Those neighborhoods are in an even more precarious position than Encinitas, as they don't have a Prop A-style right to vote, and must rely on the kindness of politicians.
It AGAIN appears that Kranz, Shaffer and Barth have backed away on their word to support the residents. They could of easily voted for their previous position to memorialize the new density bonus and net acreage requirements - but they didn't and backed away like it was all new to them. The 3 are big smart growth (pack and stack) fans!
I bet you won't see a link to this article opposing smart growth in either Barth's or Shaffer's newsletters. The two of them only include propaganda that supports their own opinions.
Um, yeah, you don't see a lot about OBama's initiatives on the Red State Blog. Generally, Politicians don't give a lot of air time to their opponents. Yeesh!
As an owner of several properties In Leucadia I actually want the high-density because it will lead to higher property value and I want more money for property. What's wrong with that that's the American way.
11:14 What you want is a government handout. What you want is for government to rewrite laws to benefit you, the community be dammed.
You are certainly entitled to your opinions, it is the american way, but let's be truthful, you are not about earning wealth, you are about rewriting laws to benefit you- they have a word for that, Cronyism
I guess you wouldn't want to live in Houston where they don't have those damn zoning laws infringing on people's right to do whatever they want with their property. Whether you think zoning is good or bad (I think it's good), it does protect your property from being impacted by changes to surrounding properties.
Zoning isn't perfect but it sounds like it's working for you, as long as nothing changes. So don't get all righteous about government handouts.
1. I like the zoning encinitas now has 2. Everyone should keep theur current land rights 3. I opposed government rewriting laws to upzone select parcels to trample on the rights of others.
People buy property based on existing zoning (or lack thereof). If you buy a house in Houston, you buy it knowing somebody could put an apartment building next door.
People bought houses in Encinitas believing they could trust that the zoning of their neighborhood wouldn't be changed underneath their feet.
1. I like the zoning encinitas now has 2. Everyone should keep theur current land rights 3. I opposed government rewriting laws to upzone select parcels to trample on the rights of others. Simple" Lets not forget, your beloved Prop A took away property rights of all who owned property along 101. That's OK, though?
I'm glad the world never changes here in Encinitas. How many people who live in Encinitas, work and play in other parts of San Diego County where changes were made so they could do that?
Of course if you mention change on this blog you get the stack & pack mantra. Any change has to be bad. And to speak of change at all means the city is adopting a "let'er rip" mentality.
As an example, one minor change was made in the downtown area when the post office decided to close their facility on Second St. which was the original Encinitas post office but was only a satellite facility by then. Even as a satellite PO it still generated a fair amount of traffic. But the problem was the site was zoned public/semi-public. Who would ever think the post office would close one of their facilities (or a school ever closing)?
So here was a site surrounded by commercial businesses zoned for public use only. According to Prop A, they would have paid for a citywide vote. Luckily for them this was before Prop A and the city council rezoned the land commercial similiar to the surrounding lots. If you go by the property now there is a lot less activity then when it was a post office, especially when it was the main post office.
Some of you may say that they could have built a medical facility there or some other public type use but that would have severly limited their options. But hey, the property owners lived in San Diego so who cares about them.
The point is that over time things change and making limited adjustments to those changes makes sense. But if you automatically assume that any proposed change is in bad faith or more typically, corrupt, we aren't going to get anywhere. And I don't include unwanted densit bonus projects in this as they are a prescription from above by the state and are in no way sensitive to the city or its neighborhoods.
Two things: given the city's history, residents would be idiots to assume intentions are on the up-and-up. Thinking so is akin to approaching a dog that's bitten you repeatedly and expecting not to be bitten.
Second thing: your "prescription" is the city's way of getting out of creative problem-solving and instead handing out building permits.
Prop A didn't take away property rights; it restored property rights inherent in the General Plan. The Specific Plan that added to those rights, primarily for the building industry association's interests, was never voted upon by the people, as was misleading alluded to by turncoat council members in their unsuccessful opposition to the citizens' right to vote on upzoning or raising height limits.
The same property rights protected by the right to vote initiative were assured in the original General Plan. Too many loopholes were tacked on by pro-development council members.
The needs of the community, as a whole, to maintain our quality of life and small beach town and rural neighborhood character must be balanced with the right of a few to profit by land speculation, in a time of drought and scientifically verified global warming. Profit is the way of life, here, but the right to profit must be weighed against an individual's or a corporation's mandate to cause no harm.
