Sources tell Encinitas Undercover that Tony Kranz is near to announcing a run for mayor to represent the Democrats. Being halfway through his council term, it's a safe run, as even if he loses, he goes back to being on the council for two more years.
Meanwhile, some had expected Mark Muir to make a similar safe run from his mid-term council seat, but Encinitas Undercover has learned that instead Kristin Gaspar will represent the Republican side.
While the two candidates have differed most notably on the issues of tax increases, spending, and the price tag for the purchase of Pacific View, both Kranz and Gaspar were united against Prop A, for overturning the Planning Commission to approve a controversial high-density development in the rural Desert Rose neighborhood, and for strongly supporting city manager Gus Vina.
It remains to be seen whether anyone from the Prop A / community preservation group will run. The first candidate to announce, libertarian Alex Fidel, has not yet been vocal about community character issues.
Rumor has it that Tony the Scarecrow has asked for a bucket of water to be kept close behind the dais in the event that Barth cannot restrain herself and goes after Kristin's inherited ruby slippers: while Mark looks for courage chewing his tail, Shaffer prays for some canned lube oil for her rust and Superintendent Baird's flying monkey school district trustees grab the Communications Director and drag her and $10 million general obligation bond dollars off to build a new district office on top of the garden on Quail Gardens Drive. Farley is then outed as the man behind the curtain and Toto presents the esteemed Peak Democracy program before the Westbrook/Marr/Levan/Turney/Cameron Munchkins.
ReplyDeleteLaurie Michaels asks Barth if she is sure she will not run for Mayor and she spits,"And your little dog too!"
Now that is just plain hilarious!
DeleteIt would be great if we had 3 or 4 choices.
ReplyDeleteDonna Westbrook for mayor!
ReplyDeletePerhaps you can garner a write in campaign. It will take about 2800 votes.
DeleteThese are our choices?? Tony Balony and Wonder Woman Gasbag. It's no wonder this city is in such trouble.
ReplyDeleteIf one righty runs for the council seat, and the two lefties are Blakespear and Graboi, the righty will likely win because the lefty vote will be split.
ReplyDeleteFidel is a non-starter. He'll attract wacko fringe votes only.
Voting for Kranz or Gaspar is choosing between one devil or the other. Let's hope one better lefty and several righties step up. That way, the righty vote will be scattered, and the better lefty will win.
The better lefty ?? Would that be Stalin, Mao or Castro ??
DeleteGo back to watching Fox "News."
DeleteIn this town, it's big development vs. slower growth, for those of you not paying attention...
Delete10:23- I'm thinking the better lefty is anyone of the Kim Jung family in North Korea... You???
DeleteI don't like either of these choices, but if I had to choose I would go with Kranz.
ReplyDeleteNO to GASbag for mayor. She has not proven herself worthy to be elected as mayor because she is a $tock$ puppet and we are trying to rid this city of such garbage and waste.
You are condemning what you are suppressing in your own self, 9:40 pm: try therapy or actualizing. Recognize your imperfection.
Delete7:12 No therapy needed here. We don't have many choices and I will not vote for GASbag. If Julie runs for mayor, she has my vote and many others. That is an actualization that is recognizable with no imperfections.
DeleteI guess I'll be canceling out your vote, because I'll be voting for Gaspar. Tony's an idiot! BTW, I voted for him during the last election (bit mistake).
ReplyDelete12:02 Talk about idiot. I didn't vote for him.
DeleteBring back Stocks!
ReplyDeleteAs court jester!
Delete12:02. And I'll be canceling your vote. It works both ways.
ReplyDeleteStocks is dead.
ReplyDeleteWhy don't one of you complainers step up and run? Now is your chance!
ReplyDeleteJust FYI, council members don't run under party affiliation. More accurate depictions would be Gaspar representing the Stocks/Bond/Meyer developer axis and Tony representing the Communities. Fidel has no chance, sorry WC.
ReplyDelete-Mr Green Jeans
Mr. GJ,
DeleteThat's how I used to see it, but the past two years, Tony/Lisa/Teresa voted more with the Stocks/Bond/Meyer developer axis than with communities (Prop A, Desert Rose, Vina, Sabine, increasing bureaucracy, etc.).
The county Democratic Party machine will be pushing Kranz and Blakespear, just as the county Republican machine will be pushing Gaspar and whoever they put up for the other council seat.
I see three factions now: Republican/developers, Democrat/Smart Growthers, and Grassroots/community/Prop A folks.
I never said Fidel had a chance, but I think he might be a welcome protest vote for some of the folks in the third faction unless they run somebody themselves.
WC, I've done the protest vote in lots of elections but locally it doesn't do anything for you except split the vote, a la Bob Naninga
DeleteI can't really agree on all the points about Vina and Sabine being support for increased growth. While that's an important topic, maybe the most important topic, I couldn't hold them to a higher standard when people allowed Stocks/Bond/Guerin/Duvivier/Dallager/houlihan to run up the pensions and budgets for the last 15-20 years.
Would I like more action on budgets/Sabine/Vina? Yes! Did I expect it to all happen right now or in the next 2-4 years, no. There's just no will/cohesion between Kranz/Barth/Shaffer, and now Barth is leaving.
I've been to a lot of the "Slow Growth" people meetings over the years, and I've never seen or felt "The Democratic Machine's" influence. In fact, I think we had a lot of Republicans and Independents. It's always pretty much been a grass roots operation, lots of door to door and word of mouth.
I can't speak to the Stocks/bond side of thing, except to say you can "follow the money" to a lot of in and out of town developers.
I think the whole Smart Growth thing is a construct of your mind, your average voter doesn't even have that concept. A lot of the basis for that "concept" is offhand comments about Pac Station, something that was already a fait accompli under Stocks/Bond and current zoning. In other words, no matter what Teresa said, that development was going in. "If it is zoned, it will go" should be the saying....
In the past it's always been grass roots/slow growth vs. big money/rotary club/developers. Add to that the regional vote, ie New Encinitas went Stocks/Bond, the Coast went more Kranz/Barth/Shaffer. Maggie was an exception, she had support all over.
