Tuesday, July 22, 2014

More word games from Shaffer

We have noted before Council Member Lisa Shaffer's odd uses of language to detach herself from responsibility for her actions. First, Shaffer told the Union-Tribune that she was "sad at the divisive tone and misleading messaging" around Proposition A without mentioning that she was on the subcommittee that wrote the untruthful ballot arguments that the council gave to voters.

Then, Shaffer falsely stated,
Meanwhile, a judge ruled in favor of Olivenhain neighbors who sued the developer, asserting that a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) should have been required before deciding whether to approve a density bonus project referred to as Desert Rose.
The lawsuit and ruling were not against the developer, but against the City of Encinitas, which, under Shaffer's responsibility of oversight, ignored environmental concerns and violated the law. One would expect a council member of a party in a lawsuit to be somewhat cognizant of the lawsuit. Maybe she was distracted by a plastic bag.

And it continues.

From Shaffer's latest newsletter:
A few speakers were eloquent but perhaps need their poetic licenses checked. I don't mind if people disagree with me or criticize me for something I actually did. I do object to someone criticizing me for things I did NOT do. I don't want to go into a long discussion of my request for information on a sales (or transactions and use) tax, but I want to be clear that I did not propose a sales tax. I asked for information so we could understand how a sales tax works and how much money it might provide to the City. I'm not afraid to admit what is obvious, that I don't know all there is to know about how cities operate and so I have to ask questions. Unfortunately, more than once, people have interpreted asking a question as taking a position or giving direction. Sometimes a question is just a question. In this case, the Council does not even have the authority to impose taxes - that requires a vote of the people. At the latest Council meeting, several times it was repeated that I had proposed a sales tax and it's not true. I was proposing that we consider all the available tools to increase revenues as part of our budget discussions. So just because you hear something from a speaker, that doesn't mean it is accurate.
While Shaffer's statement is narrowly, technically true (she did not literally say, "I propose a sales tax"), it is substantively quite the opposite. Shaffer, Barth, and Kranz aggressively advocated the hiring of Lew Edwards to run a propaganda campaign and push-poll advocating a sales tax increase. They were not just "asking questions" or seeking honest information about community opinion on taxes. Here's how Lew Edwards market themselves, not as unbiased measurers of community needs, but as consistently successful pushers of ballot initiatives on debt increases and tax increases.



The only thing that stopped Barth-Shaffer-Kranz from paying Lew Edwards a huge consulting fee for push-poll propaganda advocating a sales tax increase was the fact that Mark Muir and Kristin Gaspar refused to provide them the required fourth vote to put a tax increase on the ballot, regardless of the outcome of Lew Edwards' biased poll. Go back and watch the council video. You can practically see the steam coming out of Barth's ears.

So either Lisa Shaffer is so naive and gullible that she actually believed that Gus Vina brought in Lew Edwards just to get an honest, unbiased opinion about how the community felt about sales taxes, or she's being dishonest. Which is it? You make the call.

115 comments:

  1. Anybody that believes Gus Vina did anything honestly is a total fool. Since Lisa believes Gus and gives him good reviews, Lisa is a total ____. Common lets see of you can pass the first questions in the philosophic common logic tests. If you answered "fool", you are smarter than any of our council members and should be elected a new council member.

    Please let your first order of business be to Fire Vina.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Vina- rejected by Sacramento and Stockton , welcomed with open arms in Encinitas. Tells you all you need to know... Hold onto your wallet Encinitas you are being taken for a ride.

      Delete
  2. Shaffer = dishonest, gullible, naive, uninformed. I could go on., but I'll let some one else take it from this point.

    ReplyDelete
  3. LIAR LISA! She knew exactly what she was doing. If not, she is a fool.

    ReplyDelete
  4. She is the most UNETHICAL council person we have BY FAR and she has NO PERSONALITY, period.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Academic arrogance - common in the Ivory tower. She hasn't transitioned and obviously can't.

      Delete
    2. She has no personality? Off with her head!

      Delete
  5. I respectfully disagree.

    No likes to pay taxes. If we had a vote of the people to eliminate all federal, state, and local taxes and fees, it would be very popular at first. Hopefully, people would come to the realization that such an initiative would lead to chaos--no police, no food safety, no bridges, no airports, rampant pollution.

    The sacrifice we make to pay a tax is only worth it if we are getting some valuable service in return. The willingness of voters to raise taxes is only properly assessed in light of what the money will be used for. To suggest that the city could just do a simple survey ("Hey, everybody want to pay more in taxes?") ignores reality.

    We voted for Prop P because the voters decided that our schools are important enough. You personally may have voted against, but the majority decided it was worth it.

    If Lisa's intent was to gauge community support for a specific sales tax increase and understand which unfunded projects or services are most important, then a formal poll is a valid and logical approach.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It doesn't take $180,000 to stand in front of target and ask folks if they want to pay more taxes....because any tax increase will NOT be used to fund road repair or pay down debt any tax increase will be used for INCREASED salaries , pensions, life guard towers, fire fighter McMansions. Etc, etc. it's a con.