Prop A protects the zoning and property rights of the residents. Our votes could not be bought, although anti Prop A interests dramatically outspent Prop A supporters. That was a true grassroots victory, which council, the city manager, the city attorney and the director of planning are working hard to undo.
No, the original General Plan was not voted upon by the public, and I didn't say or imply that. But the GP did and does provide that changes to it, such as the Specific Plans, should be voted upon, with specific exceptions, which loopholes were eliminated by Prop A.
My point was, Tony Kranz is infamous for publicly proclaiming, as were other Council opponents of Prop A, that the communities chose their specific plans. We didn't "choose" by a public vote. It was more about "stakeholders" deciding for the rest of us. Many were deceived by false promises, such as the one Fred spoke to. The N101 Specific Plan mandated that a three story structure could not be located immediately adjacent to a one story pre-existing structure. That didn't work out well for Fred.
Do you know that expression in carpentry? Measure twice, cut once. Well, for elections, take the measure of the candidate twice (or more); vote once.
The phrase "stack & pack" seems to be the mindless mantra here.
The Clairemont area in San Diego was built in the 1950's. This large development of primarily single story ranch homes was considered to be on the city's northern border. How dare the City of San Diego now try to make a few changes fifty years later especially as they are building the Mid-Coast Trolley line through there.
Please. Change happens everywhere. I'm not saying the initial plans proposed by the city are the best and that they shouldn't be modified. That's what the public outreach is for. But this blog is the home of NIMBY and "Scare Tactics-R-Us".
Be scared everyone, be very scared. Chant repeatedly, "Stack & Pack".
So does this pit you against Encinitas residents who may be renters but are registered voters or the owners of those rental units who may not be Encinitas residents?
The judge issued an order on the Desert Rose property. Nothing can be done until an EIR has been done. What Marco Gonzales wants for the owner is to grandfather in a clause that would allow them to start building immediately. If the council doesn't go along with his plan, he is going to file another law suit. I say, let it play out. Absolutely an EIR should be done on this property. All they have to do is comply with the judges ruling and play a good ball game.
Actually, it has nothing to do with the EIR per se. From Gonzales' comments it appears the owner is contemplating doing an EIR while waiting on the outcome of the appeal. The concern is whether the development will need to recalculate net acreage based on council's direction in July to round down all fractional net acreage calculations including density bonus. This only reinforced that all developments follow the existing ordinance. Desert Rose had a fractional result and would lose a unit or two if forced to follow the new rule.
The appeals court may overrule the trial court on the EIR requirement.
Higher - much higher density is coming to Leucadia and there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING you foul mouth renters can do about it. I know your sad because your going to be pushed out soon. That's ok, Escondido and Vista is waiting for you.
Over 90% if appeals fail. It's very unlikely that the Desert Rose developer will prevail. That's why he is contemplating doing an EIR, now. It would be less expensive than losing in the Court of Appeal, as he probably will, and then having to do an EIR, anyway.
Marco raises an interesting question about when the new policy is applicable. The Government Code he cited and put up on the screen seems to show it's from the date of application, for density bonus projects, not from when the permits are "vested." This is another instance where our local policy and ordinances are not in sync with state law. In some cases, localities can have stricter standards than state law, but with respect to affordable housing and density bonuses, the requirements cannot be stricter for a density bonus/affordable housing project. The state is trying to provide more affordable housing.
The City needs to initiate a real amnesty, and count accessory dwelling units already existing. Then our state mandates would not be so onerous. But City Manager Gus Vina and Planning Director Jeff Murphy are directing Council, not the other way around.
They would like more development for more development fees, more property taxes, more sales taxes. Their first concern is more money, not the traffic, failing infrastructure, inadequate water resources, higher fees for all residents, that comes along with increased density.
The City should count the true density it has now, and the actual rather than projected affordable housing.
3:29 is right. That is what is going to happen, off to Vista and Escondido, and Shaffer could care less that Encinitas residents will be forced out. She has a vision for a much different Encinitas than exists today. Never should have voted for her, or told other people to.
"foul mouth renters"?? Where is that coming from? Maybe you ought to switch to herbal tea. Good thing you know where the caps lock key is or we wouldn't get your point.
Not sure why renters wouldn't want more density as that would build more affordable units and help keep rents down. Maybe you think it's only renters living in the older, smaller units in Leucadia.