The Prop A people were a big push for Kranz/Shaffer last time. It's hard to know if they were Stocks/Bond or just didn't vote in the past. Now they have their own candidate in Julie Graboi.
If people want an option other than Kranz or Gaspar, and I think I would, then someone who has some visibility and cred. better run.....
-el Senor History pants
GJ
DeleteTony representing communities? That is a lie. Tony Baloney represents himself and has been an unmitigated disaster.
There is no denying Tony Baloney is the latest puppet of developers, special interests and cronies.
What you say? You want facts? Try these on:
Kranz is a regular at the many bars downtown acting like Big Man on Campus- a nobody who is now thinks he is a somebody. On the DOA Kranz traded residents quality of life for more booze for out of towners
Kranz does not care about public safety. On Desert Rose he sided with high density developer lawyers rather than residents- residents had to sue to protect their safety and environmental rights.
Kranz does not care about spending for the community- on hiring the spin Doctor Kranz ignored residents who requested that money be used for projects and instead voted to approve Vina spending up to $135,000 + full pension and benefits to hire a spin doctor.
Kranz doesn't care about community characther- Kranz was willing to lie on the Prop A ballot statement to represent his masters and Kranz wrote an editorial promoting the lie that no upzoning had happened without a vote of the people- Should Encinitas elect a liar?
Blakespear is a puppet for Barth - she seems nice enough, however her family has already been alianating long time supporters by not including them in Blakespears candidacy- and aligning Blakespear with crony insiders at city hall like the spin Doctor Medford and Barth and Shaffer and Kranz-
Blakespear will not have my vote, and we need to sound the alarms now.
Dump Kranz-
Blah, Blah, Blah, good morning hater! Haven't you and your hate moved out of town yet? Who's your candidate?
DeleteLet me ask you this, when have you actually been in the bar and overheard Kranz making these statements, if so where are the pics and the audio? This gossipy nonsense does not move the dialogue. Do you realize you've repeated most of the text above at least 20 times, almost verbatim?
We get it, Tony opposed Desert Rose, fair point. We don't need 10 paragraphs of you repeating it over and over again.
The imperfect record or Barth/Kranz/Shaffer is out there for all to see. Same goes for Gaspar and Muir. So if right now we have Gaspar and Kranz for Mayor, who's the 3rd pony?
Everything else is irrelevant. No amount of your bitching will unelect the current council or get rid of Sabine or Vina. If getting rid of them was easy, it would already been done.
So let's do a little thinking for once, who can be that 3rd candidate, or can you only spit out the same nonsense about facts for the 21st time in a row?
I'm about to spit it out for the 22nd time .... Stay tuned.
DeleteI can hardly wait, as long as it contains "facts".....
Delete8:31 can't handle the facts eh?
DeleteKranz- Voted against residents on the ordiance to protect property and busienss owners rights siding insteand with the pro-drinking booze special interests
Kranz- Sided with developer and high density special intersets at desert rose putting residents and the community at risk
Kranz- Voted to approve spending $135,000 on a spin Doctor - then proposed a tax increase on residents
Kranz- Told lies and signed his name to the prop A ballot statement
Kranz- Told lies in an editorial published in the North Coast Current claiming no upzoning had ever happened without a vote of the people.
Kranz- Frequents the bars in Encinitas
Kranz- Now travels on the taxpayer dime to DC to talk about rail density transit centers and stack and pack
The imperfect record is not out there for all to see- the Barth Shaffer Vina Propaganda machine has many blind to the truth.
Facts mean nothing... The only thing that is really important are your FEELINGS...
DeleteWhoa, Whoa, Whoa. Feelings.
Delete-Fact, Tony Kranz is a man, Fact, Barth is a Woman, Fact, Muir was a firefighter, Fact, Gaspar went to ASU, fact, Shaffer worked at SAIC.
This facting is fun...
-Son of Roadside Bum...
Fact, Gaspar and Barth's seats are up in 2014, fact Kranz, Shaffer, Muir are up in 2016. Fact, the whining will continue.
Delete-Neighbor of son of roadside bum
12:58 do you have any facts of voting records to contribute?
DeleteNope, do your own work, and BTW for it to be a fact, you would have to have evidence of Tony going into a bar over and over again. What you have is a rumour, gossip......
DeleteGJ,
ReplyDeleteI think you misread me. I didn't say Slow Growth was Democrat machine. I agree the Slow Growth grassroots are a mix of people from all political persuasions.
And I never said Smart Growth is something the average voter gets. But it is definitely a central part of what drives Barth/Shaffer/Kranz. They go to Smart Growth conferences, they buy it hook line & sinker, it heavily influences their plans for Encinitas.
WC,
DeleteNo, I get where you're coming from, but having been right in the mix most of the last 15-20 years, the breakdown of votes/factions is fairly complex and quite frankly, a lot of gets down to the politics of the personal, the deeply personal.
A lot of Jerome's ouster was through pure hatred of Jerome. A lot of the current hatred of Barth/Kranz/Shaffer is because they didn't back Prop A. Which is totally fair, and that's people's right. But a lot of the Smart Growth stuff to me gets down to a more granular level, with a lot more nuance.
And quite frankly, there's a ton of confusing information out there on so called "Smart Growth" and what it means, what it should mean and whether anyone should want it and what it means for Encinitas.
If I was on council, I would go to Smart Growth meetings as well, which isn't the same as buying it hook, line and sinker. Without having a personal conversation with Barth, Kranz or Shaffer, I couldn't tell you their definition of Smart Growth, or what it means for Encinitas.
What I do know is this. Developers won't give up trying to put their influence to bear until all the big lots or commercial fronted lots are developed. Every greenhouse in this town will be houses. Every lot fronting 101 has the possibility of 3 stories and high density if the zoning allows it.
The questions are, how are we going to zone the city, what density do we want to allow and how if we don't want crackerbox housing, do we stop the runaway train that is density bonus.
So far in the last 20 years, no council or individual on the council has had those answers. Quite frankly, it doesn't look like any of the current 5 on the council have those answers, or have the will to look. It's a big issue, and no one wants to hook their wagon to it. Maybe Julie Graboi does.