      Delete
    2. 6:57 you would have us ignore that the council lied on Prop A, lied to the public for 10 years that it had money to build the hall park and then tried to bury the road report - Shaffer Barth and Kranz along with Muir Gaspar and Vina don't deserve one penny from us. They are not leaders, they are irresponsible.

      Delete
  6. I am one of many who disagree with this hit piece.
    I too was sad at the devicive tone and misspending messaging around proposition A. Both sides.
    I do not believe that Schaeffer detaches herself from responsibility for her actions. I do not believe that she is naïve or gullible or dishonest.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you believe in Unicorns too?

      Delete
    2. Then you are naive and gullible....

      Delete
    3. Hit piece?

      Reading comprehension 101- Shaffer writes "I was proposing that we consider all the avaiable tools to increase revenues"

      Right- Shaffer proposed the Barth Shaffer Kranz Sales tax-

      come on 7:03 a Junior Hight student with an open honest mind would see that. Sometimes we get blinded by ideology

      Delete
    4. Shaffer has a problem understanding what "consider" and "reconsider" mean to everyone else except her.

      Delete
    5. The differance is, 7:03, is that the pro prop A people didn't blatantly lie like every single god damned council member did. It's sickening to me because they all knew it ! Lisa and Tony are too arrogant and detached from reality to realize that they lost 100% of their base. I gave them both money. I'm so sorry.
      Cabezon

      Delete
    6. Cabezon- here, here. You speak the truth.

      Delete
    7. what hit piece- it's a fact. Shaffer said on record that raising taxes on Encinitas families "sounds like a good deal to me".

      Delete
  7. Shaffer is the Donald Rumsfield of the council "Sometimes you know what you know, but don't know that you know, but don't know that you might not know".
    kNOw to Shaffer for another term.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. jeez- that sounds like Obama- you can keep your plan until you can't keep your plan and it's not a tax until its a tax- we got to do it for the folks

      Delete
  8. Odd you're always praising MUIR and GASPAR who have no news letter and denigrating BARTH and SHAFFER who do.THE credibility of the anon blog master is waning ,perhaps you should get a paper route.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Personally , I find it incredibly offensive of anon blog master who puts he's name on absolutely nothing , having the balls to criticize some one trying to be open and transparent ,Crawel back under you're rock W.C. Whom every you are.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 8:25 open and transparent?

      Lisa Shaffer ran on ethics, I know this because I voted for her. She also gave a lecture at San Marcos to college students about ethics, I know this becuase I went.

      During the Lew Edwards council meeting some guy showed emails that Vina knew about the estimate of $170,00 or $180,000 and kept it from the public. The bid from Lew Edwards is on the record it was just never shared.

      Rather than hold Vina accountable for not sharing the information with the publlic and council Shaffer came back and said the survey was $20,000 becuase she 'talked to some people'- who did she talk to? where is the bid? what is included with the bid?

      There is nothing transparent or ethical about Lisa Shaffer's leadership at city hall.

      Delete
    2. Shaffer does not try to be open and transparent. She wants to own the message. That is why she sends out the newsletter so quickly after each meeting, often with twists of why Gaspar and Muir voted against her. She wants the first say, as she often does on the dais, speaking first, most, and usually taking three times as long as necessary to say what is bouncing around in ivory tower, academic coconut.

      Delete
    3. Kind of from our department of redundancies department. I think for now, the key topic of interest is Julie Graboi running for a seat. Shaffer, the jury is out on, same for Tony. Teresa is out, Muir tests the wind, Gaspar does magic.

      The same questions remain, can we dump Vina and Sabine and move on with a more transparent future. We finally got some action on density bonus, so there is some hope.

      I think Lisa would do better off without the newsletter, but it's her call..

      -MGJ

      Delete
  10. Stop reading the blog then, and go away.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Shaffer has a stock defense she employs every single time she is challenged, that of plausible deniability. How many times have "I didn't have that information, I wasn't given that report, no one told me about it" come out of her mouth? I lost count sometime last year. She never, every says "but find out why I didn't have that information and get back to you, I will get that report, I will find out why I wasn't told and will respond asap." She is perfectly happy to sit in the secure knowledge that what she doesn't know she can't talk about and can't be hurt by, and that seems to be enough for her. Unfortunately for us, she's a city "leader" and that's the best she will do.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Question: who is your favorite council member of all time?

    If your list is blank, maybe you are a professional grumpy person.

    My report card:

    Mayor Gaspar: C+ (I disagree with her on many issues, but she's not stupid).

    Barth: B (Agree with her on many issues, but her ability to influence others and tactically execute ideas is lacking)

    Muir: C (Disagree on most issues, but he's a smart individual, and pretty fair-minded)

    Shaffer: B+ (She's right on most issues and pretty smart. When she really cares, she can drive the tactics through obstacles--unfortunately, she doesn't have the fire in her belly on most issues)

    Kranz: B- (Tony votes well, but his persuasion, ideas, and tactics are pretty poor).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If my list is blank, perhaps it's because I'm not looking through rose-colored glasses. Where'd you get yours? City Hall selling them to pay for PV?