Upzoning to build "affordable units" is a major piece of the scam. The zoning change allows higher density buildings to be built. The units will be sold and rented at market rates. There is no control that they units will be priced for low income renters.
Funny you should think my affordable comment meant below market rate. It didn't but you automatically assumed it did. Even young, successful couples are being priced out of the market here in Encinitas. Many of us could not afford to live here if we had to buy our house today with 20% down. The monthly mortgage payment would kill us.
What rights of Hwy 101 property owners did Prop A take away?
Citywide, Prop A limits heights to 30 feet and requires upzoning to go to a vote of the people. Both provisions are good for the community, and it's easy to see why self-interested, greedy property owners are against them. When you care only about yourself, that's how you think.
As a property owner (not on 101) I think Prop. A is great. The citizens get to decide what they want, and not 5 people who are bought and paid for by the big monied interests in our community. That's why it is important to consider who you want to vote for come November. The City is already trying to do an end run around Prop. A, as evidenced by Mike Andreen's get together along with Kristin Gaspar being there. Something to think about when voting this time. Remember if you vote for Tony, Kristin is out, BUT there will be an empty seat on the Council. And, I would bet a lot of money that seat will go to Teresa, or Catherine if she doesn't win the Council seat. Choose wisely when you vote.
3:43- That makes sense. So are you saying we should vote for Crazy Cameron for Mayor? I know I'm voting for Graboi, but Cameron, not sure. Your argument has some merit. I don't want Kristin, and since we will lose a council seat, I can very easily see how, if Blakespear wins, Teresa will be asked to help out until 2016. It is odd that she is on a couple of long term subcommittees that the Council just formed, since she is not running again. Or is she, just unofficially?
Barth is bowing out of local politics. She's now in her swan song period. She will not be appointed to an empty council seat should one occur.
All things considered, the best candidates to vote for are Graboi and Cameron. That is unless you want the city to roll along has it has been for several years.
I like Sheila. She sometimes did act a little "crazy" the fist time around. But she acts pretty cool this time and i am voting for her and Graboi. After listening to Blakespear's appeal the other evening I am convinced she would be a horrible council person. There was only one thing that night and it had to do with zoning. Period! It had nothing to do with anything else, but like Gaspar, who rallied the troops when Shaffer wanted to revisit the Mayor idea, this was no different. Catherine and company rallied the troops and spent 4 hours on irrelevant stuff having nothing to do with zoning. It was a huge waste of time, especially when there were 2 other items on the agenda that were as important. If she doesn't know basic zoning laws, she has no business on the Council, even if she wants things to change. She has to change them by letting the voters vote. Was she supportive of Prop. A, or did she even know what it was?
Irrespective of CB's stand on Prop A, what was on the agenda were two appeals, and those are what the appellants and public speakers addressed.
What constitutes legal non-conforming was on the agenda, and that was addressed. Zoning is supposed to protect community character, not cater to a few complainants, involving code enforcement, when a use has been grandfathered.
Zoning does not trump common sense and basic property rights. Under the guise of zoning, some are trying to control and insist their property rights are more important than pre-existing property owners' rights to continue enjoying and sharing the bounty of their small farm.
It's the principle that counts, not the size of the farm.
WC, sorry to change the subject for a moment, but this afternoon at Orpheus Park there was a notice posted by EUSD for this coming monday sept 29th at 6pm to support the current school board members seeking reelection .
This community will have a chance to let them know in person at Orpheus Park just how you feel about their performance and whether they deserve and have earned our votes.
Come on down and let them know how much they are appreciated, one way or the other.
After personally witnessing their attitude toward their public at a couple of the meetings, it is about time to give them a dose of reality.
Please, anyone who can make the time try to show up. It is a shame we don't have more non incumbents besides Jen Hamler but it is a start and thank you Jen for stepping up. You are a shoe in and I hope we can choose to send the worst of the bunch packing.
Spread the word if it matters to you. Thanks for your consideration. Lets pack the park monday at 6pm.
I CAN'T HEAR YOU BECAUSE THE HAIRDRYER IS RUNNING, MY DOG IS BARKING, THE CITY CHAINSAW IS CUTTING DOWN ANOTHER TREE, AND I LIVE NEAR THE RAILROAD TRACKS.
What our council is failing miserably at is steering the "titanic" of Encinitas into an iceberg of development, traffic, and all the ills that will diminish quality of life. Tried to navigate Encinitas blvd any Friday afternoon? Or during concerts, woodyfest etc? We are on the edge of the iceberg council, don't make citizens get out life vests when you can choose to navigate better.