I think a lot of the Smart Growth angle on the current 3 is because they opposed Prop A, but to what extent they buy into that concept, whatever it is, isn't clear. Right now, we just don't have the will or the skill on this council...
-Mr Analysis Pants
It's not just Prop A. Both Barth and Shaffer have publicly discussed "Smart Growth" concepts quite enthusiastically and quite often. Kranz, not so much, but then he doesn't write weekly newsletters.
DeleteRight, but my counter to that would be you have more to fear from density bonus, lax zoning and developer bucks than you do from some vague notions in Lisa's newsletter. I do see that she has some smart growth jibber jabber in one of her latest newsletters, but what does the council actually have the power to do to increase density? It didn't sound like much. Heck, they can't even mitigate the issues with the bars downtown...
Delete-Mr Pantalones Azul...
Yes, but on Prop A, Desert Rose, density bonus, etc., the developers interests align exactly with Smart Growthers' interests.
DeleteThere's a lot more distance between the slow growth grassroots positions and the council majority than there is between the council majority and the Stocks/Bond/developer group.
By the way, a recent Shaffer newsletter talked about making density bonus even more lenient for developers... and she wrote it matter-of-factly, like it didn't bother her at all...
Right, but that assumes that "Smart Growth" is a cohesive, movement/thought that moves in monolithic lockstep.
DeleteI mean, I voted for Kranz/Shaffer, and I have always moved more in the slow growth circles and I would still consider myself more in common with them than the developers of the David Meyer circle.
That said, to me what we currently have is a lack of choice. If you're for slower growth in the last election, who are you going to support, Stocks and Muir? Shaffer/Kranz were the only choice that had a chance of getting elected, despite a late charge by Barb Yost.
We need more Julie Graboi types out there in the future, and less Brakespeares. But right now if I have to go Kranz/Gaspar for Mayor, I go Kranz holding my nose. Gaspar needs to just go away, she truly offers nothing...
-El Senor Stinky Pants
What was the date on that newsletter for Shaffer, I want to look that up, I couldn't find that line in any of the last 3...
Oh, have you changed your jeans from green to blue? I disagree that Shaffer carried "more of the Coast" in the 2012 General Election. The desire to dump Stocks was citywide, which gave us the momentum to later pass Prop A. Those two separate campaigns, to dump Stocks, and to qualify the right to vote on upzoning for the ballot, led to Lisa's getting more votes than even Maggie ever did.
DeleteUnfortunately, Lisa flip flopped on her support of what became Prop A. She and Teresa, with Tony following along, are advocates of "smart growth." The theory sounds fine, but in practice, it's just a way for more "urban renewal." This City was created to slow growth. The density bonus laws are really written to benefit developers, more so than to actually create more affordable housing.
No society, no public or private entity can survive with unchecked expansion. When the economy is expanding, for a select few, as in development interests, the value of the dollar is decreasing, and money becomes concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people.
I got my colors confused! I don't know what Lisa actually "said" about Prop. A, but I never felt she'd support it.
DeleteI agree, Lisa got a lot of help and pub from the Prop A. folks, but she also ran the tightest campaign I've seen in 20 years. It was like an army.
California is for the richest of the rich, it's been happening for 20 years. You need around a million bucks to buy a house here. The average guy is moving, selling his/her biggest asset, the house.
It sucks, but I always saw it coming...
-El Senor Pantalones Verdes.
Lynn, I totally agree with your assessment as to why we incorporated --- to slow the growth that we felt was becoming unmanageable. Here we are again, fighting for the same thing (to slow the growth), to take a breather, to NOT let the developers buy up and develop every piece of precious land that is left. That is their goal. It's all about money and screw the residents.
DeleteSmart growth is GROWTH. I don't care how the spin gets put on it. I am not for the stack and pack type of development.
Shaffer ran a tight campaign? Please-
DeleteShe was elected because for 3 years residents educated the public about the failings of Stocks and the failings of the city-
She fell into the donor list and support of Maggie followers many who are now disgusted by Shaffers arrogance and voting record
She fell into Prop A supporters promoting her door to door and in front of markets, many who are disgusted with her arrogance and voting record
She fell into a news paper printing columns and cartoons for 2 years educating the public about mismanagement at city hall
And what has Shaffer done since being elected-
Lied on Prop A ballot statement to the whole city
lied in her newsletter claiming residents sued the developer on desert rose
voted to approve up to $135,000 for a spin doctr while projects remained unfunded
Introduced a tax increase on residents
introduced installing parking meters to tax residents
working to introduce overlay zones to destroy existing community charachter.
That same army of supporters would not be behind Shaffer, were she to run again. Some people still would back her, but as I see it, she has lost her base.
DeleteSome here have said Lisa has committed to only being in office for one term. I hope that's true, and that she doesn't change her mind. With all of the government pensions coming into her household, she doesn't need the money. Perhaps she and her husband could enjoy their retirement years, together, without the pressures of political office.
Meanwhile, I hope when Desert Rose comes back to Council, Lisa will have the courage to change her former abstention to a no vote.
Similarly, Lisa Shaffer should have had the courage to question the subcommittee's unwise decision to overpay for Pacific View. That is why secret subcommittees are not a good idea. Two council members get concurrence behind closed doors, knowing they have one more vote, on Council, so the majority, to go along with them. This can become the tyranny of the majority, as it was under Stocks, Bond and Dalager.
Let's run a tight campaign and run Shaffer out of town along with Barth, Kranz, Gaspar and Muir. Now that would be a good day.
DeleteShe still ran the best campaign from the non Stocks/Bond side of the fence. I am aware that the Prop A. people contributed at a high level. If you want to whack someone's campaign, whack Tony, who did very little until the end.
DeletePeople on this blog have to add their own spin to every statement. She ran a great campaign, period. She being Lisa. And yes, she had Maggie's sign off and the Prop A. folks and on down the line.
But all that does nothing if she doesn't bust ass, and she busted ass. Do we like her stances now, maybe not, and frankly, I don't like her effort on the council, but she killed it on the campaign trail. She not only got herself elected, she got Tony in as well via her email list and sheer force of will.
