The comments have gotten really abusive.
We'll be marking any name-calling and personal attacks as "spam," which has the unfortunate side effect of making it likely that Google will auto-filter future comments from that person as spam.
Civil debate is not rocket science. You know how to do it.
Guess the mirror towards city hall has had an effect.
ReplyDelete9:39: Not sure what you mean?
ReplyDeleteI think this is a good policy. We can all discuss policies, philosophies and votes without talking about the people themselves. I think that it is offensive to focus on what people look like instead of their actions.
ReplyDeletePolitical cartoons contain exaggerated images of people or situations; ie, Obama with huge ear, etc.. So rhetorical reference to politicans "images" can be legitimate satire. "New Rules" sounds like a new censorship. Encinitas Underground may lose something in the process.
Delete9:45-Totally agree. I look forward to talking about issues without name calling or totally idiotic remarks. Thank you Wc. Maybe this blog will again be a forum for respectful debate and discussion. You're right, it isn't rocket science.
ReplyDeleteAn election year, new bloggers steering dialog, main participant drops out, civil censorship, city hall won this round and I may bow out before before the Leucadia blog death rattle.
ReplyDeleteI too look forward to civil discourse. For those who choose to "bow out," you could always start your own blogs . . . I don't mind new bloggers, or people who disagree with my opinions. I enjoy "Socratic dialogue," and respectful debate.
DeleteI think you need to be more specific as to what the rules mean. In other words, what do you classify as name calling (words like idiot, dummy, no brain??) How are personal attacks going to be "spam" when someone posts anon? We need clearer direction before someone gets whacked unknowingly.
ReplyDeleteI think it would be best to avoid using words like idiot, dummy, no brain.
DeleteThere's a great art to eviscerating someone's argument without resorting to name-calling (see James Taranto vs. Paul Krugman, for example).
As for Google, it appears that they spam filter based somewhat on IP addresses, but I'm not sure about that.
I love reading Paul Krugman.
DeleteI love reading Charles Krauthammer and Thomas Sowell
DeleteWC-
DeleteI expect more from you. Please?
9:49-That is your right as well. If you can't have a dialog without personally attacking someone, and I am not saying you did, then it is better to bow out. Wc is not saying we cannot post anonymously like the LB, he is just saying we could be a bit more respectful. I really don't think City Hall wins on this but if you do perhaps you could say how?
ReplyDeleteHello 9:49
DeleteIt is an interesting observation you make - city hall won this round.
In reading recent posts it did not escape my attention that cleverly worded posts sought to hijack the discussion and direct dialoque to to subjects the person posting could control by use of questions and what seemed to be blaming others under the spirit of kindness and cooperation of course.
Few with awareness of city hall would deny there appears to be a control agenda with city Manager Vina. By controlling the Council Vina controls the message, by controlling the message Vina hopes to control the public. MIG, Peak Democracy, Lew Edwards and community faciliators long since departed have been used to control the message. I think it highly likely Encinitas Undercover is being monitored and it is not too far a stretch to consider that highly paid operatives might post on this site. After all - remember the story of Jim Babwae
I will continue to check this weekly and tell my friends and neighors to check this site because this site is important. I hope others do as well.
10:12 You got it! Yes this is exactly what is happening, this blog is being messed with. People who post here need to understand that the foxes are in the henhouse and they are transparent and not clever ,perhaps soon they will try another angle.
Deletehello 10:25
DeleteI am responsible for the post at 10:12
Kind regards
Andrew audet
Andrew I am one of a large number of residents that would love you to run for council. You seem to get what goes on at city hall, more are waking up to the mythology going on there.
DeleteI am one yet another that can bring 50 to 400 voters if you are as good as you seem.
DeleteAdd it up Andrew and I would run for Mayor. I see it happening. First Day fire Vina!
DeleteI will tally 2000 votes myself. Lets get it on.
Lovin L.
Andy- I'm with you but lose the .... By the way I'm Andy ...
DeleteYour not 007 u are running for mayor.
I will collect signatures for you.
What's the story about Jim Babwae?
Deletesdrostra.com/?p=31302
DeleteFreedom of speech is being taken away so you will find less and less people here.
ReplyDeleteMaybe it was the new spin doctor that was the nasty person on the Peak Democracy post. That seems to be when it really got nasty. I wonder. If that is true, then the City did win. I guess we can't know for sure.
ReplyDeleteIs nasty person considered name calling?
Delete9:53-I disagree. I think that more people would post their thoughts if they knew they would not get attacked so vehemently as Dr. Lori did.
ReplyDelete9:56 IMO Dr. Lorri should have never posted her intimate details about Jerome Stocks. I am not a fan or supporter of him, but that was totally uncalled for and she was called out for it. I'm glad she removed the post because that could have been extremely damaging for both parties.
DeleteHello 10:04- She could have sued the city and won big bucks. I was also there and saw it. She could still sue if she wanted to. I think I will suggest it to her one more time. Plenty of witnesses saw it and would have to testify if they were forced to by a good attorney. Look how long it took some of the Filner women to come forth. This happened when Stocks was on the Council, so it wasn't that long ago.
DeleteHello WCV-
ReplyDeleteI thank you for continuing to report the most important news our community needs to hear. Unfortuantely it seems to me your site is the only news source providing public information on these important topic.
A friend today shared with me the website of Sharyl Attiksson a long time CBS reporter who recently left in part because the news stories she was researching at the networks request refused to run her stories when she presented them -
Increasingly the public must get its information from outlets such as yours as it is the only venue available. You broke the story of Rossini Creek and the cover up, the recent tax increase Lew Edwards Shennanigans, the long suffering pension problem, the buried road report - long before any other news organization reported on the news - if they reported at all.
With the Encinitas Election approaching it is my opinion this site will likely see an increase in comments possibly made by political operatives seeking to discredit those with opposing views and promoting candidates with ties to special interests groups they support - if $6,500.00 could come from Chicago groups as part of a near $100,000 developer campaign led by the existing council and their developer supporters to defeat Prop A I think it likely they see Encinitas Undercover as a beacon of truth that should be darkened.
Thank you again for your efforts to operate this news source. I appreciate it.
Andrew Audet
9:58 You have your opinion; I have mine. We'll see how it goes.
ReplyDelete10:00- That seems fair. Already we seem to be having a more respectful dialog. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteRight on 10:03
DeleteIt is much dirtier at city hall than most citizens know. Personal attacks are just nonsense but as citizens we need a tool of open dialog to enact effective change. Free speech and open dialog are extremely important, censorship may allow this blog to still work but I think a few have started to undermine it so don't get played here. Our good Dr. friend has left so decide if that is helpful for discourse, personally I think she was one of the more thoughtful contributors.
ReplyDeleteNo one asked her to leave. It was her decision. We all make decisions in our life every day.
DeleteAndrew Audet, any chance of you running for council? I sure hope so.
Delete9:59 said it much clearer and I think he is right. Wish Andrew would run for council as he can see clear.
DeleteCity hall needs to change fire the deputy city engineer who had made tons of bad calls .
DeleteCan u say shields ? I agree that guy is bad for Encinitas
DeleteFire him and let's move on.
He is one of the worst in the City Hall
10:12 PM
ReplyDeleteGood analysis of some of the blog comments being a way to control and manipulate the blog conversations. Time for a refresher course in Machiavellian techniques.
Details please about dirty city hall.
ReplyDelete10:12's post on the two hijackers, TNG (with his special "plans" he's trying to build a buzz about) and Green Things is right on the money. They ask far too many questions and try way too hard to steer the conversation, to be on the level.
ReplyDeleteDefinitely some audience softening-up techniques going on with these two, but I think they'll find far fewer people to follow them than they're hoping will.
U all sound like victims in my opinion....
DeleteU should control ur thoughts. Not someone else...
WCV has hugely helped everyone in Encinitas for providing this blog and many are grateful.
ReplyDeleteThis is the same exact thing happened to Leucadia blog.
ReplyDeleteApparently WC is getting pressure from somebody. I'm not sure who. But apparently it's getting to him.
I guess I don't know. Because I haven't started a blog,.. . Maybe it's a government?
You know that they watch your email.
Welcome to Cuba
Leucadia Blog is totally irrelevant and is soft spin now. It is totally censored and only accepts what the site dictator considers "appropriate" I hope the hijackers take it over again and make it a flier for pizza joints.
DeleteOh my fucking God please. We just loosen up and post. This is still America. Grab your damn guns
ReplyDeleteAre you all just a bunch of pussies.
Well that took about 40 posts until someone could not be civil. So much for this blog. Thanks 12:13. At least we know the spam filter WcV talked about is not working.
ReplyDeleteWhat happened? Did you feel that comment applied to you? I actually liked the comment.
DeleteI am going to clean my guns today!
What kind of guns?
DeleteYou know our city council doesn't like guns?
All kinds .... Our rights as an American.... Keeps thej government in check and great assets..... I'll take ammo over a greenback anyway....
DeleteAnyway, any day!
DeleteAnd with that I bid you all good day. The Lincoln Club won. Sad but true. We lost a somewhat constructive blog all because of few of you haters just couldn't let your stupid attacks rest. I'm out of her as well.
ReplyDeleteGood. We will all be better of because ur gone. Now we could just get two more
Delete1:57, she's glad you're out of her.
DeleteSo am I: I'm glad 1:57 is out! For the few who refuse to filter themselves, who despise any kind of moderation, they would be better off "venting" elsewhere.
DeleteI also find 12:30 to be offensive, but this is not my blog. I hope 12:30 in the morning and 1:57 AM are one and the same person, in fact, someone staying up late, angry that previous comments attacking others personally, have been removed. I'm so glad I never read them!
I find many of your comments offensive. And I bet Mayor Barth does as well. And I bet Tony Kranz does as well.
DeleteHow dare people respectfully share ideas and ask questions in an attempt to gain support for ideas.
ReplyDeleteMust be a conspiracy.
Putting my motives under suspicion is a lazy alternative to using research and facts to undermine ideas you disagree with.
When people quietly work toward some outcome of public import, how many here would complain of back room dealing? Yet, when that same person looks to build some grass roots support by sharing ideas before they are completely baked, then the complaint is "hijacking," "infiltration," "manipulative," not being "on the level," "nasty person," and "Machiavellian."