The council is pitted against each other and we have a "NO" party of two most of the time (Gaspar and Muir).
We have no real leader as a mayor. She just smiles, bows, and curtsies whenever she can. She thinks she is still in school and thinks she is impressing everyone by constantly writing things down at meetings. I find this to rude and ignoring speakers.
12:53- I agree. Not one Council person is a leader, despite the fact that a Jewish Foundation sent Kranz on a $5000.00 junket to Israel, saying he was a leader. If Kranz is a leader, we are screwed big time. I still would love to play poker with him. After the PV fiasco, it is apparent he needs to go. And, most certainly I would be embarrassed if he were the Mayor. All the new Mayor position does is give the person elected a $100.00 raise over what the COuncil gets, and goes to ribbon cuttings, etc. In other words that person represents our CIty. Given Kranz's issues with anger and drinking, I'm not sure he is the ideal candidate for that position. Actually I don't think any of them are ideal for representing our City, but we have to chose one.
Alex would be interesting, but certainly does not represent the majority of our citizens.
Kristin is articulate and does have a stage presence, but she has not been true to her word on many things. Remember her first campaign was about wayward horns and we have yet to see them. She was against Prop. A and represents developers. Again, I doubt if that represents the majority of OUR citizens in Encinitas.
Sheila, while an interesting choice, is iffy. She definitely knows the issues and is represents the views of a great many of our own citizens. However, again since the Mayor position is one of high profile, the question is, can she pull it off? Past experience tells me no, but I have been to enough things where she has spoken more recently that I think perhaps now she could do it. She has matured and mellowed in a good way. I really don't think she would sage the Council chambers again.
There are no other real contenders that I can think of. A write in vote for anyone is a waste of a vote in this election, as it is an off year. Comments anyone?
Gaspar couldn't make it as a broadcast journalist so she settled for answering phones in her husband's office. In short order, she became CFO of his company. Now that's worthy of news.
2:36, Thanks for thinking outside the box. All the candidates should have saved their money for a game of poker at your house instead of forums tailored to stage their catchy sound bites for the masses. The bad news is if you won you;d have to be mayor, but my money is on a strategic leader. Fair warning: Kranz is pretty good at cards.
12:56 That's for sure -- no qualifications for politics. You just have to smile and show your big teeth. Doesn't matter if there is no brain to go under the hair.
2:00, She has the brains, money and fictional heroin costume to win the election and she will. But she wouldn't even need those things with the other side diluting their votes this election like they are.
I just wanted to relate a story about this week's council session.
I happened to be sitting near Sheila Cameron for part of the night. I had to move because she could not shut up. Every 30 seconds, she had to make a comment in response to something that was said. Didn't matter who was speaking, council, staff, citizens. Apparently Sheila thought everyone within a coupe of rows of her had paid extra to hear her color commentary.
I am an undecided voter, and I honestly want to hear from the candidates to make an informed decision. But there is a proper time and place for that. I thought it was really uncool, distracting, and disrespectful.
5:06- I was at that meeting but not sitting next to Sheila so I didn't hear her commentary. This is something she needs to think about and it is a valid critique. I agree that it was all of the things you state. Did you happen to go to the Mayoral debate? If so, I wonder what you thought of her there? I am also still on the fence about which person to vote for as Mayor. I wish we could have codified the rotational system we once had before Stocks and Company screwed it up because of their dislike for Barth.
I have not been able to attend either of the debates. We have young kids, and my wife has been traveling for business. Would like to go to the last one, though.
I follow local politics pretty closely in the last couple if years, but was not following during her previous tenure.
I still have an open mind, but this was not a great first impression.
7:36- We are fortunate to have this blog to help people follow our own unique rantings and ravings about Encinitas. I understand it is very hard for so many people to attend the debates, or for that matter, actually attend a Council meeting. They are,at least, televised, but I don't think one actually gets the flavor of some of the Council meetings from t.v. The looks people give one another, the chuckles under the breath, etc. are not what the camera is watching. Hopefully there will come a time when your kids will be old enough so you can attend if you feel like it. Us old people are going to die off and we will need younger people to keep this city accountable to the people.
I'd be very happy to see Sheila up on the dais, comments from the peanut gallery or not. At least we'd have someone really working for us and not just paying lip service.
You must have missed the LTC candidate forum. Ms. