City to assist each other in the process of using District and City resources efficiently, without the exchange of funds. The District desires to obtain future building permits based on alternate zoning and landuse for Pacific View Site, portions of Ocean Knoll Elementary School Site and the Encinitas Ranch School Site. The City of Encinitas needs a site to serve as an interim corporate yard for the City of Encinitas and the City of Encinitas shall cooperate in facilitating the processing of future building permits based on alternate zoning and landuse for Pacific View Site, portions of Ocean Knoll Elementary School Site and the Encinitas Ranch School Site."
Thank God the voters passed Prop A!
OK, I meant 7:49, not 7:47, lol.
DeleteWe here on this blog are all wise and pure. They, on the other hand, are all stupid and evil. You won't even take responsibility for your part in the current PV situation.
DeleteIt's really getting a bit old don't you think.
I feel the city grossly overpaid for PV and that three members of the city council fell for Baird's bluff and con. But I don't blame the SPV website or anyone who sent a letter or email to the council. Those citizens, however many it was, took action to voice their support for the city to get the PV property. But it doesn't look like any of the citizens asked to the city to pay $10 mil. The group put pressure on the council to do something, but it was the council needed to be the adults in the room and make a financially responsible decision. It was the council's responsibility to sort through all the factors, including the voices of a small minority of citizens, and make a solid decision. The blame for overpayment of $10 mil for PV lies solely with Kranz, Shaffer, and Barth, a trio of failure and ineptness.
ReplyDelete7:49 ties many familiar names together to lay out how we got here on PV. Pretty shameful, not that I'm surprised, considering who all has been and continues to be involved. Many hands have worked against resident in the name of public service. How they sleep is a mystery.
ReplyDelete7:49 sets up a plausible narrative of the convoluted history of PV. I don't have inside information to say whether it's accurate it its totality. There is one slip with the couch potato who save the zip code. It was the area code. Still the story of backroom dealings has the ring of truth and certainly fits the personalities involved.
DeleteI've heard the pieces, not the whole, from good sources. Talk about lack of transparency from day one.
DeleteOutrageous how these public "servants" see Encinitas as their personal playground and bank account.
Happy Easter, everyone.
DeleteThe property was offered to the City, in 2009, for $10 Million, without taking the Naylor Act into effect, under Superintendent Lean King, before Tim Baird came into the picture.
This property was offered to the council under the leadership of Jerome Stocks and Jim Bond five or six years ago at a much reduced price they turned it down.Teresa and Maggie voted to buy it
ReplyDeleteTeresa and Maggie voted to pursue the possibility of buying the PV property. Stocks and Bond voted against investigating the idea of the purchase. Gaspar recused herself, so the motion died for lack of a majority. There was no motion to purchase the property.
DeleteBut not at $10 mil?
Delete$tock$ didn't want to buy PV then at a reduced price because he was working on increasing his pension.
DeleteSome of this lies with the people, including Chatfield, who signed the PV website, or wrote letter wanting this. No one said how much you wanted to pay. Just buy it, and with that, Tony ran with it. Sorry to inform you, but you are as guilty as the Council. Had you said, we want it for $xxxxx dollars it would have been one thing. But you didn't say that. And now, all of us are stuck with a 10 million dollar liability that will not be able to anything to generate revenue for a very long time, if ever. I'm not angry, I'm surprised when I look at some of the times on the petition. Did anyone ask "how much"? Did anyone ask" What is it going to be used for specifically? Oh well, unless there is some way to back out, we own it. so get over who is responsible and figure out how to pay for it.
ReplyDeleteYou are incorrect, 10:20. Many of us did say how much we wanted to pay.
Delete10:20
Deletecome on- no one sending a letter or email had any power of vote directly on the PV sales- only the EUSD Board- staff and the council-staff had a vote
The blame fo screwing the public lies again with the council
10:20
DeleteThat's not how closed bid auctions work though. No one announces how much they'll pay or someone else will bid a dollar higher. So it was also sort of a catch 22.
It was no catch 22 Fred. There were no sealed bids, and the city could have offered 9.5 and Baird would have jumped at it.
DeleteShould have said "names on the petition"
ReplyDeleteI did not read all of the letters, but I did listen to presenters at council meetings who spearheaded this effort. The message that I heard over and over were requests to ask the 2 agencies to do teamwork to keep the property in the public domain. To me, this seemed like a request for the 2 parties to compromise so that the vision of the donor to benefit Encinitas children was what they were asking for. Nobody asked for the council to role over and pay any price. Therefore, I disagree that Chatfield or others are to blame for this.
ReplyDeleteHappy Easter! Agree 10:30. The citizens are not to blame for the bureaucracy's bungling. I am forever grateful to Scott Chatfiled, SavePacificView.org, and all those who have worked to make our vision of a true community art and learning center a reality.
DeleteIt's not too late for the City to insist on terms of 0% interest with EUSD carrying the loan for 30 years, so that EUSD could achieve its desired revenue stream, and school children, artists, art lovers, taxpayers, and future generations could benefit from this historic parcel of land donated for public use, to the early settlers and their children, in 1883.
Assigning blame is worthless. Baird and EUSD should be held accountable; the school district didn't do its homework. It applied artificial deadline pressure on the City; now it can and should be reasonable in its terms. This is land already in the public domain passing between one public agency to another.