These are softer words than "idiot," "dummy," and "no brain," but is the meaning much different?
Defensive = suspicious
DeleteYes, TNG, don't you know that we ask too many questions and use our minds to come up with a solution? How dare you?
Delete-Mr Green Conspiracy.
And given the high level of city shenanigans over the years that still go on today, new guy, you need to take a step back if you really want to be heard. Most of us here are suspicious and defensive for a reason. When you don't identify yourself or your "plans," no one will lay with you. When you ask questions that, quite honestly, feel more like plants, no one will answer. We don't know who you are or what these mysterious plans are,
ReplyDeleteIf you've been around Encinitas as long as you say you have, then you know the city loves nothing more than to ask seemingly-innocent questions that lead to twisted answers. People here are wary of surveys, in case you hadn't noticed, and with good reason. Something about your posts feel very much like something the city would prepare to gauge public interest and intended to influence outcomes on something we would not vote for we're the idea presented honestly.
You're not going to get any real and thoughtful engagement from folks with your ideas until you come out into the light of day. People talk outside the blog and opinion is you're setting traps, plain and simple. People wonder if you represent yourself or the city and/or developer community.
Sorry for the novel, but yes people are suspicious and that's because we've been burned - badly - by "plans."
I don't think the city bothers with this blog.
DeleteTNG is a legitimate, interested, non-developer, non-city insider.
Now the upcoming Peak Democracy blog, that's where you'll see leading questions and city spin.
That's cool. I understand. And I was a part of the Hall property community input sessions that called for a nice mix of passive and active use--which was summarily ignored.
DeleteA healthy dose of skepticism is to be expected. Here's the deal: I suspect that the moderator knows who I am, because I sent him an email--I can say that because he seems serious about honoring people's privacy. I haven't revealed who I am and what actions I am taking for two reasons:
1.) It's possible, maybe even probable that these ideas have a fatal flaw that I haven't discovered yet. If so, I'd rather not attach my name publicly to political positions that a future employer may not agree with, and can Google. If I had certainty that the ideas were ready for prime time, then I would be willing to take that risk.
2.) Some of the people here clearly don't like my ideas, and have more experience and connections than I do. If I'm completely open about what actions I am taking, it would be too easy for them to counter my efforts and crush what I believe to be a decent idea before it ever leaves the launchpad.
If things move forward--if I find some encouragement and help in the community, then the mask will come off, and you'll find out that everything I've told you about myself is true. But until then, I can respect the suspicion.
By the way, my strong leading-the-witness style is intentional. I'm being aggressive on purpose, trying to provoke smart people on the other side to find the fatal flaw I referenced above, and attack it. If I can't defend, or fix the flaw, then game over.
DeleteI don't have nearly as much confidence in my own ideas as I project, because they haven't been vetted--that's the sum total of what I'm on about here.
U r doing great.... Intelligent comments from intelligent crowd....
DeleteIgnore the Klcc for they love the rambling none sense .......
TNG is legit, but his ideas are far-fetched and will never fly. Propose something practical and doable to get a lot of support.
DeleteHis ideas a good and he should just focus on garden view or the old dump as the City Hall…. We already own it .. so the issue of bringing in a 3rd property doesn't matter.
DeleteThe County owned land beside the Sheriff's substation is a former burn site. Supervisor Dave Roberts told me, in a telephone conversation we had (he kindly returned my call) that before any construction could be done at that site, toxic soil would have to be hauled away. Of course that is what many thought would be necessary at the former Hall Property, but for a different reason: contamination by chemicals used by the former greenhouses there. Instead, that contaminated soil was buried, but not before demolition was done, prematurely, which involved moving of soils, and absolutely negatively impacted the neighborhood.
DeleteDave Roberts also told me, in our conversation, that the City is pushing for development of that land, off of Camino Real, not the County, maintaining right now it's not being used for its "highest and best use."
To the City "highest and best use," is the highest density, which would allow the greatest tax revenue. My definition of highest and best use, is different. The highest and best use of Pacific View, in my impassioned opinion, would be for a true community art and learning center.
TNG, the fatal flaw in you plan is that you are calling the public's right to maintain open space "irrelevant." 30% of Pacific View should be maintained as open space. Because our right to that space, on publicly donated land, has been ignored by public agencies, both the City and the School District, doesn't mean that we are going to lie down and give up our rights.
There is not enough room at Pacific View for City Hall and an arts center, open space, and parking. I would not want to take the risk of putting underground parking so close to unstable bluffs.
Most people don't want to see the land where City Hall now is developed as a high density project, even with underground parking there, as at Pacific Station. The people in this city want to see the city cut back on operating expenses, significantly, not try to gain more revenue by more growth. The machine is insatiable, and leads to more and more expansion, which we can't afford on a quality of life level.
Okay Lynn.
DeleteIs it your legal opinion that ANY sale of school property in California automatically requires 30% set aside for open space under Naylor? Because you and I would disagree on that. If instead you are saying that open space is valuable, and we should do everything possible in the design stages to accommodate open space, then we are in violent agreement.
As to the rest of your arguments, we've plowed that ground enough, I think.
The Naylor Act regarding preservation of open space is to try to maintain land that has been used as open space for recreation as part of school grounds. It requires the school district to offer up to 30% of a surplus school site to local governments at a reduced rate. I don't know how the legislature came up with 30% but the focus is basically preserving playgrounds. So local government can't just demand 30% of school land if there weren't already playgrounds being used in the last 5 years.
DeleteRight. My point was that ifthe City had invoked Naylor, it may have forced a subdivision of the property. The city would have been entitled to 30% of the parcel on the cheap, and would be required to preserve it as open space.
DeleteMy problem with Lynn's analysis is that first "if." Since the city did not invoke Naylor, the lay division and open space requirement don't ever take effect. Instead, the city bought 100% of the parcel at market price, with no restrictions on use other than those imposed by zoning, local costal plan, etc.
One can argue what the city SHOULD have done relative to Naylor, but what actually happened is not a matter of opinion.
Sorry--fat finger error in paragraph 2. ". . . the SUBDIVISION and open space . . ."
Delete"May have forced a subdividion" - ambiguous not rooted in fact, conjecture and spin.
DeleteEUSD never offered the PV site to the city under the Naylor Act as required from 2001-2010 is a fact. It is also a violation of state law.
"May have" = smoke screen
never offered from 2001-2010 as required = a fact. / not opinion and no amount of smoke can cover it up.
2:31, were starting to circle. I'm not debating whether EUSD or the city SHOULD have invoked Naylor. I'm not a lawyer, and I don't have an opinion on that.
DeleteThe fact is, rightly or wrongly, Naylor was never invoked, the parcel was never subdivided, and the restrictions on land use never attached. Period.
I'd also be careful what you wish for, because if Naylor had been invoked, 70% of that property could have been destined for stucko condo boxes if Baird's lawyer turned out to be right about the autopilot rezoning in state education code. I tried to read the education code to find where he was getting that, but then I fell asleep, because I'm not a lawyer.
I prefer stucco boxes over the City's DEBT increasing another $15 million and no other projects getting done. Our roads are looking like shit.
DeleteWHOOPS make that no one will PLAY with you. Or most likely lay with you either, for that matter :D
ReplyDeleteCorrection #2: Something about your posts feel very much like something the city would prepare to gauge public interest and intended to influence outcomes on something we would not vote for WERE the idea presented honestly.
ReplyDeleteUgh auto-correct!
7;03 AM is revealing more with the blame the public for their " conspiracy" thoughts has been used by the city before. The "aw shucks, I just want to built some grassroots support" line is the same used by city officials.
ReplyDeleteSo I'll defer to the trustworthy WC on this one. TNG should at least understand why he's meeting resistance. Be more transparent, offer more and sit back and see what you get, and cool it on what feels like grilling. Fine to ask for responses, but ask a too-pointed question and no one will touch it.
ReplyDeleteIf you're a non-insider, non-developer or developer-connected person, you can appreciate the very healthy suspicion, TNG.
8:29-How sweet. Dr. L was an insider and gave us information that was useful. I spoke with her last night, she is leaving the country in the next few weeks for a month, is closely following a potential civil liberties thing that will affect a lot of us, is working with County Mental Health to make sure that the Ordinance that is being passed in the next few weeks by the county supervisors, called 5270, will do what is states it will do, and works about 50 hours a day. She said she wanted to point out how Jerome operates, even though I had advised her not to do it. She didn't file a sexual harassment lawsuit at the time, but neither did many of the Filner women who came back later. I suggested she do it now. She said NO so I stopped harping on it. What surprised her so much was that some of the people who called Filner such a sleaze and managed to get him out of office without even a trial, bashed her so much by showing how far Jerome's alcohol intake could affect his decisions. Obviously she failed. I guess to sum up she sort of feels relieved, as she tried, and though she doesn't like to fail, she did, at least on this blog. She loves our community and has decided that she will let others fight battles that are really not that important to her. She has a lot of info on Sabine, but is not that interested in crunching any more numbers and will let it go. Good news for Sabine. If anyone wants the information, she will give it to them. The ones on his blog that know her, also know her email. If no one is interested, then she will shred them. I think she may have actually posted the stuff about Jerome to see if Marco Gonzales was going to attack. I will not share the reason I believe that, and she didn't say that. I just know what went down and have seen Marco's emails to her. Of course, since most post anonymously we will never know. One last thing I will say about my friend of over 30 years. Lorri is one of the kindest, intelligent, and empathic person I have ever known. She has 2 beautiful children that are not on any government assistance, and a loving husband, as well as 2 cats and a home in Cardiff. She is happy with what she has, and constantly helps others, I cannot keep up with her and I am a lot younger. Just because she will not post again on this blog, and she did make that very clear, doesn't mean you won't see her fighting a City Hall for causes she really believes in. She gave up on Sabine getting fired a long time ago, but continued to do FOI requests because so many asked her to do it. That about sums it up for me. I don't usually post on this blog, but somehow I felt compelled to it, as she is a friend and colleague. I hope you all have a truly happy day. Thank you.