If you don't like her now, you can vote her out, but her record as a campaigner is out there. And frankly I'd say the same thing about Jim Bond, he always ran a good, if somewhat dirty, campaign...
Sermon over...
DeleteShaffer was a shill - she is worthless.
My wishes of seeing council member Julie and mayor Donna up on the dais may be a pipe dream at the moment but we can all dream. Has the county democratic party come out supporting Catherine? I hadn't heard that and I called that very first morning to Esther to voice support of Julie. I hope Esther and her boss consider carefully before coming out for Catherine instead of Julie. For those concerned please let the county democratic party know who most represents a chance for real change in our towns way forward.
ReplyDeleteThe endorsement of a major party in city elections has never been a defining factor in people's votes. It's a non-partisan election...
Deleteyou mean the same Democratic Party locally that has yet to return any of the money from that mexican gazillionaire trying to buy influence?
DeleteYou mean that same Democratic Party of Marco and Lorainna Gonzales who organized the unions and told us all to vote for Filthy Filner?
I voted for Obama and am an idependent- I could care less what the DNC or GOP think- they are both equally liars- just like Gaspar Kranz Muir Shaffer and wretched Barth
Yes, the same Democratic Party that will run Billary for prez and not care when American ambassadors are murdered on the streets... That Democratic Party!!
Delete10:14-Are you the same a-hole that didn't know or give a crap that a plethora of embassies were attacked under the previous administration?Or that over a hundredthousand innocent folks died during their phoney war?STFU.
DeleteThe Cabezon
Oh please, let's not make this into an Obama issue. Stick with local politics. I get sick and tired of hearing about this. If you want to talk about something, talk about 911 under the Bush administration where more lives were lost, but make that a separate blog issue.
DeleteEnough already.
Fact, Obama must be brought up on a U.S. blog every 5th entry, preferably with birther conspiracy flavoring.
Delete-Dr. Roadside Bumpstead, MD..
Who brought up other embassies? Who's stuck in the past?
DeleteObama and Hillary lied to cover up the murder of americans by Islamic terrorists linked to Al Qaued to get Obama re-elected. The ISlamic Terrorists of Libya and AQ are connected to Boka Haram and who just kidnapped Christian Girls and made them convert to Allah because they believe in hate and intolerance. Hillary and Obama refused to designate Boka Haram- the cult of hate responsible for kidnapping christian girls a terrorist organization.
An Encinitas Navy Seal was murdered by the Jihadi's in Libya and Obama and Hillary Lied to cover it up blaming a video to get Obama re-elected.
CNN held a rigged debate- who can forget Obama telling Crowley - "Get the transcript Candy" / and Crowley then getting her own show-
blaming parties is for simpletons-
Obama lied, people died, and no one has been held accountable
ps- I voted for Obama and now think he'd fit right in with the liars we have down at Encinitas city hall
pss- I looked it up and Dumanis has returned the money or given it away and so have others, why hasn't the DNC in San Diego? Maybe saving it up for Francine's next run
12:59 Fact-
DeleteWhenever people bring up facts that reveal the truth about the failed policies of President Obama his political operatives seek to distract from the truth by obfuscation and distraction.
Obama and Hillary Lied - people died.
Fact - Johnson Tonkin Gulf. Fact- Nixon Watergate. Fact- Ford/Kissinger East Timor, Fact - Carter Afghanistan
DeleteFact- Reagan Iran Contra, Lebanon Embassy Bombing
Fact Bush I, Iran Contra, Fact - Bush II Iraq.
See where I'm going, notice a trend, lightbulb going on?
-Professor Leucadia, University of Roadside Bummeroosky
1:17
DeleteYes, they are facts, so what is your point?
Obama and Hillary lied and american's died. Obama and Hillary lied to get Obama re-elected. You might support liars, I don't.
Obama and Hillary lied- and US Ambassadors died.
Obama and Hillary lied- and now Boka Haram has kidnapped some 300 Christian girls and forced their conversion to Allah
Obama and Hillary lied and americans died
my lightbulb is on- you seem to be living in darkness
Sorry, but I'm way to cynical for any of this stuff to matter. People in power will always put others in harms way, and some will die. That's just the nature of the business. If you want to be President, Sec of State, Sec of Defense, head of the CIA, FBI, NSA, whatever - you will send people to their deaths. Sometimes it's for a good reason, and sometimes it's an abysmal tragedy. If you're not prepared for it, then don't do it. So now on to accountability. Well, if you signed up for a job that allows you to knowingly put people in harms way, then you have to let the chips fall where they may - and be able to take the political heat - you're fair game. What's so frustrating is that the political heat is so far removed from the actual act itself that it becomes a means unto itself. Benghazi was a tragedy, but as 1:17 points out, there were many others, and there will be many more. Just recognize that ones individual indignation is meaningless...it gets lost in the noise...the noise of moral indignation directed towards a political outcome....no different than general feel good sentiments as "like if you support our troops", or wearing an American flag lapel pin, or "thank you for your service".
DeleteAs Erich Fromm pointed out “There is perhaps no phenomenon which contains so much destructive feeling as 'moral indignation,' which permits envy or hate to be acted out under the guise of virtue.”
- The Sculpin
1:03
DeleteGeorge Bush senior lied -- "No new taxes"
George Bush Jr. lied -- "weapons of mass destruction"
George Bush (idiot) - invaded wrong country
George Bush (idiot) - many lives lost because of him
These are facts and they both LIED!
2:14
DeleteYou seek to hide from the present by living in the past. I don't care what happened years ago- it is the past. By your logic a lie today ir ok if someone else lied yesterday-
again- you may support liars, I don't
Obama and Hillary lied to america to get Obama re-elected. A US Ambassador dies at the hands of Al Quada linked islamic jihadists.
The Islamic Jihadi's Obama and Hillary lied to protect are related to BoKa Harem that kidnapped 300 christian girls from their family and school and made them covert to Allah-
Obama and Hillary failed to designate Boka Harem islamic jihadi's to get Obama re-elected
Obama lied and the US Ambassador dies-
not suprising to see 1:52 making excuses for lies, deceipt and incompetence.