      Delete
    2. Report Card
      Shaffer - B
      Gaspar - A
      Muir - A
      Kranz - D
      Barth - B

      Delete
  13. I agree with your grade report.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Well- It is clear the gang of three and their supporters don't want to talk about the Tax hike Barth Shaffer Kranz are proposing to take money out of the pockets of families and put it into the pockets of failed city manager Vina. Did Barth public state she would not run after residents exposed their tax raising scheme and alerted the public?

    What criteria are you using for your grades 11:07, 11:23 and 10:50?

    Here are 3 simple criteria- transparency, community characther, and responsible spending. Let's see how your grades stack up-

    Barth- Lied on Prop A. Voted againts resident safety, property values, quality of life and the environment at Desert Rose, promoted the agenda of stack and pack for millenials over residents of today KPBS, raised debt in 8 years by $30M while increasing annual debt service by $1.25 million- all the while underfunding road, building, park, trail and sewer repairs and projects. Failed to hold Vina accountable for with holding lew edwards financial information from the public, tried to shut down speakers who presented an opposing view while she was mayor, regularly spreads lies and misinformation in her newsletter- grade on the critera above F. (what is your grade?)

    Shaffer- claimed to be an ethics teacher and promptly lied on the prop A ballot statement. Claimed to be fiscally responsible then voted to hire city spin doctor knowing projects were underfunded. Told residents in March borrowing was not a strategy then turned around 4 months later and borrowed $22 million, paid $10M for a property that appraised at $4.5M, failed to hold Vina accountable for with holding financial information of Lew Edwards from the public and then blamed public speakers for bring her bad decision making to the light of day. Increased annual debt service by $1.25m knowing the city wasa running our of money to service residents Is a bit nicer to public speakers who have an opposing view then Barth D-.

    Kranz- Failure at all levels- immediately changed after being elected. Opposed resident safety and property values are desert rose, lied on Prop A, wrote published editorial further spreading the same falsehoods and misinformation, claimed in march the city did not have money for projects while proposing a tax increase then last week claimed the city was in good shape, failed to hold Vina accountable for with holding the Lew Edwards estimate- more interested in promoting his interests see pacific view photo shoot then the public, spent $10 million for a property that appraised at $4.5, did not due dilgence in buying the property, voted to increase annual debt service by $1.25 million annually all while knowing the city capital improvement budget was underfunded- F

    Gaspar and Muir get F's for being developer lackey- however they opposedd the tax increase and proposed resposible spending and negotiating to buy pacific view C-

    So, what's your criteria? I gave you mine- with facts.

    Fact Thrower

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fact Thrower,

      Have you ever advocated, supported or voted for any of the existing council?

      If so, what grade would you give yourself for your ability to assess others?

      Delete
    2. 12:15 attack the messenger when you have no facts to argue your case - hmmm, now who's rule was that from??

      your alternative would apparently be not to vote, not to participate, to pay higher taxes and stick our heads in the sand at San Elijo state beach- no thanks.

      You would apparently have us believe we should hold those we vote for less accountable then those we do vote for- sounds like the same kind of stinking thinking that would pay $10M for a property that appraised for $4.5M

      Fact Thrower

      Delete
    3. Feces Thrower,

      If you have picked a bunch of D and F candidates, why should we listen to your opinions?

      Delete
    4. 12:30

      The public can't pick who runs -
      The public can only pick from those running

      facts are not opinions

      Try again

      Fact Thrower

      Delete
    5. Feces Thrower,

      How about these fact:

      Fact #1: By our own report card, you have been an unmitigated failure at picking good candidates for city council.

      Fact #2: given #1, we would all be wise to ignore your "facts" and thoughts on future elections.

      Delete
    6. 12:45

      ignoring another persons opinions is a choice

      ignoring facts is to live in denial- good luck with that

      Fact Thrower

      Delete
    7. Feces Thrower,

      I will never ignore facts.

      I will, however, ignore "facts."

      Delete
    8. Fact Thrower - What items did Gaspar and Muir side with developers? I can't recall "any" that separates them from the rest of the council. Please be specific.

      Delete
    9. 10:59- Muir and Gaspar were front and center with opposition to A, siding with big money groups out of Chicago, LA and Arizona, signing their names to ballot statement untruths, and spreading misinformation in the community- how can forget Gaspar's ridiculous comment that the public would not be able to remodel their kitchens

      Delete
    10. Folks here should be accustomed by now that Fact Thrower (FT) won't be pinned down to sources or justifications. FT just throws things against the wall to see what sticks and assumes these are self evident. FT is a waste of everyone's time and to try to debate FT is pointless.

      Delete
  15. I agree with fact thrower and gave money to Barth, Kranz, and Shaffer .

    Also agree that they lost over 50 to 70% of there base.