DeleteSome of the things Dr. L posted on here could have been used in a court of law. It's probably a good thing she is not posting any longer. At 65 I think I would go and enjoy the rest of my life and not be concerned with petty things. Life is way too short.
DeleteI would really miss Dr. Lorri's posts; I hope she might change her mind. We, who post under our names, don't have to let those who attack us personally, who try to ruin the blog for everyone with their hateful comments, designed to be hurtful, designed to drive others away, get their bullying way.
DeleteActually, most of the comments are thoughtful and civil. A small minority has tried to ruin it for everyone, here, on Encinitas Undercover, just as they did on Leucadia Blog.
It's not worth all the toxicity, for anyone. JP, towards the end, came out against Prop A, and refused to moderate at all. That's why so few post on his blog, now, in my opinion.
And that's why I'm very glad WC Varones has realized that he must step up to the plate and set a few rules, before his blog is overrun by a mean-spirited few, too.
As I've said, the so-called demise of Leucadia Blog, was because JP stopped moderating; he also bought into the fiction of identifying those who disagreed with a certain commenter, or who disagree with plans for certain hardscapes, that is roundabouts on 101, through Leucadia, belong to a delusional club this same person made up to suggest that those who want to Keep Leucadia Funky are somehow full of you know what.
Where is the expose post of Jerome $tock$? On this blog site? Under which heading?
Delete12:34 Dr. L deleted her post about her accusations and intimate details of Stocks. It's probably a good thing she did.
DeleteHonestly, I think JP wanted to go a little corporate with the blog, as is his right, it's his blog. ONce he opened his shop, and can see where he'd want to be a little more PC with the blog..
Delete-Mr Green Blog...
1:10- I respectfully disagree. I saw it happen and I was appalled. I have never said anything because it didn't happen to me. If it had, I would have filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against him. And, since there were a lot of witnesses, Dr. Lori could have won big bucks from the city.
DeleteAgree 3:05. I am going to suggest suing the City now, once again to her. Maybe she will go for it this time. It was while Stocks was on the Council and plenty of people saw it.
DeleteHello WCV-
ReplyDeleteIt has been my experience that individuals and groups that use questions as a means of controlling and shaping discussion to predetermined outcomes are employing many of the same tools the city of Encinitas has used to promote self-seeking special interests.
In support of my opinion I offer the process of the Cardiff Specific Plan facilitator, MIG and city staff in so called comunity outreach efforts that were less about partipcation and more about manipulation. As I post this the fact is boxes of unprocessed MIG community survey's sit at city hall collecting dust while costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands.
I have also grown to be skeptical of those seeking not to share ideas and opinions but to ask me 'how I feel' 'how I think' about an opinion they offer rather than enabling me to evalaute the opinion without prodding or 'educating' from the person seeking to change my thinking. It seems to me they want me not to think for myself but to think as they would have me. If an argument, opinion or viewpoint has merit should it not stand on the strength of it's own logic? Or should it be sold with dime store pyscho-analytics?
In closing I notice the city council and recent posts on this blog have sought to appropriate the Prop A providing the citizens right to vote on upzoning as a tool. I can not fail to notice that City Manager Gus Vina, Mayor Barth and councilo members Lisa Shaffer and Tony Krans all referenced "The citizens should have the right to vote on a tax increase" when considering the Lew Edwards tax survey - it's as if all three had been prepped and rehearsed ahead of the meeting.
It is more interesting as all 3 along with Muir and Gaspar signed their names to a ballot statement rebuttal lie against A that was sent to every voter in the city. One might argue what is a little lie to the public when one's personal house is in seeming order, but perhaps that is a discussion for another day.
Thank you again for providing this wonderful forum for us to partipcate in. I appreciate it.
Andrew Audet
Andrew, please run!
DeleteI ask too many questions; so I won't.
DeleteBut if I was allowed one, it would be simple: Andrew Audet, what's your plan for funding the purchase and renovation of PV?
Sadly, I can't ask that.
TNG, your condescending attitude is a little annoying. You could still ask that, and you know it. You were completely off topic, when you started asking it on a thread that was about Peak Democracy, and how public opinion is manipulated. But you can be off topic here, too. People still addressed your ideas. I, and others, didn't think they were good ideas.
DeleteThe plan, that I know of is to have a Community Arts and Learning Center, and 30% open space. Robert Bonde and Envision the View presented more specific plans, which were mostly about funding the arts and learning center's purchase. But the plans included, at least preliminarily, rehabbing existing classrooms, and removing excess blacktop, which the City, at taxpayer expense, put in to cover the playgrounds and playing fields at Pacific View, when it leased the property as a temporary public works yard, without EUSD's first offering 30% of the former school site to public agencies for public open space, as required by the Naylor Act, which is part of Education Code. The Naylor Act is NOT irrelevant, as you have suggested.
I and others have also suggested that community gardens could be planted in some or all of the open space, which would give an opportunity for students to learn horticulture and landscaping design, could provide some food for the community, if more fruit trees were planted, for instance, and which gardens could also be a venue for small weddings on weekends. I've seen lovely weddings in Solana Beach, before the Fletcher Cove Community Center was expanded, and also at the small park near the former train station location, in Del Mar. Weddings at Pacific View would serve the community, and could also help toward providing a revenue stream to the City to pay back the debt.
Agree Andrew. As further evidence of what you are speaking of, all anyone really has to do is consider why the City paid 10 million for a property that could have been purchased for less and that rumor in city hall is that they want to do the same thing that Art Pulse wanted to do. A mix of homes and something to satisfy the intent of Prop.A. If they issue a Lease Revenue bond to pay the 10 mil. I can't help but wonder if this is true.
ReplyDeleteIt's the only way the city can buy it 9:23. Everything else would require a vote of the citizens.
DeleteAgree with Andrew above. If they really wanted to know what we had to say, they would have done a needs assessment based on the people who live here. Instead, they have sought to "educate" us at every opportunity. Their job is to let US educate THEM in terms of our needs and vision. We are the customers and we are paying THEM.
ReplyDeleteApparently, they don't like what we had to say since they have put a freeze on the General Plan Update and have refused to process citizens survey information. Instead, they have so-called results from the dot exercise thaat aer a complete fraud.
Yes, and on the Consent Calendar again is the "routine" destruction of public records. Records stored electronically really don't need to be destroyed, as so much space is now available, digitally, through storage systems similar to the Cloud.
DeleteThe City of San Diego just had a controversy about this, because, technically, the law allows City e-mails to be destroyed in six months. City Beat and other media outlets were strenuously objecting, because the e-mails don't NEED to be destroyed so soon. Faulconer, SD's new mayor, agreed NOT to destroy the e-mails so soon, after the public and media outcry, there. Our City does NOT need to get rid of the City Manager's correspondence so soon, for example, or California Public Record's Act requests. When I wanted to see a CPRA request that was done by Mike Andreen, through the Chamber of Commerce, for instance, in 2008, early 2009, I was told it had been destroyed already.
It looks as though they are now getting ready to destroy Kevin Cummins' public records requests? I feel that these kinds of documents can and should be preserved. Teresa Barth, Tony Kranz and Lisa Shaffer had promised that the City, under their majority, would do the BEST WE CAN, NOT THE LEAST.
Audet went to council meetings in 2011 and asked the council to direct the city manager to order an appraisal and evalaute buying PV under the Naylor Act.
DeleteAudet wrote a community commentary published in the Newspaper in 2012 with the opinion that the city council order and appraisal under the Naylor Act and evaluate a purchase.
Audet went to city hall on March 17th 2014 and spoke on the PV subject recommending the council order and appraisal under the Naylor act and file an injunction that EUSD had violated the Naylor act to temporarily stop the auction and seek a legal ruling to protect the rights of residents. Audet went so far as to say he had spoke with a land use attorney. (No knoweldge if he paid the attorney for research )
Lisa Shaffer was the only council person who asked city attorney Sabine if the Naylor act applied. Sabine's response was Audet claims it does, EUSD claims it doesn't. Did Shaffer, Barth, Gaspar or Muir make a motion to take Audet's recommendation and pursue the possiblity of buying PV for less - no.
Instead Gaspar and Muir followed the wrong advice of Sabine just like they followed the wrong advice of Sabine when he gave city manager Cotton an extra paycheck spiking his last year salary and just like they followed the wrong advice of Sabine in burying the road report in 2010 costing taxpayes some $100K when he lost the lawsuit.
Rather than follow Audet's recommendation Barth, Shaffer and Kranz offered $10M.
Way to go… Mayor Audet! Good times ahead for Encinitas!!!
ReplyDeleteThank you!!!
When has the government/corporate power structure ever cared what the people think?
DeletePersonally, I'm fine with the TNG's questions, how can I know the question if it's not asked. Everything else on here lately has been pretty much personal attacks.
I wasn't for purchasing PV at the full price, but now that we have it, how the hell are we going to pay for it. Bonds, sales taxes, no way sez I. We have to use existing resources.
As for highly paid operatives, come on guys, if I'm a highly paid operative, I want to get paid for it. All I can tell you is several of the people who post on this blog know me, and I'm definitely not getting paid to do this.
Besides, can you imagine this crew giving even an inch on their views? I'm an IT developer, and you can't put your real name out there for prospective employers to view, it's that simple.
Andrew Audet will continue to fight with us, but he's obviously not running. We have Step #1, Barth is leaving. Step #2 is Gaspar leaving. Who's stepping up to run?
-Mr Green Jeans
I do not agree… If he wasn't running, he would say so….
DeleteBy his silence, I am convinced he is running…. just like I am convinced that the City's whole "strategic planning" crap is just a delay tactic to get loser Vina closer to retirement. He could care less about Encinitas Financial future as long as he can collect his huge pension forever!
We shall see if I am correct about either?
Great, if he runs I'm behind him, but realistically if you're running, you have to start right now. You can't wait until July when the application deadline hits.
DeleteI would disagree about Vina as well. Strategic Planning is bs, I agree, but that's the kind of bs they do in government. Vina will keep working, whether it's here or somewhere else. I don't think he's going to pass on the big bucks..
-Mr Green Bucks
Wrong… within 2 years vina will be 55. He gets 2.7 % x year life long employment in government times his highest paying year. So lets say he started in guberment at 25 under CAPERS. 30 years times 2.7 is 81% of say $220,000 which is $178,200 a years… .I think he might be able to scrimp by the poor soul…..
DeleteMaybe Muir can loan him some bucks he gets more.
And you wonder why they don't have any money for projects and want to raise your taxes?
I am losing respect for your intelligence Mr. Green Answer...
Ok, let's let that rest. My point is simply this, without point blank getting Vina to say "Yes, I'm retiring in 2 years" then how do we know if he's retiring?
DeleteYou, me and a lot of other people would like to see a new face in that chair, but barring action by the council to not renew his contract or some allegations surfacing, I can't see it happening.
Don't mistake my take that he's not leaving as support for Vina. He, Cotton and Miller have all been subpar, by quite a bit. I know how much money he stands to make at retirement, it's absurd and as usual in the city, not sustainable.
We'll see what happens, but let's quit chasing our tail on something we have no control over and agree on the following: We'd be better off without Vina.
-Mr Green Agreement
The city owns at least 3 properties on Garden View. Two are leased for a dollar a year. The third property isn't bringing in that yearly one dollar and sits vacant.
ReplyDeleteThere are at least 2 visible vacant dumps in the city - one off of Encinitas Blvd. and the one behind the Sheriff's station on El Camino Real. Both former dumps have enormous clean-up problems.
The El Camino Real dump has been categorized as a burn dump. For all indications its use was before the sorting of hazardous chemicals from other trash. Previous councils didn't want to discuss the cost to clean out all the hazardous waste. Sometimes a covered dump should just remain a covered dump.
Do u mean like are current city hall employees?
ReplyDeleteThat kind of dump?
I would say let's clean out the hazardous employees.
ReplyDeleteThe New Girl aka TNG:
ReplyDeleteWhat is your opinion on the city leasing city property at $1 a year for 50 years?
Not sure I understand the question. You mean PV? The City has already agreed to purchase the parcel. So you mean the City leases the property to someone else?
DeleteSorry, not trying to play Columbo, but I can you clarify?
The city leasing of the two properties on Garden View.
DeleteHonestly, I don't know enough on that to offer much of an opinion. I know about the parcel on Quail Gardens, and the one in the Target center, but not the two on Garden View. Are they east or west of ECR?
DeleteIsn't one of the Quail Gardens parcels in possession of EUSD? My understanding, and I could be wrong, is that part of the Mello-Roos paid for by Encinitas Ranch residents supposedly go toward a school? I thought that when Encinitas Ranch was developed, then the arrangement was that a parcel was set aside for a future elementary school? And isn't that now being leased out by EUSD for growing grounds, tended to, in part, by school children?
DeleteObviously, I don't know enough about this, either, but that school parcel has not been declared surplus. Pacific View, although it was permanently closed as a school, was not declared surplus until February of 2010, and was not offered to sale to public agencies, as required, until 2010, at which time, it failed to offer the land in accordance with the Naylor Act, which was STILL applicable, because the property was used, in part for playing fields eight years before it was originally leased to the City for $1 per year, for a corporate yard, at which time the City paved over the playing fields and playgrounds.
I meant to say, EUSD failed to offer the land in accordance with the Naylor Act, which was STILL applicable, because the property was used, in part for playing fields eight years before it was originally leased to the City for $1 per year, effective in December of 2003, six months after the school was permanently closed.
DeletePacific View was leased to the City by EUSD for a corporate yard, through a lease originally signed by Superintendent Doug DeVore and City Manager Kerry Miller, at which time the City paved over the playing fields and playgrounds.
I was given three signed leases, through CPRA requests, allegedly approved and reaffirmed by both City Council and EUSD through 2007, and beyond, because there were automatic, unsigned renewals every six months. The initial lease was signed on February 2, 2004 by DeVore and Miller. The final written lease was signed by Superintendent Lean King on July 10, 2007 and City Manager Phill Cotton, on August 6, 2007.
The signatures of the Superintendents and City Managers signified approval of the Board of Trustees and Council. Teresa Barth was elected in November of 2006, and was on Council for the final written lease agreement. All of the leases contained the following language, not included in any agenda report that I could find.
"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. , ,
LESSOR AND LESSEE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THIS LEASE SHALL NOT BE BINDING ON EITHER AND SHALL BE OF NO FORCE AND EFFECT UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE LEASE IS ACCEPTED AND APPROVED BY THE GOVERNING BOARD OF BOTH LESSOR AND LESSEE.
The New Girl aka TNG:
DeleteCorrection: The city leasing of the two properties on Quail Gardens.
Are you sitting down?
DeleteI agree with Lynn's first paragraph at 12:54. I'm not sure, but my memory is that when Encinitas Ranch was built, the city forced the Carltas to set aside that land on QG for a future school (after all tons of stucco boxes means tons of kids, right?). I assumed that the land was given to EUSD, but maybe not.
If the city does own it, and you are asking about it's potential as a resource for PV, then here's what I think. It's probably zoned for a school, so we would still need a Prop A vote to sell it. What sweeteners (community benefits) would be used to win that vote? There are a lot of people who don't care about the arts, didn't want Pacific View in the first place, and don't like development--that's a lot of potential no votes on rezoning QG. Encinitas Ranch, parents, and children's advocates would resist the loss of an asset that was "for the children," just like what happened at PV.
Part of what I worked hard on in my proposal, was those community benefits. Vulcan has potential for added downtown parking, park-like public terraces, restaurants. All of that came out of brainstorming about how enough people could see enough benefit to vote yes. Not just supporters of the arts, not just childrens advocates, not just business leaders, not just the retired couple in Leucadia, or the single mom in Cardiff--all of them.
That's the mindset I had in trying to solve the puzzle.
The New Girl aka TNG:
DeleteAn extension to the San Diego botanical gardens and the Heritage Museum each sit on city parcels leased for $1 a year. There is also another city parcel. The school district parcel now has portable bungalows.
Vulcan doesn't have potential for added downtown parking. The hill has a severe water seepage problem. The park-like terraces you envision sound so much like the 3 story plaza in Del Mar which also suffers from an insufficient amount of parking spaces. The restaurants and shops in the Del Mar plaza tend to serve people making a higher income and leaves out the middle class.
Expanding on the 2:39 post.
Delete1:40, if you are serious about it, do that exercise. Think through all of the major voting blocs in town, and ask yourself: "How would I win the support of each interest group with one proposal?"
The Vulcan/Shared PV proposal changed as I worked it through for every group I could think of. In the end, I don't think I'd every get Lynn's support. By start the process by going for the support of every single person:
Fiscal conservatives: "The town is going deeper into debt on Pacific View. This proposal can't fix the structural spending issues at City Hall, but it could represent a one-time pass to avoid a pile of debt on PV."
Business Community: "You guys are going to benefit from additional parking for your businesses along the 101. Plus, there will be new opportunities to open businesses at Vulcan. It may bring additional shoppers to town. (but please don't think about the fact that the money from Vulcan is going to fund a bunch of hippie artists and children)"
Arts Community: "You are going to benefit from better accommodations, sooner, because we have a funding source unlike Hall which sat fallow for 10 years. (And, we're going to stick it to the man, by making them pay for it)"
Tax watchdogs: "we're going to broaden the town tax base, and avoid the future pressure to raise tax rates to pay an unmanageable debt service."
Shoppers, eaters, people watchers, neighbors, families: "Read a book or have a shave ice and watch the sunset at Vulcan or see an exhibit or performance at PV. (These are just examples--There can be gardens too, Lynn, if that's what the community decides, and stuff specifically for kids)"
Everyone: "expanded parking for Coaster, for downtown, for events."
Voters: " transparent process, that protects your Prop A 'Right to Vote'."
Politicians: "the proposal will bail you out of a sticky spot. Right now, you're headed for more borrowing. You're going to be accused of fiscal irresponsibility."
Development watchdogs: "any development plan at Vulcan would have to win voter approval. To get voter approval, the city will have to setup bid/plan criteria that lower the commercial intensity of proposals at Vulcan."
Civic Activists: "Our current City Hall puts staff in a bubble, alienates citizens, and contributes to a poisonous atmosphere. The proposal won't fix everything, but could help."
That's the a window into how to build a plan that incorporates QG. If you are like me, you won't sleep much for a week or so while all the complex variables rattle around in your cranium.
encinitas taxpayers have paid for city hall. We own it.
DeleteIt will be worth more in 10 years then it is worth today.
Selling or trading city hall is not a solution it is another city council give away intended to fleece and hoodwink the public to giving away another asset.
there are more important issues and subjects we need to discuss - why does this one subject keep being brought up?-hmmm
Maggie's Farm
DeleteThe transaction in 1994 between Carltas and EUSD concerning the school district threatening to send Soccer Moms door to door campaigning against Propk K that brought the Ecke properties into the incorporated city of Encinitas. EUSD threatened the city council with the defeat of the plan that exchanged revenue bond funding in exchange for up-zoning and re-purposing AG zoning:the benefit to the city is that by partnering with the Eckes, the Ecke's got to convert some of their property while the City received income to in the form of a funding mechanism for renovating crumbling infrastructure inherited in 1986 from the County: agreements between the new city and largest farmer/manufacturer in the City to py for Encinitas Ranch Town Center, Encinitas Ranch Golf Course, extension of Leucadia Boulevard between I5 and El Camino Real:
EUSD wanted a piece of Ecke Ranch too. They claimed the new homes in Encinitas Ranch would generate 900 new children between 5 and 11: and that EUSD only received $90 per child per year from 'development fees' and the district wanted some poinsettia field's 'gold': meaning enough prime residential acreage on which to build an entire elementary school.
The City and Carltas aquiesced:perfect civic extortion and, much like the City/EUSD subcommittee currently 'dickering' over the overpayment of $10 mil for in 1994 the district and Carltas began to dicker: C'Tas handed over the giant location: but, there was a caveat; a poison pill stating that only an elementary school could be built on the formerly Ecke property, nothing else.
Within the following 5 years, 1994 through 2000, the school district lost students every year: not only were EUSD's 'projections' of student census growth: it was 180 degrees wrong.