The Sculpin
Delete"Bengahzi was a tragedy"
Benghazi is a tragedy. Today Obama, Hillary, Rice and the crooked corrupt administration is being actively protected by a media willing to cover up for the administrations lies and actively participate in misleading the public
Former CBS reporter Sharyl Atkinsson provides all the independent research one needs to know that the national media has become propagandists for the state-
The Sculpin actually blames the Ambassador and Navy Seal for 'putting themselves in harms way" rather then blame the Jihadi's.
The Sculpin actually seeks to diminsh that Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton went on talk shows and knowingly lied to America by suggesting such disgusting behavior is acceptable because others had done it-
Obama and Hillary lied- they should pay the price.
On another note it is interesting that Hillary was never made to swear in under oath when she testified- that means she is free from future perjury charges. See how it works? Sabine and Vina would be proud.
"The Sculpin actually blames....."
Delete"The Sculpin actually seeks........"
No, The Sculpin actually doesn't care.......didn't you read my post?
- The Sculpin
DeleteThanks Sculpin, that was my point, if I may quote you:
"Sorry, but I'm way to cynical for any of this stuff to matter. People in power will always put others in harms way, and some will die. That's just the nature of the business. If you want to be President, Sec of State, Sec of Defense, head of the CIA, FBI, NSA, whatever - you will send people to their deaths."
My point is all presidents are about the same in terms of putting others in harms way, see the list I posted above.
The difference now is the 24 hour news cycle and the fixation of certain people on certain topics, events and themes based on the incessant reporting and speculating on these topics and events.
If we must get down to total brass tacks, all U.S. presidents are, have been and will be liars due to the nature of the gig.
So can we get off the topic, or do we have to hear about Obama's deeds the next two years ad nauseum?
-House of the Fall of Roadside Bum
If I may quote George Santayana:
Delete"Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
-Mr Green Quote
2:27 You fault me for living in the past, when you are doing the same. All of what you are talking about was over a year ago (in the past - HELLO). Let's get to the real fact - you are an Obama hater and I dare you to tell me otherwise. Perhaps a little bit racist too?? Get back on subject of this blog.
DeleteThe mayoral election in Encinitas is not about party affiliation. Getting elected to council has never been about party affiliation.
ReplyDeleteStop making this into something that isn't there. It's about slow growth vs smart growth (developers).
Smart growth is just a fancy catch phrase that entitles and invites developers to "come on in" and ruin our city.
When we get a slow growth candidate, then the race will be about slow growth vs smart growth.
DeleteFor now, the two main candidates have almost identical records on development issues.
When is or was the deadline to announce you are a candidate? Does any one know?
Delete"Candidate Filing Period
DeleteThe candidate filing period for the one (1) Mayor seat and one (1) City Council Member seat begins July 14, 2014 and closes August 8, 2014 at 6:00 p.m.. If an incumbent for the City Council Member seat does not file by the August 8, 2014 deadline, the deadline will be extended to August 13, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. This extension is not applicable where there is no incumbent eligible to be elected, therefore the extension does not apply to candidates for the Office of Mayor. "
http://www.encinitasca.gov/index.aspx?page=119
It seems as though no incumbent for a Council seat will be filing, if Kristin Gaspar is running for mayor? Therefore, the cut off should be extended to August 13? If candidates participated in the primaries, it would give people more time to learn about them; would be candidates wouldn't be able to wait until the very last moment, and then "change their minds," as Jim Bond was infamous for doing.
Thanks for the information Lynn.
DeleteIf the candidate filing period starts July 14, what is it that Julie Graboi filed recently? That was before July 14.
DeleteShe probably filed a 410 organizing committee registration that allows her to legally raise over $1000: the same thing Jim Kydd was repeatedly asked to do by the City of Encinitas that he refused to do and now he has a record of violating 6 state laws.
DeleteJulie's paperwork will show up on the next reporting date: she's honest, she'll list all her contributors unlike Kydd or Aronin.
Jim Kydd refused to post or report who wrote him checks and paid the fine to protect the Price Family's political legacy: of course, the check from Julie's husband written to Everett Delano/Bruce Ehler's group might be a problem. 501C's cannot write political checks/donations to other non-profits: perhaps the FPPC will ignore it... still, in politics, when you have to explain... eh, Danny?
As Hershell says to Kydd,"Cash is King!"
Delano/Ehler's had $400,000 plus listed in income for their 'non-profit' in IRS paperwork for 2013. Some non-profit.
So we're saying Pam Slater put the heat on financially via Jim Kydd to Dump Jerome? Lots of singing and dancing above, thought I'd cut to the chase.
DeleteElection funneling in our country is kind of rampant, but you do still need to "follow the money".....
How many State laws did Ken Moser violate? Many of the so-called violations were simple failures to report because of lack of information, or misinformation. All of the Conflict of Interest laws are Government Code laws. Dalager is CONVICTED of a misdemeanor, with respect to his three charges, which were reduced to one conviction, through plea bargaining.
DeleteJim Kydd got a slap on the wrist fine, so Moser/Eiler wouldn't come after him with a private civil lawsuit, under the private attorney general act. The FPPC can decline to prosecute, then a political operative, like Moser, can.
Leave Jim Kydd out of this conversation. He's a good guy and loves our community. Mike Andreen is bitter about him, because he was "let go" as a columnist by the Coast News. Stocks is bitter because Jim Kydd did help the community to dump Stocks. Editorials are not considered ads or contributions in kind.
Kydd ran ads from all sides of Prop A, as well; some of the No on A ads were on the front page, through DEMA and the EPA. He made some mistakes; so did Maggie Houlihan, whom Moser/Eiler also went after. They never went after Republicans, like Stocks, Bond and Dalager.
No, Maggie sicked her buddies Pam Slater Price and her blood sister, Bonnie Dumanis, the district attorney of San Diego on the Republicans: seems like a fair trade-off, Lynn.