    The only ones liking them may be the lifeguards and some PV lackies.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I'll vote too:
    Muir-A
    Gaspar-B
    Shaffer-C
    Barth-B
    Kranz-F
    Criterion used: Not what I like but 1) what they have proposed; 2) what they have opposed; 3) what they have lied about; 4) what they have changed their minds about without letting citizens know why; 5) their consistency with their own stated agendas.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Muir was on the Prop A subcommittee and led the scare that was a lie about having an accessory unit built next to your fence. F right there for being desperate to protect his developer pals.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fav of all time would be Marg Gaines. Cityhood was sold to us on the control of growth. Shortly after her election the local media savaged her at the behest of builder/developer interests. They called her a racist for being against using a local motel for illegal housing. She ultimately had to leave the area.
      Cabezon

      Delete
    2. 1:39 Untrue. Marge Gaines did NOT leave the area. She passed away at an early age if that is what you are referring to.

      She had guts to stand up to the developers. She was highly respected by most. Granted, not every one likes every one.

      Delete
    3. Gaines had the chance to below grade the train, she thumbed her nose to those interested...never again will we have that chance.

      Delete
    4. 3:52 Never say never. You may be surprised.

      Delete
    5. 3:52, nope.

      This is a surf town. Nearly every garage west of 5 has surfboards in it, and those folks walk to surf. There isn't enough parking. Trenching the tracks would ruin the surf-friendly vibe that defines our history, culture, and drives a good chunk of our economy.

      It would be a disaster, and I believe a majority would oppose it.

      Delete
    6. Trenching and covering the train could create all kinds of great stuff on top but especially the convenience and ability for anyone on the east side to legally and more safely get to the beach / stores or whatever on the west side. The 4 proposed undercrossings however totalling $25 million will forever inhibit that plan. Meanwhile, at least sign the petition Leucadia Town Council is circulating for AT GRADE CROSSINGS. They're a fraction of the cost for many more crossings than the mere 4 tunnels would provide. And if the the tracks were ever covered, it could even be a way to remove the stop lights at Leucadia Blvd/101 & Vulcan Ave. Ever hear of a roundabout?

      Delete
    7. BTW, the railroad property is sandwiched between Vulcan and 101 is 100 feet wide and over 2 miles long. A covered track would create over 200 acres of real estate on top. That could be a blessing or nightmare! Kind of like electricity.

      Delete
    8. Good points Fred.

      I would withdraw my objection to trenching if it was trench and cover, but that's hugely expensive. It's how they are constructing the Second Avenue line in New York. Hugely expensive, even without the relocation of subsurface infrastructure.

      Sadly, the at grade crossings are a non-starter for NCTD, and they make the rules. I love our new crossing at Santa Fe--use it every day. But I'd be happier with the simple, cheap, grade level crossing.

      Delete
    9. Fred,

      Still think trench and cover would be prohibitively expensive, but it's fun to think about.

      Probably the best and cheapest way to do it would be to re-route the rail line under Vulcan / San Elijo. Here's why:

      It would be very difficult to trench and cover on an operating rail line. I'm sure that complexity would add to complexity, schedule, and cost. It would be far easier to dig up Vulcan in short sections, install rail, then rebuild the street on top. When completed, the trains could be diverted to the new section, and we could re-purpose the existing right of way as a kick ass park running the length of town.

      Also, If you tried to build park on top of the rail line in the existing right of way, you'd be dealing with roots, dirt, drainage, corrosion--lots of engineering issues that would add a ton to the build and maintenance cost. Much simpler and easier to put a street on top of the rail.

      Oh well. Never going to happen.

      Delete
    10. Thanks 8:09 and agree, it would be hugely expensive especially to cover. I think north of LA there's the Alemeda rail that they trenched for 25 miles. Back around 93 however, it cost less than 20 million for Solana Beach to trench the train. SB paid only a few million of that (to the best of my recollection around the same time when I was on the inaugural run of the Coaster). Much more now of course, but so is 200 acres of real estate 1 block from the beach.

      Delete
  18. Another favorite-Sheila Cameron. Sheila was known for her "temper", but when she decided to flick the nose of a staffer with her finger, it was not well received. She was also known to tell citizens where to go, so to speak, at Council meetings. Google her and you will find out why the Council voted her off the island. A that time, many people were relieved.

    I think Tony Kranz may have the capacity for the same type of physical behavior, as Sheila. I watched his reactions when all of Kristin's friends came to the Council meeting the night Shaffer thought it was a good idea to reconsider the vote about how they would handle this year's Mayor. His face was almost purple, jaw was tightly clenched, and I honestly thought he might have a stroke right there and then, or deck someone. I remember when the horrible slate mailer came out with Kranz behind a jail cell. I thought it was way below the belt, and still do. However, I cannot help but wonder how deep his anger goes and if he will actually hit someone as he almost did Jerry Sodomka at the beach. I agree with 12:25 for his grade. And, if he runs for Mayor, and no one else does, he will be an embarrassment. After his new found stance on Prop. A , which he now opposes, I wonder what an agenda would look like under his leadership, or should I say several developers leadership. Because folks, those are his new friends. I wish he realized he was being used and will be thrown away once he isn't elected anymore. He may hang with them now, but he doesn't have the money to keep up with the "in crowd" for too long.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sheila did a lot for our town, and she really tried. Sadly, I think she has some emotional issues, to put it lightly. Why go into all the name calling? Her concern for the city is well documented, and she did some good things.