But, because the transaction all took place between two parties: one private, Carltas and one public, EUSD: and that the City is not a partner: the uses today planned for a farm/and or gardens/lab etc... are ignoring the caveat written into the transaction requiring that only an elementary school can be built on the formerly Carltas property: and if not a school, then a 'public hearing' is required at a minimum, and at one point four years ago the Planners informed the City Council that EUSD's plans for the property were not included in the 'usage' or zoning assigned to that property: The Mayor had friends among the Trustees of EUSD and Planning was told to put the file away.
But the 'plans' for a 'farm or garden' is still in violation.
The City's files concerning the 'transaction' between Carltas and the district are simple and clear.
EUSD is probably hopeful that because of staff changes in personnel, no one has apprised the current council that they have an extra playing card in their deck.
Here's hoping they use it.
6:48 is my new hero. Good stuff.
DeleteIf Wc knows who TNG is and won't tell us, or TNG won't tell us, why should't we be suspicious. At least certain people on this blog do put their names on things. Well, now only 2.
ReplyDeleteI don't care who the new guy is. If they bring good suggestions let's hear them.
ReplyDeleteAnd I don't agree that a small criminal charge a big deal. The federal government prints huge amounts of money and other white-collar criminals like Jerome stocks Rob millions from taxpayers.
10:33- Are you kidding me?
ReplyDeleteNope...
ReplyDeleteEveryone has some legal issues once in a while. Haven't you ever receive the traffic ticket?
Ask others on this blog. I know many have received citations from the city. It's no big deal everybody has issues in life...
Mayor Audet brings very fresh ideas.
I would hang him thousands of votes.
Siri meant to say I will bring him thousands of votes...
ReplyDeleteHere is my proof. Watch this. So Mayor Audet , Are you going to run for mayor? Watch his silence. It's evidence that he is running
ReplyDeleteBy the way thank you very much.!
I guess we can't ask Lynn if she is running?
ReplyDeleteIs that offensive?
Man, she would be one sensitive council member. Can you believe the shit that the others take?
they get hammered… lynn gets protected? Classic
I have said several times that I'm not running; I don't see that as my role in our community.
DeleteWC is protecting everyone's right to post without being personally attacked. He's also protecting his blog from becoming what Mayor Barth has already characterized as a cesspool, to the level that it will become toxic, irrelevant, and other people, besides Dr. Lorri, will discontinue posting.
Only someone who has been targeting and attacking me, personally, would assume that I am being protected.
I think that as well. Too bad about not running. that would have been so fun to watch. I do understand though that you continue what you are good at and that is complaining.
DeleteGood Afternoon.
We learned in school that criticism can be positive or negative. When a reviewer writes a critique, she can share why she enjoyed a performance, for example, or the challenges she had with the performance's timing, character development, etc.
DeleteI do my best to back up all my opinions with facts, and to give constructive criticism. It's been challenging for me, sometimes, not to rise to the "bait," of personal attacks. For that reason, and because I do feel this is a great forum for civil discourse and an opportunity for more Socratic dialoguing, I'm grateful WC has made some new rules, here, on his blog.
We all have the duty to balance our inalienable rights to freedom of speech against our responsibility to do no harm.
You do not provide facts . You provide Opinions. And your opinion are very illogical in my opinion ...
DeleteMy comments are often long because I do back up my opinions with detailed facts.
DeleteYou, on the other hand, do not provide any facts, such as just now, 2:26.
When have I, in the past, NOT provided facts? I detail the leases for Pacific View, I detail the various surveys taken, I detail the fact that there is now a consent calendar item on the agenda to destroy public records' requests.
When have you ever provided anything other than your biased opinions, unsupported by ANY facts or context? We are not all posting through a "Twitter-sphere" of one line, throw-away, text messages.
How do you think any of my specific comments are illogical? Saying something is so doesn't make it true. You know that.
Please understand that for those of us who follow local politics, it is uncomfortable for us to sit back and listen to special interest praise and pander to council at meetings, but this is also freedom of speech, and we accept it as part of the process. In these cases that are self-serving, we do not complain that other speakers are a waste of time.
ReplyDeleteEveryone should have an equal right to express their views. Lynn and some of the others are just more involved.
After watching the State of the City address, which seemed to be one long advertisement for special interests, I can now see why it was not repeated at City Hall, as was the tradition of years past, before Teresa Barth became Mayor, and was reappointed for another six months. The State of the City Address was more like a presentation to the Rotary Club, as openly admitted by Kristin Gaspar.
DeleteNow, there's nothing wrong with the Rotary Club, or the 101 Mainstreet Associations and the Chamber of Commerce, per se, but when the general public, the "little guy" is left out of the equation, then it does seem like a mutual pandering society between the City and sponsors/subsidiarie/special interests.
I thought it was rude when Teresa Barth, after Kristin Gaspar used some props, and tried to show some creativity in her State of the City presentation, demonstrating how one had to put the beach stones, representing the City's core services, in the glass container, first, then the sand, which represented City "enhancements," like the Sports Park, Moonlight Beach Improvements, and yes, Pacific View, to get it all to fit. When the volunteer dumped in the sand, first, then all the rocks and all the sand would not fit, without overflowing.
Instead of getting the point, Teresa Barth, when it was her turn, dismissed the demonstration, saying, "I didn't bring a magic trick." She also said she was going to use a glass half full analogy, instead of a glass half empty, when that wasn't the analogy, at all, that had been demonstrated.
Don't get me wrong. I think it was the correct thing to do for the City to purchase Pacific View. I will not give up on our demanding that Baird and his band of trustees should now allow us to purchase it over 30 years at 0% interest, with EUSD carrying the loan.
Again, that way the School District will have the revenue it insisted it wanted when it said PV would be exchanged, not sold, and therefore the Naylor Act didn't apply or as TNG has said "is irrelevant." That's not true.
The Naylor Act applied FROM THE TIME THE CITY LEASED THE PROPERTY and paved over the fields and playgrounds.
I find your comment offensive to Mayor Barth.
Deletelol, 1:23.
DeleteNot funny... U r offensive
DeleteMy opinion is that Mayor Barth was rude in dismissing Councilwoman Gaspar's demonstration and concerns about balancing the budget, being fiscally conservative, as a "magic trick," and then mischaracterizing the analogy that was being demonstrated.
DeleteI back up my opinions with facts. Watch the State of the City Address, if you care to. Your constant attacks on me and any opinion I share, are what became so offensive that WC had to set up new rules, here.
I continue to laugh out loud at your stubbornness, in refusing to honor WC's requests, and refusing to back up any of your obviously prejudicial opinions, with facts, or context. I won't be bullied off this blog by you or anyone else.
LOL!
Not facts...Twisted opinion
DeleteWell, you are clearly obsessed with posting your twisted opinion retorts, 2:35. I backed up my opinion that Mayor Barth was rude, by describing, the facts of exactly what she said, how, when and where she was rude.
DeleteThat she was rude is my opinion. But anyone can decide for themselves by watching the State of the City Address:
http://encinitas.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=7&clip_id=975
That was the corrected link provided through LIsa Shaffer. One can also go to the City's "Streaming Media Archive" http://webcasts.encinitasca.gov/, and find it under Council 2014.
Since you are the one who is fixated on the term crappy pappy ( I have no idea who that KLCC poster is ) and constantly attack with out facts, myself included and those who may disagree with you who post anon who are not anyone that you think are posting.
DeleteYou do know what they say about other people's opinions... They are just like assholes and most are smelly. Right Lynn?
Your opinion is just that, it's YOUR opinion and that does not make your interpitation of what has happened a fact. So stop telling us what we all think or want for this community.
As for WC... go ahead and delete but you are just proving that you do not really practice all that you claim about free speech and transparency. You have lost all credibility in my view.
Nice post I fully agree
Delete-Crappy pappy
2:56, can't we do without the language? I implore everyone, debate Lynn on the gist of her presentation, the "facts" if you will, but can't we get over the mudslinging?
DeleteLanguage? Go back and look at Lynn's posts and tell me who is using laguage that is offensive to others. She introduced some pretty sophomoric comments to a post a while back on another topic that was spiteful, disrespectful and childish, yet she get's a free pass while others do not.
DeleteI only used the term CP, before, when the same poster was constantly referring to anyone who disagreed with the plan for hardscape roundabouts on 101, through Leucadia, narrow, one-lane circles that would cause more back-up, hurt business, slow emergency response time, create more cut through traffic, adversely impact FUNKY community character, and negatively impact coastal access/egress, as allegedly belonging to an imaginary and delusional club associated with feces.
Delete2:56 and 3:13 are both probably CP. Your saying I "constantly attack without facts" does not make that true. It's simply another instance of your repeating your same opinions, over and over, without supplying ANY facts, such as pointing to a single time I have "attacked without facts." LOL
Your anonymous opinion about WC's now having no credibility is irrelevant and an obvious attempt to manipulate WC. If you find WC or this blog not to be "credible," then why do you keep posting and reading here? Go start your own blog, if you think you are so credible, and WC is not.
I am not fixated on anuses or feces as you are, CP. Leave it to you to put the smelly in bottom-hole. And I never heard that analogy about people's opinions, before. It's another obvious attempt at a personal attack.
I am not telling you or anyone else reading here what to think. I say what I and my friends, neighbors and family members think, and I invite you to consider our reasons for thinking that way.
You could open your mind; read with comprehension; you may yet learn to understand what I'm sharing. If you don't get it, then don't feel threatened.
You could keep trying to read and listen with comprehension, or you could go away.
I have, sometimes in the past, made fun of CP's obsessions and preoccupations in an attempt to use humor to defuse some of the profanity, cruel comments, and personal attacks, most of them targeted against me, in a pattern of bullying abuse designed to drive me off this blog, just as I stopped participating on Leucadia Blog. Many over-the-line comments by this same poster have been directed against others, as well, including, in the past, David Smith, Bob Aronin, Barbara Yost, and more.
DeleteSome comments have been out of line about Councilmembers, as well. However, I don't think my calling Teresa Barth rude in her actions is going over the line, as she was rude, in the ways I described.