DeleteYes, Kydd ran ads from all sides: those against he charged, those for Prop A got free advertising, legals, etc... that's against the law, that's what he CONFESSED to an paid a fine for; along with Susan Turney and O. Canler. Confession beats a conviction any day:
I'd check your notes on 'Dreen, he started a newspaper when he left Kydd. Took Kydd's editors and writers; mebbe Kydd's the one who is bitter? A signed confession to 6 political violations of the FPPC is no 'slap on the hand' for Kydd.
Why are we rehashing the Jim Kydd thing? He ran the Dump Jerome charge, he paid the fines, game over. Mike Andreen and his buddy looted the Chamber of Commerce when he wasn't working for Jerome or running hit pieces via Wirefire on Sheila.
DeleteIt's called politics. Andreen moved to O'Side after defaulting on his house down here, but I still see him creeping around with some ridiculous free paper or online with his cheesy business group. A failed writer is a failed writer...
Actually Andreen was exonerated by the county grand jury and the City, the falsehoods were led by Mayor Maggie/The city was fined $90K for misleading the Grand Jury and Cameron had to back down when Andreen's lawyer tagged her with a cease-and-desist. And... Ask Norby. Kydd ran a front page story condemning Andreen without fact-checking the story with the City itself. Which is par for Kydd and his kid.
DeleteThe only thing sadder than a failed writer? A failed reader... you must be reading HoodLink.
Delete11:00 AM
DeleteWhere can this information on the county grand jury exonerating Andreen be found?
Wow, an Andreen apologist, is such a thing possible? Has to be Andreen himself. Remember when even Andreen worked for the Coast News, no love lost there. It's been on ever since.
DeleteOceanside is to the north Andreen, beat it loser...
Here's a reminder of his shenanigans, both at the Chamber, as a Stocks operative and more. This guy is a clown first, a scum second and a shyster 3rd.
http://www.theleucadiablog.com/2009/06/encinitas-first.html
http://www.theleucadiablog.com/2009/11/unholy-alliance-forged-in-encinitas.html
http://encinitasundercover.blogspot.com/2012/06/new-encinitas-network-sponsors-bizarre.html
Check out his latest rant, against the well spoken Al Rodbell.
Deletehttp://newencinitasnetwork.wordpress.com/2014/05/12/stop-sign-removal-on-traffic-commission-agenda-tonight/
Nothing new here, and Andreen doesn't even live in Encinitas.
You know, I think it was telling that Lisa Shaffer and Tony Kranz were directing their supporters to target vote for only the two of them. If it were not for Mark Muir's being elected, Jerome Stocks would still be in office, because of that very unwise strategy.
ReplyDeleteShaffer and Kranz, who both signed the petitions for the Right to Vote Initiative, should have urged people to vote for Barb Yost, as the third candidate. Had they done so, she could have been elected. She would NOT have flip-flopped on Prop A, and she would have kept her campaign promises.
It was short-sighted and selfish for Shaffer and Kranz to recommend voting for only two, when three Council seats were open, and so many of us were working to dump Stocks. Also, with their new majority, Barth, Shaffer and Kranz could have seen to it that Encinitas began participating in the primaries, as has been requested, many times. But they count on the vote split, through a plurality, to get elected.
Beginning in 2016, there should be primary run-offs, so that the mayor can be elected by a true majority. At first Tony had suggested that the one-time two-year council candidate should be elected, separately, but he later changed his mind. And why do you think he did? Again, because it would be easier to be re-elected as third runner-up, because of the vote split.
The only excuse given for our city's not participating in the primary race is the added expense. Of course the "new majority" doesn't seem to mind hiring a communication's director, has refused to look at hiring two half time employee code enforcement officers, and refused to consider a hiring freeze until all the capital improvement priorities could be set.
DeleteMoney always seems as though it's "no object," unless Council wants to use money as an excuse not to do something. Participating in the primaries would cost some money, but would be FAR LESS expensive than a special election. And ballot measures can be set for the General Election for only $17K to $23K per question. That's peanuts, in the larger scheme of things. Barth has made it clear that she, like Stocks before her, doesn't appreciate more direct democracy, just as she and Kranz haven't honored their campaign promises about open government. Barth has supported being less transparent, not more, as has Kranz. I sincerely feel Council, as a whole, could have reached a much more favorable purchase price for Pacific View without the unnecessary and unwanted secrecy of the ad hoc closed session subcommittee, which Kranz moved to create, with himself and Teresa as the Council committee members.
It is Barth and Kranz who have been politicizing the purchase of Pacific View, all along; hence Kranz' decision to run for mayor. Mark Muir, along with his wife, Mo Muir, and Kristin Gaspar both wanted for the City to purchase PV, but not for the outrageous price now "in the works." That is my sentiment, as well. I want for Pacific View to remain in the public domain, as part of our heritage, and our character, our quality of life, as a true community cultural center for arts and learning. That should be possible without our being bamboozled by posturing politicians and manipulative bureaucrats, into drastically overpaying. It's not quite a done deal. The City has every means, including the upcoming election, to pressure EUSD to accept carrying a 30 year loan at zero percent interest to mitigate for the outrageous price we are going to pay of over three times the only appraisal in the current zoning, current time zone, using local comps.
Just as we are paying off two 30 year bonds to EUSD on our property tax bills, EUSD should allow another public agency, the City, to purchase donated land, already in the public domain, in such a manner that we can all benefit. EUSD would get its long-desired revenue stream, and we would not have to pay more money out to Bond counsel and to private, for-profit banks, for ever escalating debt service. Alas, it seems as though the City is now contemplating borrowing not only for the purchase of PV, but for the construction of a new life guard station?
To me, it's very unwise for our City to become dependent upon credit, to cover inflating debt, when our revenues cannot cover our operating and capital improvement expenses.
Right, but the vote split works both ways. The vote split worked to keep Stocks, Bond, Dalager in for many years. For 3 separate times, Bob pulled votes away from other candidates when he never would have had enough to get in himself.
DeleteAre we talking about Instant Runoff voting, ie voting until the winner(s) receives a majority?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting_in_the_United_States#2004_San_Francisco_results
No, I don't think primaries would qualify as instant runoff voting.
DeleteMy point was that all incumbents, including Stocks, Bond and Dalager, have relied upon the vote split of the plurality to be re-elected. I don't know how you can say it works "both ways?" It always works the same way, to allow candidates to be elected by less than a majority of the voters.
I believe that even were the City to participate in Primary Elections, there would still be a plurality split, with two seats open for Council, but the split would not be between so many candidates. It could be narrowed down to three candidates, through the primaries. Through participation in the primaries, our future mayors could be elected by a true majority of the voters, not a split vote, plurality.
By voting to have an elected mayor, and by voting for the Right to Vote on upzoning and raising height limits, we citizens voted FOR more direct democracy, NOT less direct democracy. Who on Council can understand that? Which of the candidates can understand that?
I know Julie Graboi does understand.
Are you withdrawing your support of Blakespear and transferring it to Jules??
DeleteLynn,
DeleteOk, good point, so you're saying you want to see the winner of each seat receive a majority? I think we would then have to go to district only elections, so each candidate is receiving votes from a certain subset of voters.
I believe that would entail the ranking of candidates so that a majority can be attained. I'll have to do some more research.
My point was that splitting the vote is a natural thing, and yes, incumbents know that. Why do you think Stocks would always encourage people like harriet Seldin to run? So they could try and split the woman vote, or the enviro vote.
I would counter that the key is to get people to vote. Way less people will vote this time than last, because it's not a presidential election year. This def. works in the favor of incumbents.
But this time around, it seems like there's plenty of heat out there to unseat some incumbents. That's the direct democracy, if you don't like someone, vote them out. The problem is you have to vote, and more still, be informed and not just ask your neighbor 10 minutes before you leave to vote...
-Mr Green Sandals
Lynn, you prefer an early run-off because you probably believe it will make it easier to elect the people you are naturally drawn to: but that doesn't mean that those candidates would naturally do a 'better' job. remember, in the 2012 council election you were for Shaffer and Kranz until they got elected and then you weren't: so if changing to a primary system meant more of your preferred candidates would be elected, it might mean more electeds like Shaffer and Kranz. And before that? Were you a Barthian? Is that what you want now, because that's who you wanted then?
DeleteDon't tell me who I was for and who I wasn't for. I did endorse Shaffer and Yost, in letters to the editor.
DeleteI can only vote my conscience. I did think that because the Shaffer, Kranz crowd were saying target vote for only Lisa and Tony, that Shaffer, Kranz and Muir had the best chance of displacing Stocks, which I very much wanted.
We had no idea that Barth and Kranz would go back on their word to increase transparency and to enact a Sunshine Ordinance. Last questioned, Tony said there was so much on Council's plate, it could take a couple of years for the promised sunshine ordinance. Well, two years are up, or will be up, come the general election.
Is there a municipality or state using a primary system for local elections? All I can find is instant runoff voting, and that's in cities with council districts, not at large elections.
DeleteWhat I'm saying is, I don't think the primary thing is a possibility, unless I'm missing something.
For me, I'm ok with our current system, even though it favors incumbents...
-Mr Elections Verde
I don't understand why we can't all agree that its a good thing to buy PV but it was boneheaded to overpay for it?
ReplyDeleteAnd why can't we agree that probably 80% of people who know about the gross expenditure would prefer that it having been purchased for $4 mil?
And, why would saying that or believing that be 'sabotaging' anything?
And, why is borrowing $20 million to cover the shortage of $10 mil committed to EUSD and compounding the first error of over spending by borrowing the second $10 mil to develop an 'arts center'; good business or good leadership, when the voters haven't weighed in on the overspending or what will be done with the expensive toxic property and how does the Overspending Three 'know' what the public wants: what the usage should be and what the budget to 'develop' it should be? Mind reading?
Why are any of these questions 'sabotage'?
Because the three council members and their entourage cannot honestly answer these questions. Accusations of 'sabotage' are the last refuge of coastal scoundrels.
P.S.
Can hardly wait to see Mayor Barth's Political Etiquette Lessons tomorrow night.
I don't know that $20 Million is to be borrowed? Isn't part of that to go to developing the new lifeguard station?
DeleteIf Pacific View is to be voted upon, it would be for any future rezoning. Other than that, then ANY public works projects over $5 or $10 Million should allow a public vote, including the $20 Million plus planned Leucadia 101 Streetscape Project, which is to include four one-lane roundabouts and lane elimination on 101.
Pacific View is NOT toxic. Please don't keep repeating that disinformation. Part of the terms of payment includes an out on the purchase for toxicology reports, including soil reports. Asbestos was already removed.
I can agree that it's a good thing to buy PV, but boneheaded to overpay. I also strongly feel that the City should put on title that the property is to remain public/semi-public in perpetuity, the Old Schoolhouse will remain on site in perpetuity, and that .856 acre will be maintained as open space for public use, including community gardens, but exluding (as open space) parking lots, in perpetuity.
I feel it's deceptive and a kind of sabotage of Council's will for Gus Vina to set up the terms of payment with a memo of understanding that says the City cannot resell until after 10 years. The City should keep ownership in perpetuity! Also, at the last Council Meeting when maintenance expenses for Pacific View were mentioned, with respect to operating expenses, Vina flatly said that Council didn't know how long or how much of the property it would keep. That shows our current City Manager is contemplating selling out to developers, just like Baird.
Baird is new to our area, only here since July of 2011. Pacific View is not part of his heritage, as it is part of our history, part of our community character, and can be a part of our quality of life. Existing classrooms can be rehabbed and maintained by a non-profit, providing an almost immediate lease revenue stream to the City.
At one time I had said that I would like to hear what Catherine Blakespear said about firing Glenn Sabine and Gus Vina, and what she said about her past position on Prop A.
DeleteThat was before I knew Julie Graboi is running for Council. Unfortunately, another strike against Blakespear is her endorsement by Teresa Barth, Tony Kranz and Lisa Shaffer.
I never endorsed Catherine, although she seems like a nice lady, and I admire that she is an attorney, who probably can understand law better than our own City Attorney. But I disagree with her position on Prop A, and I question the judgment of our current Council Members who have endorsed her.