      As for Tony, I can't go on here say. He's always done well when I'm around him. If there's an issue with him or anyone else, I would hope he gets help for it.

      Too much namecalling and armchair quarterbacking on the site lately, we need more get out the vote ideas for Julie Graboi...

      Delete
    2. 3:37 Sounds like a familiar "shrink".

      Delete
    3. Whether you think 1:51 PM's comments on Sheila are germane or appropriate, they're hardly name calling, especially if you go by the low standards on this blog.

      Delete
  19. Grades for this council based upon their decisions or lack thereof:

    Barth (D)
    Gaspar (F)
    Kranz (C)
    Muir (F)
    Shaffer (D)

    Let's face it folks, we have five people that shouldn't be there. They are all clueless on how a city is run.

    Gaspar thinks it's "rah rah" time and is searching for potential clients for her husband.

    Muir is a dumb ass who looks at the ceiling when he talks. Have to wonder who he is looking at up there?

    Barth pretends to be intelligent, but every dumb look tells us she is not.

    Kranz is living in his own world. I hope he finds out where that is.

    Shaffer is uninformed and needs to get up to speed so council meetings are spent on her stupid questions. Do your homework Shaffer and quit wasting time on things that could take 5 minutes. Idiot!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think you are the only one who gave Tony the highest grade.

      Interesting.

      Delete
    2. Yes, I did. I find him to be more of a deep thinker than the rest of them. Of course, that is just my observation and opinion.,

      Delete
    3. Don't let his facial expression fool you. He's not thinking, he's confused.

      Delete
    4. Barth is a solid F- and anyone who interacts with her knows it.

      Delete
    5. Can anyone really imaging Kranz running a council meeting? He won't be able to keep up.

      Delete
    6. Let's just say Gasbag hasn't done a great job so far. She has messed up every meeting since she's been mayor. I imagine more to come.

      Delete
    7. It can't be easy as mayor to decipher Shaffer's comical efforts to articulate a motion or friendly amendment.

      Delete
    8. Gaspar gets confused with the agenda by itself. That has to tell you something.

      Delete
    9. Kranz won't be able to run a meeting. His lightbulb is on the dim side.

      Delete
  20. ......"If no serious candidate runs for mayor" could certainly occur, as the name of the position reflects one with authority, at least greater than a member of the council. While most think that the authority was increased by making it one elected by the public, it actually has less. At the last meeting Mayor Gaspar made the very reasonable suggestion to re-open negotiations on the purchase of Pacific View based on findings of reduced acreage based on loss of the Western bordering alley and confirmation of hazardous material. This was refused by the majority, along with even the most minimal evaluation, by review of previous rulings, to determine the limits on any performance space.

    I pulled papers for running, just to find out exactly what is involved. From studying the various rules I realize there is no doing this without incurring fiduciary responsibilities, legal vulnerabilities and loss of privacy. And make no mistake about, having even an informal position of leader of a city such as this entails a great amount of work understanding the various federal and state laws that come across the city's desk. There are those lawyers who specialize in environmental, procedural or civil rights laws yet members of the council have to walk a line of knowing what discretion they have within such laws. And often they are in flux, as we discover with every surprising appeals court ruling.

    So, running for this office doesn't make sense for me, but I have to wonder who it does make sense for. Our political culture is not based on information gathering and then rational dialog on the merits of each position. It is deciding what position leads to political advantage and then distorting the details of choices and consequences to promote these ends It's not a debating forum but a fight club. And the Brown act makes it worse, as concerted narrow groups can easily mob the chambers and the email in boxes to give the illusion of the public will.

    And with "Peak Democracy" under contract the city authorities have a full time minister of propaganda under the guise of open public participation. It's almost worth the aggravation of running to expose these guys, almost, but not quite.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The mayor's position (even elected by the people) will have no more weight than the rest of the council.

      The only difference is they set the agenda (not a big deal), cut ribbons at ceremonies, speak at a function when invited and get $100 extra bucks for their time.

      Hardly worth electing a mayor when the rotation system was working fine until $tock$ and his entourage ruined that. At least with the rotation system, the mayor was only on for one year. Now, we may be stuck with a "failed" mayor for 2 years.

      Oh well.

      Delete
    2. Thanks for the info Al. This confirms why this present council is clueless.

      Delete
  21. I understand your frustration Al. And you have accurately described why most people who run for City Council really don't have a clue as to what they are getting themselves in to. All of the variables you described take a lot of time for Council. And, so many of us, who might want to run, don't have the time to do it right. Therefore, it often leaves us with what we have right now. The pay sucks, the hassles suck, and unless you don't have a part time job elsewhere, it cannot be done without asking staff and others to help. Staff, unfortunately, uses this to their advantage, and often to developers advantage. I wonder how many times Staff goes to lunch with developers, or others that could influence their decisions? Is there a City policy about this? I saw Barth with a staff person a couple of days ago, having coffee. And, it wasn't at City Hall. And, the staff person wasn't a Dept. Head, or in Vina's words, a Cabinet Member.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Barth probably charged the city for the bill. In other words, we probably paid for the coffee, etc.