Also, Teresa came down from the dais to tell me I was rude, during Council's break, last month, when she started to tell Tim Nash to give a staff report, and I stated, quietly, from the audience, that I wasn't requesting a staff report. The staff report the week before, from Finance Director Tim Nash had gone on for over an hour, about the CIP budget. The following week, the Operating Expenses budget, with the prospect of hiring a full time employee Code Enforcement officer, was on the Consent Calendar. No one, including Lisa Shaffer, who had also pulled that consent calendar item, wanted to sit through another hour plus staff report.
3:18
DeleteMy point is that there is a lot of foul and vulgar comments from both sides but only one side of the debate is crying about it and asking for help. In a rock fight expect to get hit by rocks.
Some of those on this blog cry victim too often after throwing rocks without thinking of the repercussions of doing so. One of those posters just recently left this blog because of that... But that's just my opinion.
I think you are rude. You waste everyones time with your rants. We have heard them all a thousand times.
Delete"Roundabouts don't work" (even though 45,000 people travel through our existing roundabouts everyday without stopping a day, plus they are excellent for pedestrians and bicyclists).
We don't like any renewed development- "like that disneyland park improvements and the Surfy Surfy building"…..
"We like the existing death trap and freeway conditions bisecting our beach town"…..
Its no wonder all the Council members ignore (and make fun of) you
OH I forgot to sign my name like Lynn does and the above are just my opinions of course that I provide with the fullest respect for all involved.
Delete-- Crappy Pappy.
Lynn you just proved my first comment. I am 2:56, 3:35 and this 3:59 and no other post on this entire thread. Again and again you miss the mark and have no true verifiable facts that can be produced. All you offer is conjecture to the debate.
DeleteI am the one who thinks you're the Queen of worthless information if that helps you out.
You've never heard the phrase opinions are like A holes? Everybody has one and most do not smell like roses if you know what I mean. It's a very old joke.
DeleteAgain I'm no one you know but i am one of the many who lives in this community who doesn't agree with your opinions.
Lynn and CP
DeleteIt would be nice if we could all agree that we disagree without all of the name calling. It does not add anything positive or constructive to the debate and only deminishes both sides of the argument.
I believe that Lynn has made constructive points at times but has a tendency to be snippy and passive aggresive to some and then tries to dismiss the comments as humor.
CP
You do come off as a bit of a troll but I do not know you and you are intitled to your opinion of the term funky to be defined as crappy. I for one, wish to keep Leucadia Funky but not blighted or gentrified. One man's junk is another man's treasure. Isn't that right Fred?
All of the business that have opened up here in Leucadia are what I would consider Funky and tasteful without dramaticly changing the character of the neighborhood with the exception of the giant green POS building next to Fred's place. Change is going to happen and we better find a way to come together and compromise on what that vision of our community is really going to be. We are quickly becoming a divided and conquered community.
DeleteFred has integrity… that why he can use his name without getting trashed. Others that don't have integrity, well we can all see the difference in respect or lack there of….
Delete-CP
Again, you mischaracterize what I've said. I didn't say that if you don't like what I post, then leave. I said if you don't find WC or his blog to be credible, then you can start your own blog. If you don't value my posts, then no one is forcing you to read them or comment on them. I said you could leave, if you want to. Obviously you relish saying my name, over and over and over again, in your constant complaining about me, my opinions and the facts I share.
DeleteI also never said roundabouts don't work. I said, and I have given reams of evidence why four one-lane roundabouts, at 3-way T intersections, with NO cross-streets, adjacent to the RR tracks to their east, and thousands of residences and three beach accesses, to their west, would not work during peak traffic periods, particularly during peak seasonal traffic periods.
The roundabouts planned as part of the so-called Leucadia 101 streetscape, won't work as planned, and I've explained why. Roundabouts could work elsewhere.
There has been NO evidence that collisions, as reported through City Traffic Engineering of the intersections where the roundabouts are planned, compared to similar intersections, surveyed statewide, justify ANY traffic calming measures, including stop signs, traffic signals, or roundabouts. There has been no guarantee that the stop sign at Marcheta and 101 would be eliminated, and no guarantee that a traffic signal would not eventually be installed in some of the roundabouts, particularly the one at La Costa.
The City has yet to come back with a report of the increased collisions at at roundabouts within Encinitas, including the fatality at the Santa Fe Roundabout. Many fender benders are not reported, so people can avoid going through their insurance.
I know the driver was drunk, in the fatality at the Santa Fe roundabout, but had there not been a roundabout there, at the time of the accident, it is unlikely he, or anyone else, would have died. Collisions and fatalities are counted in all surveys, whether motorists are drunk, or not. That roundabout is also dangerous because it is a "blind" intersection, the way the grading slopes.
11:56,
ReplyDeleteWhat's your point?
I believe in reading previous posts that Lynn is not running for council.
ReplyDeleteI still don't trust TNG...something is very odd about he way he/she came in and the writing still smacks of developer ties. Sorry, but something feels wrong to more than a few of us.
ReplyDeleteAll one can do is trust their instincts. If you are inclined to not trust someone, then that is your right and privilege to do so. You can also make a choice to not read their posts and/or respond to them. It's a wonderful feeling to have so many choices.
DeleteI'll trust my instincts AND read TNG's post as a way to keep an eye on "plans." That's my choice!
DeleteWould a developer ever share their "plans" with the hoi polloi? Did the builder over off of Leucadia Blvd. knock on people'[s doors before the big meeting and sit down for coffee? No, they didn't. They gave the presentation, then took a huge amount of heat from nearby residents.
DeleteThese guys know how to play the game, and presenting ideas on an umoderated forum isn't part of the game.
His voice rings very untrue. I still say something's off. Whatever, time will tell....
DeleteAudet,
ReplyDeleteAs soon as you announce your wrong, I will send you a campaign donation. Thank you Mayor Audet!!!
Thanks for the correction I meant was he announces his running
Delete12:27 What is the wrong you want Audet to announce before you'll send him a campaign donation?
ReplyDeleteGaspar's magic act was painful, sorry Lynn, we will have to dissagree on that one. I can't agree with your take on Gaspar. I just don't see anything in her record or actions that recommend her for mayor. I'm looking for another candidate. That presentation was straight out of 6th grade, is that someone we want representing us as a city, our top leader? I think not.
ReplyDeleteTeresa's leaving, I don't think it's worth my breath or anyone's else speaking about whether they like her or not on a personal level. She and Kristin don't like each other, and each is clearly going to have their say.
More important at this stage is who's up against Gaspar. If it's Audet, or anyone else of similair character, I'm with them.
-Mr Green Election
During her upcoming six-month term as selected mayor, Gaspar will have her chance to either prove or embarrass herself. If she runs for the council or elected mayor seat up for grabs in November, her victory or defeat will depend on her performance as selected mayor and who else is in either race.
DeleteThanks, 3:22. I agree.
Delete3:15, GJ, I think public speakers, as in broadcast journalism, and especially considering the crowd at the State of the City Address, which included children, are taught to speak to people at about a sixth grade level. Russell tells me to keep it to a 5th grade level, but obviously, I'm not great at doing that.
My post wasn't about my "take" on Kristin Gaspar, but was about what I saw as Teresa's rudeness to her, and Teresa's failure to grasp what a sixth grader could have easily grasped, what the analogy represented.
Don't waste your breath on Teresa Barth if you don't think it's worth it. I wasn't speaking about her on a personal level. I was speaking about her on a leadership level. In the next six months, I hope that Kristin Gaspar, can show that she has learned something by Mayor Barth's bad examples in leadership.
3:22 is correct. We can give Kristin Gaspar a chance to show her leadership abilities, beginning in June. Mayor Barth had her chance, and she blew it, in my opinion, and in the opinion of many others with whom I have spoken.
By the way, is GJ a clever reversal of your actual initials, JG?
In my opinion, you keep it at about a 2nd grade level, but that is just my opinion….
Delete-CP
Yes she not only blew it, she forever blew her reputation.
DeleteLynn,
DeleteLet's stop the attempted outing of commenters by guessing at their initials.
CP 4:14,
Welcome, and I did the moniker.
I understand your frustration with some comments here, but please do not respond with substanceless schoolyard taunts.
Correct the facts, attack the argument, but please don't clutter the blog with meaningless taunts.
Thanks for participating.
Lynn,
DeletePoint taken about who you are addressing, but I think we can take a leap of faith that most Encinitans can grasp what she's talking about without that approach.
I found it embarrassing, and I admit I am not a fan of Gaspar. The barbs are out between she and Teresa, that's for them to hash out if they can in the next 6 Months, if they choose. I'm not going to pick winners and losers in what to me is now mostly a personal thing.
I don't see Gaspar as a leader, not now, not ever. If she proves me wrong, I'll gladly step up and admit it. That's all. But she hasn't done much, I think that's a fair assessment. She has a lot to prove. Agree with you that Teresa's effort was lacking.
And no on the initials, nowhere close. I really am not some operative, just an individual like everyone else, trying to get the best outcome for our city. Nothing sinister here, I only use the moniker for consistency of conversation.
-Mr Green Moniker.
If you recall Kristin said she would not run for mayor if she were the sitting mayor ,her first chance to break a promise me thinks.Maybe Lynn knows ,she seams to so adore her.
ReplyDeletePlease don't try to characterize my opinion of Kristin Gaspar by putting words into my mouth.
DeleteWhat I recall Kristin Gaspar saying is that she didn't feel it was appropriate for the sitting mayor, to help decide if the mayor should get a raise in compensation?
When did Kristin Gaspar make that alleged promise, 4:07? I do NOT recall her ever saying that she would not run for mayor if she were the sitting mayor.
It was in the mayoral selection process in Dec 2013 look in the archives it's there and she said it. Thank you.
DeleteKristin was about to be nominated: she stopped the proceeding and stated that she didn't think it would be fair to Teresa, or anyone else, to take the Mayor's position/seat for a year and use it to help get elected:
DeleteTeresa on the other hand, instead of being gracious, like Kristin was when she stepped out of rotation 15 months ago to allow Teresa her long sought Mayorship: was only too willing to do so: she said the voters approved Prop K, a 2 year term and she didn't mind taking the position for another year, regardless of Kristin's generosity in December 2012: "the voters have spoken" etc...