No one gets a 0% loan... How naive are you??
DeleteO% loan? That is more than fantasy land.
DeletePlease people. Think about it. What did you expect. We all know Baird and his antics. We all know that Tony has been wanting a trophy piece, much like Dalager. And, why didn't the City start at 9.5 million. Ask Tony? You are right. The people wanting it didn't ask why price? But let's look at what happened. A website, a video to show Council and people at home, impressive people on the letters. And now you wonder why the Council didn't think you didn't want it? Look at the names on the website. Most of them have been pretty outspoken, so the Council said "yes let's let them have it." No other way this makes sense. If they had said NO, we won't buy it, I can imagine the banging of the pots at City hall now. Get over yourselves. You wanted it you got it. Sorry if your roads are going to be in disrepair for a while.
Delete11:35 Where is the website? I would like to see the names on the list. Thank you.
DeleteI am not naive. It was naive for three council members, Barth, Shaffer, and Kranz to agree to pay $10 Million. Because we are grossly overpaying, AN EXCEPTION should be made.
DeleteThe City can demand that EUSD accept our terms, or the offer is off the table. That is what I want to happen. When our country was founded, naysayers, the loyalists, were saying, NO WAY are rag tag revolutionaries going to be able to defeat the British Empire. But we did.
If we don't envision what can be accomplished, but only decide what cannot, because it hasn't happened before, we are never going to get beyond the corruption of the status quo.
Zero percent loans are done; it's a form of DONATION. The early settlers' received the land FREE. San Dieguito Park was practically free. How much did Glenn Park, in Cardiff cost? There is NO REASON, other than the embittered naysayers, that the City could not DEMAND that Baird, on behalf of EUSD accept 0% interest over 30 years for a $10 Million loan.
Baird and all the other superintendents had insisted, for years, until February of 2012, that they were going to exchange, NOT SELL PV for a revenue stream from a commercial property, therefore the Naylor Act didn't apply.
Then, when Baird decided "time's up," he pulled another "bait and switch."
The only appraisal of PV by EUSD was based on an EXCHANGE, not sale price, and based on EUSD's first getting the city to rezone to mixed use commercial. That appraisal, with of valuation date of June 6, 2007, was for $13.5 Million. It was before the real estate market bubble burst, along with the stock market in late 2008. Baird waited until he thought that eight years before the anticipated sale, PV hadn't been used for its playing fields. Then he said, well, it's for sale, now, and it's too late for the Naylor Act to apply.
But the Naylor Act still applies, because it tolls from when the schoolgrounds were first permanently closed, and fenced off, in June of 2003, and EUSD initially LEASED the property to the City of Encinitas, effective when the lease documents were signed, on 2/2/04, by Doug DeVore, signifying approval of the school board. Baird's bait and switch involved the Naylor Act not being applicable to property that is EXCHANGED. But the time tolls, from when the public, through the City and County were to have been apprised of our rights to purchase .85 acres at 25% of fair market value, from when the property was INITIALLY LEASED, not SOLD. That was when we lost public open space that was paved over. Council doesn't WANT the public to be able to retain our open space, which was the intention of the State Legislature in passing the Naylor Act.
It was EUSD's responsibility, beginning in late 2003, to notify public agencies of its intention to lease Pacific View, paving over the fields and playgrounds, so that the City or County could acquire open space at a very reasonable rate. And that was long before the tot lot at Moonlight. More open space is needed throughout our community, including at PV. The open space could include beautiful community gardens which could provide a learning experience in horticulture and landscape design, and could provide a revenue stream for small weekend weddings. Also, open fields could host weekend Farmers' Markets, on Saturdays, perhaps.
12:47-The website is Save Pacific View. It has many of the names that signed on, such as Andrew Audet, Jerry Sodomka, John Gjata, just to name a few. Check it for yourself.
DeleteAll of you being harsh on Scott Chatfield are way out of line. What have any of you naysayers done for this community besides bitch on this blog?
ReplyDelete1. Only a few people are critical of the savePV effort
ReplyDelete2. THe culprits, villains and abusers of the public are EUSD and the council
3. Our roads suck because of Stocks, Dalager, Barth and Bond
11:53 You go first. What have you done for this community? We'll follow your lead. It is now your turn.
ReplyDelete11:35, 12:23 - sounds like you want to blame the messenger, do I have that right? Because residents didn't what - name a top price? - we can't hold Vina/city responsible for the exorbitant price they agreed to pay? Between Baird and Vina, I can only imagine the conversation. Ugh!
ReplyDelete1:59. Your comment was not relevant to what 11:35 was asking.
ReplyDeleteThat should have read 11:53
Delete12:23 OK wise acre. I have been involved in city politics since 1988. I have attended hundreds of meetings. I have worked for two newspapers covering local politics. I've painted banners for 9 of the Arts Alive project, was a member and rented studio space of the 101 Artists Colony, was on the board of the Leucadia Town Council and have been asked to join both the Cardiff and Leucadia mainstreet associations. I spent Earth Day 7 years ago cleaning up every piece of rat poison that was hurled on the dirt path, and parking lot at Beacon's Beach. I've participated in dozens of beach clean ups, and organized four I Love A Clean San Diego clean ups at Beacon's in the late 80s, plus I got merchants to donate hundred of dollars of juice and fruit for the volunteers, and I fought the Redevelopment Agency in 2004 that was slated to seize by eminent domain 200 parcels all along Vulcan Ave. in Leucadia. Shall I go on?
ReplyDeletePlease do. I find your credentials to be most average. All of my friends have done the same or more than you and not a one of them feels PV should be owned by the city. So there..
DeleteYour friends have done the same??? And you...?
DeleteAnd FYI 3:07 is not 2:42, just an annoyed onlooker.
DeleteLOL! All "credentials" are meaningless, when ascribed to by anonymous posters. So is your hearsay, 3:00, that your anonymous friends agree with your own anonymous judgments that Pacific view should not be owned by the city.
DeletePacific View is, and will remain in the public domain. It is owned by us, the taxpayers. We, the people, should be given a 0% interest rate because we already own the land.
2:42 Oh, so you are the artsy fartsy kind of person that we spent $10M on. Maybe you can pay for PV all by yourself.
Delete3:26 Please give up on the 0% interest. That will never happen and you won't be making that decision now, will you?
DeleteKeep saying it will never happen, and maybe you'll get your way. Then you can whine about no money for you precious roundabouts. The people already own Pacific View. The School District should negotiate the best terms possible for the price it got Barth, Kranz and Shaffer to agree upon, using bait and switch tactics.
DeleteLynn, my dog's turd knows there's no free lunch. I guess you've been on SSI for too long. Over 70% of the cities budget go for salaries and pensions leaving less than 10 million to pay for needed improvements and maintanence. In other words.... NO MONEY for roundabouts. Also NO MONEY to pay for or fix up PV. What part of this do you not understand?? Ok, I know all of it.
DeleteThe baby boom generation of give me give me give me... But someone else pay for it lives on.
PS- roundabouts work.
I am reporting you to the blog administrator. Keep personal comments to me out of this. I get a small amount of retirement social security, and have only since I retired. LEAVE PERSONAL ATTACK OUT OF THIS OR YOU WILL BE SORRY.
DeleteFrom 11:35 to others: First, I don't have a website, sorry. I have spent a great deal of time working for the whole community, going back to when we incorporated. And over and over again, I hear the same stuff. We want this, we want that. Most of it seems to come from Leucadians. The Desert Rose people hired an attorney and actually got a pretty good judgement. They paid for DeLano themselves and didn't expect the City to pay, as they knew the City, and Sabine would not fight for them. I applaud them for that. In Cardiff, when citizens wanted a sidewalk on Birmingham, they paid for it by selling pavers. Over and over, certain citizens have gone out of their way to tell this blog and others that Sabine is corrupt. Yet, you still complain and when Dr. Lorri actually went in front of them, and I watched from home, I saw a handful of people there supporting her effort. I have done what most of 2:42 has done, except paint banners, as I am not an artist. Rumor on the main street from not just people like Stocks and Muir say Leucadians won't do anything for themselves but complain to the City. And, even when someone tries to help get rid of someone you all sit back and complain. Example: Gaspar and Muir, who didn't want to pay 10 million for PV. All I have seen are complaints about them. You say you dislike Barth and Company, but your actions speak otherwise. Baird got a sweet deal, thanks to the City and Tony and whoever else was involved. He is getting is 15 minutes of fame, and not one of you has yet to say "What is in it for him?" And, yes, there is a lot in it for him if you were not so blinded by your hatred of Muir and Gaspar. So, why no embraced what you got, and go about figuring out a way to finance it. Me, I am just one citizen with no blog or website, so go for it. Stop complaining and bang your pots and pans, maybe that will work.
ReplyDeleteOdd you haven't figured out that the only thing Leucadians want is to be left alone...most of us, anyway. We don't "want" anything from the city: no so-called improvements such as sidewalks, street lights, or anything else the city wants to force on us in its rush to hand favors out to developers. Sheesh.
DeleteAnd sadly, word from my Leucadia neighbors is that Gaspar and Muir are looking better by the day...so your generalizations I'd say are pretty far off the mark.
DeletePacific View is in Old Encinitas, not Leucadia. SavePacificView.org is the name of the website started by Scott Chatfield.
Delete3:12- Good, because that is probably all you are going to get, except PV, which we all get to pay for. In fact, no one in this city is going to get anything thanks to that purchase. You may get your stupid roundabouts because a lot of people on this blog, with the exception of Lynn, seem to really want them.
ReplyDeleteI think there are only two or three people on this blog, CP and Fred, who are advocating for roundabouts on 101 through Leucadia. Because they post anonymously (with the exception of Fred), as CP has, and still often does, interchanging with the new moniker I made up for him, they try to make it appear as though "a lot of people on this blog" support roundabouts on Historic State Highway 101.
DeleteNot true. They may work well elsewhere; not here.
Add me to the list of roundabout supporters.
Delete-Mr Green Round
3:14 - get your map out and study it hard - for the second time, PV is in old Encinitas and nowhere near Leucadia.
Delete4:26- Too funny. Is that because old farts like you can't learn how to yield or that physics don't apply in Leucadia. You are clueless.
DeleteThe two on Leucadia work perfectly. The one on Sante Fe works excellent. and the five in Birdrock on the old Hwy101 work perfectly.
What doesn't work is your brain.
The one on Santa Fe has a blind spot, because of the grade, there. The curbs are black, because so many cars have run over them. I rarely drive there, but I've spoken to plenty of people who do, who have issues with that roundabout, as well as the Bird Rock roundabouts. But THOSE roundabouts do have actual cross streets, so you are comparing apples to oranges.
DeleteHow old are you, 9:52? You are the one who cannot yield to logic. You are inflexible, stuck in your misguided opinion that because roundabouts work elsewhere, they are a good fit on 101 through Leucadia.
The laws of physics are constant. Nowhere else are there roundabouts where there are thousands of residences and three beach accesses west of the highway, and railroad tracks to the right, so that there are NO cross streets. Roundabouts are not recommended by the USDOT for three way T intersections, because they are not recommended when the crosstreet traffic is significantly less than the main street.
The roundabouts on Leucadia do not work well during peak traffic periods, and have negatively impacted emergency response time. The USDOT recommends against roundabouts that negatively impact a RR Crossing. Leucadia Blvd is the only RR crossing in miles. Hermes is one block from Vulcan, which runs along the east side of the tracks, and is a school zone. With roundabouts on 101, on either side of Leucadia Blvd, cut through traffic would be negatively impacted on streets adjacent to the highway, including Vulcan, during peak traffic periods, when it is already being affected.
What also doesn't work is your brain and your sense of compassion for the thousands who signed petitions against four one-lane roundabouts and lane elimination on Highway 101, through Leucadia, slowing traffic to 15 MPH and reducing the lanes to one lane northbound and one lane southbound in the name of "keeping the flow." That's more marketing spin, and you know it.
The "flow" doesn't happen during high traffic periods, as it is. People WILL have to stop in order to yield, as happens now, daily. Traffic's already a nightmare during peak seasonal periods or when I-5 is clogged. Remember, the speed limit is already reduced to 35 MPH. If you want to lower it more, install speed tables, not roundabouts.
The roundabout on Santa Fe works great. All roundabouts in the city work great, I pray we have more roundabouts.... They work.
DeleteThere are no blind spots for any of our existing or proposed roundabouts within the city except for drivers who's vision is impaired. Oncoming 15mph traffic within the circle is completely visible to drivers and that's a requirement relevant to proceeding safely through a roundabout. Also, a three legged roundabout services less directions than a four legged i.e. serving less traffic. And to date no one has answered my left turn question.
DeleteAll lefthand turns onto the northbound 101 lane will be much better to navigate without the threat of being smashed by a 50 mph vehicle bearing down on you. Remember folks you still have to use your turn signal when turning in a roundabout and please slowdown to the posted speed and we will all get where we want to be.
DeleteSmile everybody.
7:11, there IS a blind spot at the Santa Fe roundabout.
DeleteThe speed limit has been reduced to 35 MPH on 101, through Leucadia. We cannot install roundabouts at every intersection in the city. Nor would we want to.
The current northbound lane elimination made turning left more challenging than before. Bring the lane back, and a lot of that challenge will be eliminated. Put a bike lane in the RR right of way, not on the highway, where people can drift over, as happened at 1 A.M. in April of 2011, with tragic results.
Talk about roundabouts to my hand. That's not what this conversation is about. Stop trying to turn this and every topic into your never ending quest to satiate your special interests.
Somebody should copy that gem and save it for re-posting later when lynn hijacks yet another entry to blather on and on about roundabouts:
Delete"Stop trying to turn this and every topic into your never ending quest to satiate your special interests."
Hello 1:35. I was merely responding to your comments. Wasn't me who hijacked this thread with roundabouts. You went on and on about them before I corrected you. And if I have special interests they concern more safety for all, including you. And a bike lane along the tracks would be safer, but you'd just as soon have the one on the hwy painted out first to revert to its trecherous history before cyclists had a lane than to have a rail trail first. I don't get that at all. Swarzman was not killed by someone drifting in the bike lane. there was no bike lane. But back to the thread. No. Not one of the 750 letters written on savepacificview.org that I read specified to buy PV for $10 million. But its still half of what commercial property goes for on the coast and done right can eventually pay for itself and create a positive cash flow for the city. And I still think the city should liquidate other limbo property they own to help pay for it.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI will not be responding again to your comments 9:14 and 1:00 AM after this, other than to say you are truly obsessed. A probably drunk, hit and run driver, drifted over to the right hand lane, as I described many times. That would have happened whether the lane was a bicycle lane or a car lane. Like your posting at 1 in the morning, a group of bicyclists were training at 1 in the morning. The accident was a tragedy, but the drifting would not have been prevented by eliminating a lane for motorists on the highway, to create a bicycle lane. What would have prevented it would have been a bike lane in the Railtrail corridor, as Carlsbad will have, but Leucadia won't thanks to the premature northbound lane elimination, for cars.
DeleteAs I said, before, 1:00 AM, LEAVE ME ALONE, I will no longer be baited into arguing with you about your obsession.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThere didn't have to be drifting and I never read drifitng occurred. The cyclists were in V formation. The guardrail forced Swarzman furthest into the traffic lane on the darkest part of N-101 with no bike lane at all (and barely room for one bike anyway. I have photos of the 20" "shoulder" between the car lane and the guardrail). And so sorry you feel baited by my comments. Nothing against you personally 11:56. Just disagree with your interpretations of safety and efficiency. No consternation ever intended. In the past you asked I not use your name. I complied. So from now on I will neither address your time stamp. Peace out.
DeleteLynn is truly a poor sport.
DeleteAlways takes her toys home and doesn't play nice in the sand box. That's just my opinion
The 3rd roundabout lover.
Of course you don't share your name. You are the same guy, posting over and over, I'd wager.
DeleteYou are the poor sport and 6:40. Any more personal attacks, such as suggesting I've long been on social security or disability will be reported, and you will face the consequences. That isn't being a poor sport. That is demanding that you stop your blatant attempts to bully and defame me, here, to drive me away.
I said, and I repeat, it was admitted in court that the DRIVER of the car drifted over into lane two, from the left hand lane. There was no suggestion of bicyclists drifting. Whether there was a bicycle lane or not, the probably drunken, hit and run driver would have drifted over. That tragedy was irrelevant to the pre-mature and illegal elimination of a northbound lane for motorists on North 101, after the Coastal Commission denied a Coastal Development Permit exemption for reconfiguring the highway, a major arterial in the Coastal Zone, from four lanes, to three lanes, for motorists.
There was never any objection to Sharrows, by the CCC, the public, or staff, which Sharrows also would have helped to calm traffic, and which could have been installed on both sides of the highway, as recommended by Staff in the agenda report for the 1/30/13 City Council Meeting.
I would support better lighting on North 101, through Leucadia, which the businesses there, would help to support by an increase in their Lighting and Landscaping Fees assessments. Knowing there is poor lighting, bicyclists are taking their life into their hands to train in a V formation at night, especially around the time when people are leaving the bars, like the Leucadian, back in April of 2011, at 1 in the morning. Riding in a bicycle lane, in the dark, would not have protected the bicyclist who was tragically killed from being struck by the drifting motorist.
DeleteYou would wager and lose. Again and again you miss the mark about who is posting.You are still the Queen of misinformation. Just another observation from the 3 roundabout lover.
DeleteIf Gaspar and Muir are looking better, it is because many of you have helped that along. They are looking better to me as well. And I never thought I would consider voting for either one of them. Now I will vote for Kristin and maybe the anarchist. Catherine is a pawn in Barth and Shaffers game, and if it is true that Medford is spending any time on her campaign, especially city time, she is violating the law ( if it is city time) and is certainly not very ethical if she is not on city time. it is one thing for a council member to support another council member, it is quite another thing for a city employee to actively campaign for the person who hired her.
ReplyDeleteMaybe the best thing would be for Leucadia to secede from the City. I would not mind that in the least.
ReplyDeleteHere Here ! Cardiff as well. Do I have a motion?
DeleteGaspar and Muir have no credibility because they lost on the PV purchase. They both wanted it, but not at the higher price. So, to say that they are looking better is not an accurate portrait. They will continue to do nothing as they remain on the council because they will be two lonely voices that will not be heard and will be out voted by a 3-2 vote. So, they can just sit there and look pretty and plump and collect their paychecks and pensions and build their resume. They are lame ducks because they are puppets of Stocks.
ReplyDeleteThings may change, after November, as far as the majority goes. Maggie and Teresa were in the minority for a long time. Teresa switched her politics, when she was appointed mayor. Kranz and Shaffer switched theirs, after being elected.
DeleteTrue.
Delete3:42-And may I add that Tony has joined the dark side; Shaffer is an idiot when it comes to city politics; and Barth is mentoring her new person Catherine, with a bit of help of a staffer. This whole incorporation has been a disaster. I wonder if the county would have purchased P..V.? You all keep referring to Stocks, who I am guessing is nothing more than an excuse for you to blame anyone but yourselves. That's OK. If you can't see the writing on the wall, it's perhaps you don't want to. I will no longer go along with the b.s. that I hear from so many, or few, posters on this blog. At one time, I thought some of you really wanted to make a difference. I was wrong. All you really want to do is place blame on others, or just plain bitch and do nothing. And please spare me about painting posters. Anyone can paint a poster. All you need is some pain, a brush and the support of DEMA and there you go.
ReplyDelete4:30 thank you for sharing your opinion. Jerome Stocks led the council for 8 years- he was caught violating city codes, increased pension 35% and bankrupted the city on the Hall Park that the city can't afford- $80M (near abouts) Dirty Dan Dalager led the council for 4 years and he was caught a 'Darn near free kitchen" and pled guilty to the DA. Mark Muir was the ex fire chief whos et upa Poltiical action committee of himself and sent mailers supporting Stocks- who then awarded Muir pension increases, wasted more than $20M on ineeded new firehouses and then was appointed by Stocks and Gaspar to the council. Gaspar was endorsed by teh Stocks pro-development pro-pension pro Muir Pro Dalager crowd and after beign elected she promptly voted to award the ex-city manager an extra paycheck spiking his pension and voted to bury the road report- she also took the night off during the PV view vote in 2011
DeleteBarth Shaffer and Kranz have proven to be equally as bad, they signed named to ballot statement lies and opposed residents at Desert Rose and gave away money like Rutan and Tucker,the spin doctor and more recently the whole Lew Edwards cover up and debacle
Thank goodness all of the shennanigans have been brought to light by the people who post here, and the people in the community who go to meetings and of course who ever this WCV person is.
If you don't like what people here have to say then simply ignore us and go about your business. We do have a right to be concerned about out 5 representatives and the decions they make for our city.
DeleteAgree, 7:33 and 4:43.
Delete4:43- Without giving away who I am I will only say that very little of the shenanigans have been brought to light by this blog, or any blog. Perhaps someone could ask, since the closed meeting because open after Muir and Gaspar asked it to be, is why did the CIty chose to pay 10 million? We cannot change the past, but maybe we can change the future? however, to do that, more people have to ask the hard questions, put in FOI or CPRA requests, and not get caught up in some special hatred of any person. You are absolutely right. All of what you said is true. There is still a lot more that has never been revealed and I, for one, am not interested in putting anymore time into this city than necessary, but if there are only 20 posters on this blog, and 20 people put in a request asking why 10 million, that would be a great start. Or if anyone knows the three that voted for 10 million and asked them, that would also be a start. I have already asked one person and am awaiting an answer.
ReplyDelete4:55 You sound like the return of Dr. Lorri under "Anonymous".
Delete4:55-
DeleteThanks for the post. If Lorri is posting anon, she is smart. Ego should play no role in a truly free press. Welcome back.
Doesn't sound like the good docs writing, but good advice nonetheless...
DeleteHere is a list of people who signed Save Pacific View:
ReplyDeleteAntal Adriaanse
Barbara Aplington
Andrew Audet
Lynn Autumn
Teresa Barth
Catherine Blakespear
Bob Bonde
Robert Bush
Fred Caldwell
Sheila Cameron
Bennett Chatfield
Chris Chatfield
Kay Colvin
Carolyn Cope
Dody Crawford
Darius Degher
Mary Fleener
Sarah Garfield
Anton Gerschler
John Gjata
Linda Huston
Dan Jaoudi
Stephen Keyes
Tony Kranz
Annie Leaf
Kathleen Lindemann
Tim Lueker
Mail Dog Email Marketing Tools
Maureen Muir
Pat Muller
Robert Nichols
Lili Noden
Lucille Noden
Mary Oren
Treggon Owens
Mark Patterson
C Clark Porter
Jean Radakovich
Claudia Russell
Deanne Sabeck
Danny Salzhandler
Jesse Schluntz
Blair Schultze
Lisa Shaffer
Tricia Smith
Elizabeth Wallace
You have no point 5:18 - you are a sefl seeking self righetous fraud. No one on above said buy it at any price. Bollocks.
DeleteIn fact many referenced above have been vocal, consistent and staunch public speakers that the city use the Naylor act.
OF coruse you hide behind yoru keyboard and dangle red herrings as bait to distract from the following truth
1. Kristin Gaspar ran and hid in 2011 when taxpayers needed her vote.
2. Barth Kranz and Shaffer are fiscal half-wits
3. Stocks, Dalager and Bond let opportunities to represent taxpayers on PV pass taxpaeyrs by to benefit their cronies
4. Muir could have made a motion of March 12 at the meeting t engage lawyers to push an injunction- as recommended by some noted above-
But Muir ran and hid- a hard thing to do.
I'd tell you to go by a clue muck raking Monty- but the council wasted all our money.
8:19- And your point is exactly what? I would have made the assumption that all had already looked at it. Sorry if I disturbed you with the truth.
Delete9:27 you suggest as fact that people supporting Save PV support paying $10M - they don't Einstein
DeleteMaybe you don't watch council meeting, they are on Weds at 6pm on channel 19. If you bothered to watch then you would knoe that many many people have opposed paying extortion like price and recommended action to buy it more cheaply. -- a fact you leave out
The truth 9:27 is only 3 people support paying $10M that have a vote and their names are Schaffer Kranz and Barth
The truth is 9:27 that only 5 people could have taken action to force an injunction to compell EUSD to folllow the Naylor Act and their names are Muir, Gaspar, Shaffer, Kranz and Barth
sorry to disturb you with the facts- now you can go back to blowing your smoke and conjecture
Interesting. 2 of the 5 city council people signed. I don't see Jerry Sodomka. Did he come on later? However, I see many artists, and the person Teresa is trying to get elected. Wonder if she will know how to pay for it? Her credentials are rather sketchy in that area. This doesn't equal 750, where are the rest?
ReplyDeleteActually there are 3 sitting council members, Barth, Shaffer and Kranz. Hmmm
DeleteAdding further to that, I don't see most of Vina's 28 agitators on this list. Where are they in this? Did they know something we didn't know?
DeleteMo Muir signed her name. Good because her husband has a lot of extra money that he can spend to buy PV.
DeleteLots of good community people on that list, which I'm not sure if it's cool to list. Savepacificview.org is just that, requesting that the EUSD not just dangle the property out there, but that it should stay in the city's hands.
DeleteHow it stays in the city, that's the job of our elected reps that we put in office. Let's not have a witch hunt...
7:14 The list was cut and pasted from Save Pacific View's own website.
DeleteMany of the 28 agitators were dubious about the city's ability to negotiate with Baird, so they stayed on the sidelines knowing there was no way to influence the purchase price that would be offered in secret closed sessions.
DeleteFools rush in where angels fear to tread.
www.savepacificview.com
Delete5:50, you don't see Vina's 28, but sounds like you have the list. Care to share? Something you acquired on the inside, or under a FOIA request?
Delete9:51- If you don't know who they are, then you are not one of them. I doubt an FOI request will work, but try it. Most people who do know, know because they have spent tireless hours working for all of the people in this community and their reward is to be on a "hit" list. I don;t care to disclose these amazing people. You will know if you are on it or not.
DeleteIf approved, is this OK, but the City buying PV with public money is not? Not $10 million of public money for PV, however:
ReplyDelete"The Chargers appear to be pushing for a countywide vote in 2016 on a new football stadium, the U-T reports. The entire stadium project would cost $1 billion; the public may be asked to finance $400 million of the total."
Vote no, that's it. Vote no the same those commie, liberals in the bay area did when both the Giants and Niners asked for new stadiums..
ReplyDeleteThey said no tax money for the new Giants park, and built it entirely with private money, and it's spectacular!
Delete8:33 is, I assume, the same poster who regularly brings up liberals and "commies" as a tie-in to his/her remarks.
DeleteUnderstand that local politics is not left/right: I'm a left person adamantly opposed to the PV price tag and know many more like-minded who put a lie to your labels.
We should all be careful...you'd be amazed at how labels and generalizations don't work at the very local level.
8:33's post is inherently contradictory, leading me to think it's sarcasm.
Delete8:35 AM Really?
DeleteFrom Baseball Prospectus: How Much Is That Stadium in the Window? November 8, 2005.
"To see why, let's take a closer look at the Giants' Pac Bell Park (now SBC Park, and soon to be AT&T Park if the latest merger-related rumors are true). The widely reported $15 million in public funds--used to relocate a public transit facility that was in the way of the ballpark--was just the tip of the iceberg, it turns out. Long estimates $33 million in value for the land itself, donated by the local government for the cause at no cost to the Giants; $25 million worth of municipal fire, police, and garbage services; and $83 million in forgone property taxes, because despite being privately owned, the stadium nonetheless receives a full property tax exemption."
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=4591
Good point. So it's all relative, but the Giants had a much smaller degree of crony capitalist kleptocracy than the Padres deal did.
Delete& the Padres also jacked up ticket prices and slashed payroll to become immensely profitable while fielding a horrible team.
DeleteKinda like the plot from the movie Major League.
If my math is correct, and that is a big IF, I figure if there were 700 people who signed a petition asking to purchase PV, then if each person gave $10,000 to the City that would equal 7 million. Then the rest of us would only be on the hook for 3 million. Sounds fair to me. So pony up all of you who wanted this so badly.
ReplyDeleteThe earlier council that snubbed their nose (one of them was Gaspar) at purchasing PV in prior years at a much lower price was negligent in their duties. Now, we are stuck with yet another HUGE bill and other things keep getting put on the back burner. When are we going to get a smart council? It will more than likely sit there for years untouched with no immediate revenue stream.
ReplyDeleteGaspar loves you, this I know cuz the Bible tells us so...
DeleteGaspar wasn't on the council when Dalager was: when the city collaborated with EUSD to nullify the Naylor Act. Beer making you sleepy?
Oh, and we'll get a smarter council when this blog gets kinder gentler posters... (This includes me) and again, Muir and Gaspar along with the entire council voted unanimously to offer $4 million for PV: it was Tony and Teresa with a little help from Lisa: (who was on again, off-again, on-again for tax increases, even though the city has $50 million in property assets that they could sell to cover the short fall: the council absolutely cannot be allowed to increase taxes or float bonds to cover PV etc...) who drove the city off the fiscal cliff: whether you ever like Kristin or not.
yes- but Gaspar and Muir refused to make a motion directing the city to file an injunction and elgally seek to compell EUSD to abide by the Naylor act- what might have cost $15,000 to find out will cost $10M because Muir and Gaspar were silent.
DeleteSabine said it- residents say the Naylor Act applies, EUSD says it doesn't.- we needed a council member with cojones we got council members who shrunk like frightened turtles
2:52- Yes, that is the truth. But to the haters on this blog, of which there seems to be a lot (or a few that post a lot) it really doesn't matter. Everything is Muir and Gaspar's fault. Surely you have figured that out. And as for kinder, gentler posters it will never happen, as this very blog is actually the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth for way too many people.
ReplyDeleteIn the past year, many have gone from anti Gaspar and Muir to anti all of them.
ReplyDeleteActually what would possibly be cosmically just is for the meanest of the posters to wake up tomorrow and to actually be in charge of the city.
DeleteNow that would be worth a coupla laughs.
There's a signpost up ahead. Your next stop, the Twilight Zone.
DeleteI think we are already in the Twilight Zone.
ReplyDeleteLuck us there's no corn field.
ReplyDeleteYes Tony, its a good day!
DeleteCatherine Blakespear, you signed the Save Pacific View petition. As a council candidate, what would you have done - $10 million,YES or NO?
ReplyDeleteShe would vote yes, she wants to " maintain the Essence of encinitas". It's all in her letter to the Coast News why I'm running for council. Go read it.
DeleteBut Prop A did not get her yes...go figure.
DeleteThat is a great question. She better get her answer down, because it will directly affect if she receives my vote or not.
ReplyDeleteIf she says Yes to spending the $10 mil, then the 'supporters' become haters: if she says No, to 10 but Yes to $4.3 mil, then she gets the rest. Short term ain for long term gain: and where are Bruce and Sheila and Andrew?