      Delete
  22. http://savepacificview.org/ Interesting interview with Teresa Barth.

    "SPV: What was the reason for weakening the school district’s initial requirement that the property never be rezoned, sold or leased? [The current agreement prohibits the city from selling the property within 10 years without offering it back to the school district for the original $10 million. It also states "after this ten (10) year period, the Buyer may dispose of the Property in any manner it chooses."]

    Barth: In my mind that was all about reassuring the school board that no, we’re not going to flip the property. It was also kind of to tie future councils’ hands: “if you think you’re going to flip it, here’s this whole process.”

    "SPV: If you wanted to restrict future councils’ ability to sell the property, why not just leave the school district’s requirement as-is?

    Barth: No, because I want future councils to [have some freedom] if they want to put artist loft housing on it; if the community [wants] a youth hostel. There are all sorts of ideas that have come up that are on the table, so I didn’t want the school district tying our hands in that regard. But I wanted to give a 10-year breathing room [period].

    SPV: But hypothetically, a council 10 years from now, if they got a public vote, they could turn Pacific View into exactly what we were trying to avoid. . ."

    Barth closes with:

    "Barth: We live in paradise. Can we stop fighting with each other about it? [Laughs] Get a grip. Enjoy where you live! The glass is more than half full!"

    It seems that a public youth hostel or lodging for artists could happen within public/semi-public zoning, perhaps with minor or major use permits. The zoning should be public/semi-public in perpetuity. It will be, absent a public vote to change it. Teresa Barth's interview reconfirms all the reasons that the City overpaid. It was a wonderful purchase. Lisa Shaffer could have voted to renegotiate a more reasonable price, in lieu of the rezoning challenges, the public road easement, etc. However, given only the choice of overpaying or not getting PV, I would vote to overspend. We will be voting against all the incumbents who run for the Board of Trustees for EUSD, because they all supported Superintendent Tim Baird's bait and switch tactics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. what bait and switch tactics Chatfield? He was clear at every step. THe Save PV folks had a chance to help the community get a better price by supporting others who recommended steps that could be taken- the PV folks ran and hid.

      $10M for a property that appraised at $4.5
      $18 million in total
      NO cost estimate to rehabilitiate
      NO cost estimate to destroy of existing buildings
      NO Cost estimates to construct new buildings-

      Thanks Scott- you screwed us taxpayers.

      Oh yea, I have been saying for a few months on this blog that months ago Jim Gillian took the arts commission up to Santa Ana to see stack and pack housing around art galleries-

      lo and behold Barth proposes stack and pack subsidized housing for artists-

      Al Rodbell asked the question- who decided who gets housing- each person or the government?

      Barth is a socialist and cares not for the Encinitas residents of today

      Delete
    2. When Barth read the MOU for the school the first night, a citizen said that it sounded like they had changed the school from a resource in perpetuity to a resource that they would sell. Barth denied that they would sell it, and said that it was the SCHOOL that forced them to put in the conditions. Now she is crediting herself for forcing this agreement onto others. Which was it?

      Delete
    3. I thought it was Kranz who made it happen - at least, in The World According to Tony, he did.

      Delete
    4. Baird did the following baits and switches re PV:

      Previous superintendents and Baird said, until February of 2012 that the school was to be traded for a commercial property with a revenue stream; therefore, the Naylor Act didn't apply.

      In February of 2012 Baird put out a requests for proposals for plans, offers to lease or to purchase, within the current public/semi-public zoning. He switched, after proposals were submitted, accepting a proposal through John DeWald and April Game that was contingent upon the City rezoning PV to mixed use commercial/residential/art center, attempting to force an entirely new zoning category.

      Baird said, during oral communications, in October of 2012, that school teachers, including those with longstanding jobs, would have to be laid off because the City had not agreed to rezone and DeWald had dropped out of Escrow. Monies from the sale of PV could never have gone to teachers' salaries.

      Baird stated to the media, in an article in the Coast News, and to City Council in their closed session negotiations, that the money from the sale of Pacific View could go as a one time injection into EUSD's General Fund. According to the State Allocation Board, only if the money were not needed for capital facility improvements, to balance EUSD's imbalanced budget, could any money go into the General Fund for a "one time purpose," (not the same as a "one time injection" claimed by Baird), which one-time purpose must be approved by the Board of Trustees after notice and public hearing.

      Baird led Council and some of the media to believe that there were any sealed bids submitted, when all that had happened was that developers came on site to tour the school grounds, or expressed interest through phone calls. No sealed bids have been released, to date, and the likelihood that any ever will be is slim to none.

      Baird talked about an appraisal done for PV in the amount of $13.4 Million, but that went back to June 6 of 2007, before the real estate market tanked, was based on the extraordinary factors of rezoning to mixed use, commercial/residential, and trading the property for another commercial property, not on an appraisal in the current time frame, using local comps, and within the current public/semi-public zoning.