But when Teresa tried to Big Foot another year as Mayor going into the Campaign Summer the other council people balked: they agreed with Kristin: the Mayor's Seat shouldn't be used to 'campaign'; so they were at a stalemate until Muir remembered that Bond and Chuck had split the Mayor's seat for a year.
Kristin agreed to share the Mayorship. If Teresa had her way, she'd still be the Mayor and still be running for Mayor!
That is much different than what you proposed, above.
Perhaps, er, is there a second-language situation here: I notice the grammar spacing problem also: oh, and while we are clarifying things,
The Encinitas Chamber made the decision to invite Kristin to speak at the event last Friday and Teresa had a fit when Kristin refused to read a speech that Teresa claimed to have written because, having spent money the City doesn't have, she wanted to block Kristin from expressing her own opinion: and now Teresa is claiming the 'high-road'!
Teresa and Lisa's repeating the lie that Teresa 'invited' Kristin to speak is untrue: but probably no more untrue than this 'retirement' ploy.
See you in August Teresa. Maybe you find the six-million you promised EUSD but don't have, by then.
Don't you mean $10 Million, 7:09?
DeleteTo me, the only way to help mitigate the City's drastically overpaying would be for EUSD to carry the loan, for 30, 40 or 50 years at 0% interest rate. This is publicly donated land, being transferred from one public agency to another. Baird should not "monetize" our irreplaceable assets by attempting to fool inexperienced Councilmembers Shaffer and Kranz, and unsavy Mayor Barth.
Superintendent Baird is attempting to hold us hostage to his outrageous tactics through the threat of an auction, that could have and should have been stopped by an injunction. Filing paperwork for an injunction would be a LOT less expensive than the $5 Million extra we are paying for our OWN LAND.
Baird is acting like a con man, conning/convincing, under false pretenses, the Trustees and Council, taking advantage of the taxpayers, at our great expense. Baird has failed to uphold the public trust. After the coming elections, I hope a new Board of Trustees will vote to replace him, just as a new Council should vote to replace Gus Vina and Glenn Sabine.
7:09's spiel brought to you by team Stocks, Bond and Andreen. Co-sponsored by out of town money, out of town physical therapists, dirty hit pieces with secret front money, and Citizens for a better Encinitas.
DeleteSpare me the kiss up job on Kristin, she has had plenty of dogs in the fight with Barth over turf. It's politics, and they don't like one another. 'Nuff said.
Kristin has done little to stake her claim for the mayor's job, it's a sad state of affairs when someone with that little on the ball is our leading candidate for mayor.
I look forward to her Rock, Paper, Scissors contest with Barth at the next big meeting. Until, then, I will be down at Dallablabber's for a game of chess...
8:23, as WC said, "Let's stop the attempted outing of commenters by guessing at their [identities] . . ."
DeleteI don't care who posted 7:09's comment. It was civil, it was informative, and I feel it is factual. I was at that December 2012 Council Meeting, and was one of the public speakers who said that it was Teresa's turn to be mayor, that Teresa should step up to the plate and take her long awaited leadership role (not, by pre-arrangement by Councilmembers Kranz and Shaffer, before they were seated on Council, so it would not be a Brown Act violation, nominate Kristin Gaspar, so Teresa could be in the position to be mayor for 2014, the year of the election). The part in parentheses, I didn't state at the dais, but wrote to all my friends and associates in several e-mails.
These were the same tactics played by Stocks, Dallager, and Bond, including when Bond wanted to be elected to State Assembly, ran, and lost. Bond wanted to be mayor when he ran for Assembly, so Guerin, Stocks and Bond voted out Sheila Cameron, before her one year term was up, and in 2010, went so far as to change EMC regarding appointing a mayor, as a purely political move. Bond had said if he ran for Assembly, he wouldn't run for Council, but after he lost the Assembly race, he changed his mind on that, too.
My point, both "sides" have positioned themselves to be mayor in the year of a general election. I never heard Kristin Gaspar say at the December 2012 Council Meeting, or the December of 2013 Council Meeting that she would not be seated as the appointed mayor before she ran for reelection.
Kristin Gaspar had said she would not accept the position in 2012, disrupting Barth, Shaffer, and Kranz' plan. That was the year that there was controversy because of the We Love Encinitas mailers, which left out incumbent Teresa Barth's photo.
That mailer took advantage of the politically motivated "satisfaction survey," that EVERY public speaker asked not to be done in an election year. Jim Bond agreed with that, but he went along with Council's unanimous vote, including Teresa Barth's vote, knowing that the survey would work to incumbents' advantage in their campaign literature.
Let me introduce myself. My objective are simple- To spread truth with logical common sense comments. I will debate those that throw senseless opinions out and falsely claiming facts. I welcome clean debate.
ReplyDeleteMe llamo es Crappy Pappy, It is a pleasure to meet you!
It helps to get your Spanish correct. It's either me llamo.... or mi nombre es.... Two verbs next to each other don't work.
DeletePolicia de gramática española
Gracias . Me llamo Crappy Pappy!
ReplyDelete?Si?
¡Mucho gusto, Crappy Pappy!
DeleteWell, I created the moniker, WC. Do you mean you "dig" the moniker Crappy Pappy?
DeleteI'm glad you guys like it. I created it to identify the frequent poster who was associating anyone who disagrees with his special interests as being crappy, or wanting to "keep" Leucadia crappy.
I also want Leucadia to be Funky. I'm not going to say I don't want to KEEP Leucadia Junky, because it isn't and wasn't junky to begin with. Leucadia will change, as every town does, but the change can be in keeping with our Funky community character.
I also don't want to see Leucadia gentrified, nor obstructed with out- of-character traffic circles, unnecessary and unwanted roundabouts. And yes, Fred, roundabouts are a type of traffic circle. Don't get hung up on the definitions.
Technically the narrower "neighborhood-traffic-circles" planned, have a smaller diameter and less safety features than true roundabouts, but call them what you want! They would be traffic choking, bottlenecking, would create more back-up, more cut through traffic, would reduce emergency response times, during peak traffic periods, would eliminate parking in the dirt alongside the tracks, as MANY public speakers, the "red shirts," Jim Bond and I all agreed with, when Bond voted no on roundabouts and lane elimination at the January 13, 2010, CC Meeting.
No independent, scientific needs assessment to determine what the PUBLIC wants with respect to roundabouts and lane elimination has ever been done, nor any presentation by the neighbors desiring such a needs assessment, before Council, despite subsequent promises to the contrary by both Lisa Shaffer and Teresa Barth. Mark Muir had also asked that there could be a future agenda item to consider putting roundabouts on the ballot, as Del Mar and the City of Cotati did, in 2012. Roundabouts were voted down in both of those cities during the last general election. Solana Beach, after presentations by the same roundabout lobbyists, Peltz and Associates, and after public outcry against them by citizens, to which their wise Council agreed, did away with the roundabout plan, without having to go through the expense of an election.
It's not too late for Council to consider putting roundabouts on the ballot in November, although it is too late for our city to participate in the primaries, which would also have been an excellent idea. That way, this year, both our open council member seat and our first elected mayor could have been selected by a majority vote, not a mere plurality.
But our counil members have enjoyed that vote split, and have played politics with it, such as having Betsy Aceti file candidate papers, then drop out, still garnering over a thousand votes, which prevented Bob Nanninga from winning a seat on Council.
But you're welcome, WC. I'm glad to have created a name that helps to take some of the sting out of the "substanceless schoolyard taunts" that CP is so fond of slinging at me and a few others.
I haven't thrown rocks. I have attempted to put up a shield to the crap thrown at me. I haven't played victim. I have stated I will not be bullied; repeated patterns of abuse, through personal attacks, out of context, and unrelated to the discussion; repeated, unsuccessful attempts to drive me or others away will have consequences for the person doing the bullying, for the person or persons, like CP, who has been gleefully using profanity, and lies, falsely calling me disabled, on disability, and on and on.
I respectfully disagree with your opinion about roundabouts and you're last paragraph is yet another contradiction to what you actually say and who you claim to be. I have read too many blind accusations from you to deem you worthy of an honest debate. Your threats of legal retaliation or repercussions to those who disagree with you or to those you feel slighted by is laughable. I myself have never made any personal attacks about your physical or fiscal condition so stop with the fase assumptions and blind accusations that I am one of those that displays that type of behavior.
DeleteOk, then if you deem me unworthy of "honest debate," then why do you bother posting, or speaking to me, here, at all? Is it because you intend to be dishonest?
DeleteLOL. I never accused you, personally, of anything, because I don't know who you are, anon 9:00. Why are you so defensive? Post under your own name if you don't want to be lumped in with other anons, by me or anyone else, is my suggestion.
But why worry about it, at all? If I'm not worthy of your consideration, then don't waste your time considering and defending yourself against what you wrongly imagine to be attacks against you, or defending against allegedly incorrect assumptions made by me or anyone else.
Surely, you can understand that you are coming off as being paranoid, and overly defensive?
Mucho gusto Lynn !!!
ReplyDeleteOK. You guessed it, I don't agree with. Your opinion, but what the hell, have a good night.
Adios!!
- Crappy Pappy
Wrong again Lynn.
ReplyDeleteTraffic circle are completely different from a modern day roundabout.
You might want to Google them so you can educate yourself.
You can also read the values of roundabouts since the FHWA and Caltrans support them as sate and efficient intersection control .
Literally, they are traffic circles. The planned roundabouts are narrower than what the U.S. Dept. of transportation defines as roundabouts, with less safety features.
DeleteTraffic Circles are also defined with super wide diameters, hence I say "neighborhood traffic circles." Traffic goes around in a circle, and so does your argument, 8:49.
I've said, and I repeat, I don't care what you call them; don't get hung up on insisting you're right and alleging I'm wrong; don't get hung up on the definitions.
That's actually irrelevant, anyway, because we are not talking about modern roundabouts in general, or neighborhood traffic circles, in general, but specifically planned roundabouts (I don't mind calling them that, ok?) at three way, T intersections, as I've repeated, on a Major Arterial, Historic State Highway 101, with thousands of residences and many businesses to the west, and the RR tracks to the east, with NO cross-streets.