Keep the Leucadia streetscape out of the toxic evil devil worshiping purchase of PV. The two are not connected , one , the streetscape will enhance our community, the other PVwill bankrupt the city.
DeleteYou are demented, 9:35.
DeleteI meant at 8:41 that City Manager Gus Vina has only been here since July of 2011. Baird has only been Superintendent of EUSD since sometime after July of 2009, when he was still Superintendent of Ojai Unified School District.
Neither bureaucrat is an elected official. They are both subject to being replaced by our elected representatives. Neither one of them have Pacific View as part of their history and cultural heritage. Both of them seem to think that the "bottom line" is always about money.
Pacific View is not toxic. You appear to need a detox, though, 9:35.
Repeating a lie does not make it true.
Toxic toxic kill the deal. Save the city NO to PV!!!
DeleteNote to Lynn - many on the city staff know that PV will bankrupt the city and fear a judge will overturn their contacts in court. They should be concerned, what do they know that you don't??
So Muir and Gaspar are tacitly endorsed by Stocks and Mayer and you have no problem with that, but because of personal animosities with Teresa, Tony and Lisa you can't support Brakespeare. Classic!
DeleteBlakespear will be horrible- if she had the courage to stand on her own and run I would vote for her-
DeleteHowever asa has become known she is running as a Barth puppet- what has Barth done?
Lied on Prop A- Blakespear might support liars- I don't
Overspent for PV- rather than offer a solution during the PV debate Blakespear said get it done at any price
Sided with developers over residents at Desert Rose- Blakespear will do the same-
Thanks Fact Slinger, we can always count on you!
DeleteJulie and Donna have as much of a chance as a fart in a wind storm !
ReplyDeleteSays you. Donna, to my knowledge isn't running. Tony had a pretty low chance, too. But he made it the second time he ran, because the vote was split more ways.
DeleteWe can't control how people for whom we have voted act or vote after they are elected to office. We can't stop flip-floppers.
But we won't forget those who have betrayed us. Just as it's better to love and lost, it's better to take a risk, and displace a council member/mayor whom we know has been corrupted, with someone new and untried, than to put up with the same old hypocrisy, bullying, and lies.
And still my street goes unfixed....
DeleteWhy don't you move to a gated community, then? Or report your street's alleged damage to Public Works, so action can be taken. Why didn't you show up, in person, to support the hiring freeze? Why don't you write letters to the editor? It's so much easier to caste aspersions, anonymously, constantly complaining.
DeleteEnhancing and improving the canopy would improve our community. Continuing to improve sidewalks would benefit Leucadia. Opening up the railtrail corridor from G Street all the way north to La Costa would also be a great improvement.
Current plans call for 21 more old growth trees to be cut down. They are being replaced with saplings. Some of those replacement trees are being placed on private property, but in the public right of way, on streets west of 101. We support more trees, but they were originally planned to be planted on 101.
Tony made it because Lisa carried him with her email list and her campaign....
DeleteThere will always be a vote split, observe:
Council Member; City of EncinitasClick here for more info on this contest including known links to other sites (3 Elected)
2012
##Lisa R. Shaffer .......... 15,606 votes 23.4%
##Tony Kranz .......... 12,262 votes 18.4%
##Mark Muir .......... 9,521 votes 14.3%
•Jerome Stocks .......... 8,442 votes 12.6%
•Barb Yost .......... 6,840 votes 10.2%
•Kevin Forrester .......... 6,033 votes 9.0%
•Bryan M. Ziegler .......... 3,833 votes 5.7%
•Thomas Brophy .......... 2,687 votes 4.0%
•Peter Allen Schuh .......... 1,539 votes 2.3%
2010:
##Kristin D. Gaspar .......... 11,056 votes 28.6%
##Teresa Barth .......... 10,167 votes 26.3%
•Tony Kranz .......... 8,870 votes 23.0%
•Dan Dalager .......... 8,549 votes 22.1%
2008
Council Member; City of EncinitasClick here for more info on this contest including known links to other sites (3 Elected)
##Maggie Houlihan .......... 12488 votes 17.23%
##Jerome Stocks .......... 10373 votes 14.31%
##James Bond .......... 9744 votes 13.44%
•Douglas Long .......... 8513 votes 11.75%
•Rachelle Collier .......... 8158 votes 11.26%
•Bob Nanninga .......... 7855 votes 10.84%
•Anthony "Tony" Brandenburg .......... 5484 votes 7.57%
•Joe Sheffo .......... 4470 votes 6.17%
•Harriet Seldin .......... 2940 votes 4.06%
•Betsy Aceti .......... 2450 votes 3.38%
Lynn, your support of Yost cost her 3,000 votes. Go look in the mirror if you want to see why she wasn't elected...
DeleteLynn, don't tell me where to live!! I have a plan to fix my street by funding the campaign of every candidate provided they fix my street . Am I buying their influence ?? You decide . Money is the mothers milk of politics....ha!!
DeleteBarb Yost wasn't elected because she running as an outsider with limited funds against an incumbent, a well-known and well financed insider (Muir), a person who'd already run with name recognition (Kranz) and a well organized newcomer (Shaffer) with backing from Slow Growth people, Puppy/Maggie people and fed up with Jerome people.
DeleteAnd she sent out one of the weirdest campaign flyers of all time, with her surrounded by a bunch of young, male hunks. Sorry, it was bizarre.
That said, impressive finish, and nice effort...
Live where you want, but you could choose, for yourself, to move, rather than complaining without taking action.
DeleteAgain, why don't you report your street's alleged damage to Public Works, so someone at the City can address your concerns? Why didn't you show up, in person, to support the hiring freeze? Why don't you write letters to the editor?
It appears, by your constant harping and kvetching, as though you would rather sit where you are and complain, casting aspersions, and fixing blame, rather than actually doing anything about your untenable irritants.
More on Yost..
ReplyDeletehttp://encinitasundercover.blogspot.com/2012/08/a-few-thoughts-on-council-candidates-so.html