      Last, but not least, Baird led the Trustees to state that the Board could not consider postponing or cancelling the auction, because PV was only on the agenda as an "informational item." According to the Brown Act, that is irrelevant. As long as an issue is agendized, action can be taken, as was confirmed shortly thereafter by Glenn Sabine re the Lew Edwards discussion, whether or not that contractor should be hired to implement a push-poll sales tax survey.

      Delete
    5. The council let Baird get away with all these shennanigans and were complicit. It was requested that the PV organization support efforts to move forward with action to compell EUSD and the city abide by the Naylor act- Save PV refused to help

      Delete
  23. Who is saying they would vote to overpay- Chatfield?

    Who is saying they will endorse candidates- Chatfield?

    If anyone has an answer please let me know. Given how taht neighborhood has had to suffer with bar problems one wonders what their reaction will be to Barth promoting a youth hostile for millenials

    ReplyDelete
  24. Sorry Chatfield. I wonder how many people really wanted to pay 10 million plus for this property. Now that would have been an interesting first post for Peak Democracy.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Why is the CC meeting cancelled tonight?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Lay off Scott. Thanks to his efforts this will not end up in the hands of DeWald, Harwood, et. al for another Pacific Station on the bluff. He had nothing to do with the overpaying. Much of that can be blamed on sabine for his council to not pursue avenues that could have been implemented to demand an equitable price from the hostage taking that baird and his crew of soon to be dumped dinosaur school board members. Many thank you for your efforts around here and we know you had no part in the price that was demanded and paid.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chatfield did have a part in the price that was paid. He was requested to help support efforts to ensure EUSD and the council abided by the Naylor Act- he refused. Now we know why- better to pay too much then not get it is his mantra- same as Barth Shaffer Kranz

      PV would have been better served to quietly go away - now they have inserted themselves in politics and Chatfields driving the bus. First the photo spread with Kranz now the parting gift to try and make Barth look good-

      no symppathy for Chatfield , he has inserted himself into all of our lives.

      Watch for Chatfield to endorse Blakespear and Kranz in hopes the two of them can win and appoint Barth to Kran'z seat. Barth knows she can't win out right, this is all pre-planned

      ps- that friends of the arts group- they will be coming out to support Blakespear and clueless Kranz- it is all a set up, wait for it

      Delete
    2. I appreciate Scott Chatfield's efforts. Read the article on the SavePacificView.org website. He does ask good questions of Teresa Barth. Some of her answers are are not so hot.

      Scott was inspired to create the website and to help save Pacific View. I'm glad it happened, wish Council could have been better negotiators. Gus Vina didn't appear too eager to rein in Teresa or Tony and their secret subcommittee. Why should he? No money off his pension, no sweat off his back.

      Delete
    3. What's behind the article was Shaffer asking Chatfield on behalf of Barth (who, after all, will never get her own hands dirty if she can avoid it) to write the PV puff piece. This is hardly the first time Barth has made a phone call to try to get someone to do something she wouldn't.

      Barth's trying to line up her legacy. Too little, way too late.

      Delete
  27. I don't agree. Scott, Julie, Lword, and the whole gang of PV suck and cost the public just like the Regional Sports Complex. You all get me sick!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I asked for my name to be removed from that PV list- I don't agree with the price- I think it's a disgrace.

      More over Barth is friends with De Wald and Norby and the whle crew, she's a snake. This property will be stack and pakc. It took 10 years to build the Hall Park. PV will have high density housing and the neighbors will get screwed- Thanks alot Scott. Now that we spent so much there is no money left to actually do a good project. Way to go

      Delete
  28. 8:17PM : sorry to bring you back to planet Earth, but there was no "gang" behind PV.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I think we can lay most of the blame for the overpayment right at the feet of Tony Kranz.

    ReplyDelete
  30. No gang hugh? Well you better get a gang to keep him in office, because next time his is up for election I will be voting against him considering his stupid vote for the $3 million lifeguard tower and $10 million for a $4 million dollar piece of real estate. What a fool and this is coming from a person who gave to his campaign.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Article in the Advocate:
    The boathouses will need $250,000 in repairs and the Preservation Foundation's coffee can of money is empty. The county may step in with some cash. First, the city should require a very through forensic audit of the Preservation Foundation's books back to its inception as a non-profit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Vina says "we" don't use the word "forensic," remember?

      Delete
    2. Is Peder Norby still on the Board of Directors of the EPA? Yes, there should be a forensic audit.

      The City already gave over $800,000 in grants and subsidies through in-lieu affordable housing fees. The EPA is collecting rents on four affordable housing units, and should be collecting rents, not set at low or very low, for the two boathouse units.

      EPA paid far less than 50% of the sale price for the property, discounting all the grants. Subsidies included an extra donation from Moonlight Lofts, which didn't provide any on-site affordable units. That developer ended up going bankrupt.

      Then the City wasted $174,000 in attorney fees to Sabine & Morrison by suing Mark Whitley, the former Boathouses owner, for what are affordable accessory units at a different location. The City didn't prevail; taxpayers again take on the expense of a frivolous lawsuit. None of the existing tenants are displaced from their affordable housing.