I don't need to Google traffic circles or roundabouts again so you can feel justified in thinking you're right. I've researched this, for years.
Just because the Federal Highway Administration and Caltrans support some roundabouts as being safe and efficient does not mean they are safe and efficient in the scenario along Highway 101, through Leucadia. You are not being logical, because you are using a generalization in trying to unsuccessfully prove a specific point, when roundabouts, here, on Hwy 101 through Leucadia, would limit coastal access/egress, would cause more cut through traffic, slow already subpar emergency response times to residences on the Leucadia coast, would cause more accidents and collisions due to road rage, frustration caused by bottlenecking and gridlock during peak periods.
Therefore, four one-lane roundabout road obstructions would NOT be safe and efficient here, on Historic State Highway 101, through Leucadia. They are probably hunky-dory for certain other intersections; not here!
All the arguments about roundabouts promoting pedestrian safety, too, are non starters, because pedestrians are not crossing the highway at the intersections where these one lane roundabouts are planned, nor will there be any RR crossings at any of those intersections in the foreseeable future, due to lack of TransNet tax funding available. All of the funding from TransNet taxes will be going to the railtrail corridor, that will stop at G street, from Chesterfield, NOT extending to La Costa, as before planned, thanks in part to the premature and illegal, according to Coastal Act Law and our own General Plan and LCP, lane elimination for northbound motorists on N101.
On the contrary, the planned one lane roundabouts would also be LESS safe for bicyclists, as they would be forced to go through that one lane, both northbound and southbound, with cars.
Actually, besides the railtrail corridor from Chesterfield to G Street, Transnet Tax funding, locally, is also to be used up, according to the Strategic Planning Transit Workshop City Council Meeting, by mitigation planned for the I-5 expansion, including on bridges, and hopefully, the San Elijo Lagoon.
DeleteI believe two roundabouts are also planned for Birmingham, to help mitigate freeway access/egress issues? Maybe they would be a good fit, there?
As I've said, I'm NOT against all roundabouts, but the ones planned on Highway 101 through Leucadia, are not going to happen in the foreseeable future.
I would also support a roundabout at Santa Fe and Crest if that's what the neighbors and local commuters feel would be beneficial. Tony Kranz and Lisa Shaffer agreed to set that Santa Fe/Crest roundabout possibility, and issues with access/egress to the Sports Park at the former Hall Property as a future agenda item at the last Council Meeting. Council does need to set its priorities, and cut its operating expenses.
Ahhh Lynn,
ReplyDeleteThanks! this feels so much better, now I am signing my name to posts just like you. No more Anon.
Its all good right?
No, you are not signing "just like me." I am using my real first name, and everyone posting here (or almost everyone, anyway) knows who I am.
ReplyDeleteYou still hide behind your fecal fixation identity, but thanks for admitting you are proud of it, that you glory in the BS you spread.
I take it back… why I do agree with you CP. I also finally realized I do love roundabouts. Life is good and I am soooo Happy!!!
ReplyDeleteCrappy Pappy, now you have stooped to taking my name as your moniker. You have sunk to a new low.
DeleteI do NOT support one-lane roundabouts on Highway 101, through Leucadia.
Well if you had any brains you would. Read up woman. you obviously are not seeing all the benefits of modern day roundabouts. Live, Love and Learn. Lead by Example. Actions speak louder than words. Let your next action be a positive one and have a great day.
DeleteMaybe we could take a bike ride together down the Hwy101 together. What do you say Lynn?
Geez, we're back to the roundabouts argument again? Do the people who support the proposed roundabouts on Leucadia 101 realize that:
ReplyDelete• Four of them would be one lane in what is likely to remain or revert to a four-lane highway? That means northbound and southbound drivers going the length of the corridor would have to squeeze from two lanes to one and wiggle through roundabouts the diameter of those on Leucadia Blvd. four times. Do you really want to do that, especially when the traffic is heavy?
• Of the four proposed one-lane roundabouts, three would be in the half-mile stretch from Bishop's Gate to Jupiter, while the fourth would be 1.2 miles south of Jupiter at El Portal. Can you honestly say you think that makes sense, or are you too embarrassed to admit you missed that point all along?
its the intersections at Leucadia blvd and La Costa and Marchetta that limit capacity. with the streetscape plan, flow will actually be improved. Backups happen at intersections not in-between.
DeleteAn example would be you do not see cars back up at the new N. Bound bike lanes do you? You see people sitting for endless minutes at Leucadia Blvd./ Hwy101 intersection.
that is the problem.
Not any roundabouts are road diets to make the area better for all modes of transportation.
There is no plan to eliminate the traffic signal at Leucadia Blvd. and 101, and no guarantee, through engineered plans, that the stop sign would be eliminated at Marcheta and 101. Learn how to spell Marcheta, why don't you, 11:02.
DeleteYes, I have seen back-up due to the lane elimination. Traffic engineers recommended NO LANE ELIMINATION south of Leucadia Blvd on 101 because of back-up. The first planned roundabout is SOUTH of Leucadia Blvd., at El Portal and 101. That is a ridiculous place for a roundabout, unsupported by the businesses, there, and adjacent neighbors, unsupported by collision statistics, and unsupported by the fact that the speed limit has already been reduced to 35 MPH. That should be enforeced.
Traffic DURING PEAK PERIODS, will not flow, because stopping will be required through one lane roundabouts; yielding, during peak traffic periods is insufficient, because in order to yield, then, once must STILL COME TO A STOP, as happens, daily, at the roundabouts on Leucadia Blvd.
Four one lane roundabouts would bottleneck our highway down to one lane northbound and one lane southbound. The don't make sense for the residents, the majority of merchants, of for local commuters on 101, through Leucadia, beginning at El Portal.
Roundabouts may work great in some locations, not here, not now. The alternative ISN'T more traffic signals. The alternative is not going forward with road obstructions that would cause more cut through traffic and slower emergency response times, compromised coastal access/egress, more back-up, more gridlock, and more people avoiding Highway 101, if they can (residents west of 101 cannot), leading to less business for merchants.
now we get to the real reason why lynn hate the streetscape plan. If more business is successful more people will park in front of her house and she hate that. Thats why she hate Charley Marvin sooooo much.
DeletePoor soul. I will say a prayer for you tonight. To Lynn….. learn internal peace.
Birdrock has 5 roundabouts in .5 miles.
DeleteOur plan has 5 roundabouts in 2.5 miles. if anything, we need more roundabouts in our plan. right lynn?
That did not feel good…. I will not be going that again. Although its not just your name, there are plenty of nice good looking lynns out there.
ReplyDeleteAnyhow Lynn (roundabout hater), we know your position.
However, you might check out the five roundabouts that turned a blight Birdrock into a highly desirable area to raise kids for the intelligent successful crowd. Property Values and the business community love them. The keep bird rock crappy crowd hates them.
You might also check out the roundabout that Carlsbad and Oceanside are building on Hwy 101 at State Street. That baby is very close to our Hwy101 same traffic possibly more.
Your comments are illogical. Look at statistics and learn. You have learned more about local government and how to speak and write and now its time to learn about the beauty of Roundabouts. One day you too will love them.
Huggs,
--CP
There is a lot of mixed opinion about the Bird Rock Roundabouts. They were supported by developers. But again, that is a different situation than ours, with actual, through CROSS-STREETS.
ReplyDeleteAlso, those roundabouts are not adjacent to a RR. Many differences, and I believe there are businesses and residences on both sides of the streets, there?
I have looked at statistics and the geography of our own area, here. You are comparing apples to oranges with roundabouts at Bird Rock and the roundabouts you want to force on us, here. Plus, supposedly, Bird Rock did have a true needs assessment done, there, apparently most people said they would support them, although there was a lot of dissent. We've had no such needs assessment.
In Birdrock, one mixed use development built adjacent to the roundabout, there, went bankrupt, as Moonlight Lofts did here, although that wasn't adjacent to a roundabout. That bankrupt Bird Rock development replaced more affordable housing that was there before the roundabout was installed.
I have checked out that roundabout in Carlsbad, and called and spoke to the associated traffic engineer with the City of Carlsbad. That SINGLE roundabout (not four one-lane roundabouts, nearly in a row) was paid for through a TransNet tax grant BECAUSE of the railtrail corridor lane for bicycles and pedestrians associated with it. Bicyclists for that roundabout will have the choice of going through the roundabout with cars, or using the railtrail corridor lane.
There would be no such choice here, for our four one-lane roundabouts. Bicyclists would have to go through dangerous one lane roundabouts with motor vehicles.
Plus that Carlsbad roundabout is not at a T intersection. There are many differences between the lane configuration where is will be planned and our former four lane Historic State Highway 101.
Your saying I am illogical does not make it so. You are again being illogical by trying to compare generalizations or Bird Rock and Carlsbad roundabouts to the specific type of one-lane, three-way T intersection roundabouts planned, here, where we have three beach accesses and thousands of residences to the west, and the RR tracks to the right, with NO cross streets.
The U.S. Dept. of Transportation does NOT recommend roundabouts in situations like ours, because it recommends against roundabouts where the cross-street traffic is significantly less than the main thoroughfare, and when the RR crossing (at Leucadia Blvd.) could be negatively affected by roundabouts.
OMG-
ReplyDeleteYou are one person with blinders on. Lets cover some misconceptions or lies
"There would be no such choice here, for our four one-lane roundabouts. Bicyclists would have to go through dangerous one lane roundabouts with motor vehicles."
Not true. Ours will be designed just like the ones in Birdrock, Leucadia Blvd., and Hwy101 and State street. The bikes will alway have the option to ride on the sidewalk if they feel like it.
"Plus that Carlsbad roundabout is not at a T intersection. There are many differences between the lane configuration where is will be planned and our former four lane Historic State Highway 101."
Truth is it is a Y interection which is a like a T interaction but with greater angle. only 3 legs to the intersection. Again Lynn has it wrong.
Geez woman. Wake up…. Go bike riding and quit telling lies. By doing so, more people will respect you.