ReplyDelete6:07
ReplyDeleteTurn on a TV- Audet was at the March 12th meeting recommending the council take aggressive action to file an injunction to force the EUSD to abide by the Naylor Act so residents don't get screwed- rumor is he even spent his own money on an attorney to see if it has merit- and it does
Shaffer asked Sabine about Audet's recommendation and Sabine said "that is a good question, Audet says the Naylor Act Applies and EUSD says it doesn't"
The spineless cowards on the council- all 5- lacked the balls to take the action Audet recommended. The result is taxpayers agaqin screwed-
So that's where he is- out front. Where are you, behind a keyboard?
Part of trying to help solve problems is actually being respected and having one's ideas even received in the first place, much-less believed; while I don't know anyone who doesn't believe Audet means well, several years of columns that were easily to be determined back-asswards completely, while he was in league with the now self-incriminated admitted violators at The Coast News: along with the Turney-led faux-video tape presented before council against Norby; have left Audet in a position to where no one truly listens to him: which is his fault ultimately, not the councils. Boy Who Cries Wolf Syndrome: what's the phrase, which applies to Lynn as well as Audet: jack of all trades, master of none?
DeleteClearly they are ambitious, but they do not possess the 'gift of gab' necessary to engender trust from those about them.
"Self-incriminated" implies a crime. There was no CRIME. There was a bogus CIVIL complaint initiated by political operatives, who have worked, before for RINO Stocks, and other Republicans. But because the FPPC, in Jim Kydd's case, did not simply drop the case, when corrections were made, Ken Moser and Harry Eiler could not abuse the legal system to disingenuously file charges under the private attorney general act, which has been their MO, to stifle freedom of assembly and freedom of speech. People often settle, especially in civil lawsuits, not because they feel they are guilty of ANYTHING, but to prevent expensive, prolonged court battles.
DeleteA 1000 dollar fine is a slap on the wrist compared to outrageous attorney fees, which mount and mount when ANY civil case drags on and on, as they ALL do, because the system is so backed up by the likes of Moser and Eiler and unscrupulous attorneys who represent them. In fact, they are working for attorney fees, mainly, and Moser has been able to make quite a living out of it.
Jim Kydd has been a local hero, to me, as has been Andrew Audet, and many more, not named. 9:17 sounds as though he could be Jerome Stocks, or one of his sockpuppet operatives.
The video tape re Norby was a recording of an ERAC meeting, it WASN'T faux anything. Norby did misrepresent what consensus means. Norby did misrepresent, along with Council, that five story buildings could NEVER be built in Encinitas, before Prop A's passage.
Norby wrote numerous e-mails to all of Council, which e-mails were violations of the Brown Act. I don't recall a single column of Andrew Audet's that got ANYTHING backwards.
Andrew's columns and my commentaries and letters to the editor all were part of individual efforts and group efforts, combined together to DUMP Stocks. That we were able to do so is a huge accomplishment. And it gave us the momentum to pass the Right to Vote on upzoning and raising height limits.
Next, we hope to replace Gus Vina and Glenn Sabine, at least I do, as do all my friends, neighbors and associates, who are following the shenanigans ongoing at City Hall. We are grateful Teresa Barth is bowing out and keeping her initial pledge not to run again.
I guess that explains why Micheal Jackson settled out of court. He obviously wasn't guilty of anything.
DeleteWhatever, Mikey/Jerome.
DeleteMichael Jackson faced criminal charges, for which he was acquitted. Jim Kydd only had a civil complaint filed against him. It was only pursued to stop Moser/Eiler's abuse of the legal system and obvious attempt to squelch rights of assembly and freedom of expression of grass roots groups, here, in Encinitas.
DeleteA fool is he who believes MIcheal was not guilty…. the guilt was what tore his soul to shreds which made him OD.
DeletePease is a valuable thing. Live a peaceful life with integrity and you will be happy and at ease.
Did you mean peace? LOL
DeleteThe jury acquitted Michael Jackson. I'm sorry for his death. Judge not least ye be judged, 5:37 a.m.
We shall see 9:41… there is always ying and yany in play….so i guess you are needed.
DeleteNorby-exposed
ReplyDeleteStocks- run out of town as the financial failure he is
Dalager- pled guilty to the DA after the public exposed his malfeasance
Cardiff Specific Plan- protects community from Pacific Station upzoning -for now.
Vina- exposed as with holding important financial information from the community
we are fortunate to have so many in the community stand for principles and invest their own time and money to make the community better.
Thank goodness the Coast News printed articles, letters to the editors and community commnetaries about Stock's absurd claims about the cost of the Hall Park, or Gaspar Muir Barth and stocks doiung their spend borrow and steal in the risky scheme to raid funds for the hall park, or of coures pointing out the lies the council told on Prop A
we are lucky to have leaders in the community, we certainly don't have them on the council
9:17- The "gift of gab" straight from a Cohn Brothers film. Well, at least you have good taste in films. Audet has done a lot for our city, and the fact that the Council pays no heed is not his fault. They pay no heed to Westbrook, Sodomka, Minster, Green, and more that I am sure I am forgetting at the moment. Just because they don't pay attention, doesn't mean all of these people are wrong. It means we have a stupid council, or a stubborn council, take your pick.
ReplyDelete9:17 sounds like the ravings of Mikey Andreen, lol.
Delete9:54 - or a council with obligations elsewhere, not with residents.
Delete5:10- Yes, that is another possibility.
Delete