      The City continues to work at cross-purposes with its own policies, at cross-purposes with the best interests of the taxpayers, and against those homeowners attempting to maintain affordability.

      Delete
    3. All of this is important in light of 2 items

      1. Barth comments that now the city taxpayers might be on the hook for funding the stack and pack housing that will be proposed for Pacific View for "artists" who will get subsized housing, what is Barth's plan?

      2. The proposed Shaffer/Kranz tax plan-

      Delete
    4. Maybe Sabine should pay for the $250,0000 boat house repairs since he is already getting a 6-figure salary as our City Attorney then runs lawsuits through his own private firm. He gets paid whether he wins or loses. How many people get to even keep their jobs after his string of legal losses that he gets paid for either way the case goes? He and Vina are bankrupting our city.

      Delete
    5. Point to even one legal action Sabine has won. Failure and should be canned.

      Delete
    6. if every recommendation is wrong then the exact opposite must be right

      Delete
    7. Did anyone ever watch Seinfeld? There was a great episode where George couldn't get a job, couldn't find a girlfriend, and nothing was going right in his life. Jerry said to George "Why don't you do exactly the opposite of what you are currently doing?" George did and he got a job, girlfriend etc. So, perhaps we can use the same logic on Sabine. If he opposes something we should be for it and vice versa. Maybe even the same for Vina?

      Delete
  32. ":against those homeowners attempting to maintain affordability."? What does this mean?

    You mean the welfare recipients that live in the units. I say jack up the rent to the market rate and lets fix up the place. Section 8 is bad for the community and bad for the individual souls. Its much better to live within ones means. You don't see all the illegal immigrants complaining about getting more Gov tit. Because were they are from, the Gov has no tits. Americans have become fat and complacent. what a shame.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Part of the escrow agreement, whereby the City put in so many taxpayer dollars for the purchase of the Boathouses property, was a covenant that the four units would be maintained, by the EPA, or any future owner, for low income tenants, in perpetuity. Also, there was an agreement that one of the Boathouses would eventually become a museum. That would only require a minor, or perhaps major use permit, not an upzoning, as falsely alleged in propaganda put out by EPA and the Mainstreet Associations in trying and failing to defeat the Right to Vote Initiative aka Prop A.

    There are a few landlords throughout the City that do attempt, voluntarily, to maintain affordability. There have been and are many people living in affordable units who are not on welfare.

    Master Crapper, your anger toward and hatred for those who receive Section 8 assistance (and we are not and never have been on welfare or Section 8) is pitiful. But you and the other directors of Leucadia Mainstreet Ass. don't mind accepting facade grants or other subsidies through the taxpayers, not based on financial needs, or demanding a cementscape that most locals don't want, or need.

    Last time I saw you, I noticed you had packed on quite a few pounds, yourself. All the anger, judgment and condemnation you are constantly spewing out will come back to bite you, in the end.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Too funny, The night dweller is up before midnight and accusing other people of gaining weight. Haaaa. Must be an eclipse or something.

      We all know you are on the dole night-dweller.

      Anger- Haa good one. More like your stupidity is coming home to roost.

      Delete
    2. "We" don't "all know" any such thing, because it's not true. You are a bully and a liar. Plus you have put on weight, and you know it.

      You and L101MA are on the "dole" through, in all the subsidies you get.

      Delete
    3. Night dweller- not everyone should live at the beach and those that do dhould pay for the previlege, let the free market preveal.

      Delete
    4. Night dweller you forgot to tell us that Norby doesn't get a pension from the city.... You are slipping.

      Delete
    5. Norby already made a killing off this city, pension or no. Good to see him go.

      Delete
  34. Here is a new tax for the council - the San Francisco soda (sugar) tax on the November ballot. A 2 cents per ounce tax on any drink that contains sugar or high fructose syrup. For a 12 oz. can of ginger ale that would be an addition 24 cents tax. Quick - how much tax for a liter of any type of soda? Diet sodas and fruit juices that are 100 % fruit juice are exempt.

    ReplyDelete
  35. It is truly sad how mean-spirited most of the comments are on this thread. If one had never been here and only read this blog for their research of our community, we would not come off so well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mean spirited or honest? I personally like the honesty and find it rather lighthearted and loving environment.

      Delete
    2. Right, it's "light hearted," Crap Master, CM, to lie about people being on the dole, or on welfare, or on Section 8, to call people fat, to try to belittle and demean.

      I'm sure you love those "lighthearted and loving" comments you make, over and over and over. What a troll you are. You get off on attacking others, personally, with lies and character assassination. You won't be satisfied until you destroy this blog, just like you destroyed LB.

      Delete
    3. too funny coming from the known night dweller who feeds on wasting everyones time with endless nonsense rants at every council meeting on every and any topic, and the same with the blogs.

      She has no care about others time or life, only her own demented thoughts which she has to talk about, and not keep anything inside the twisted skull.

      Sweet Dreams Nightdweller. Its a beautiful morning for the land of the living!

      Delete
  36. Yes the last mayor was mean spirited to an extreme. The face of our city hall but not of our community. These comments are a reflection on her and other failed leaders.

    ReplyDelete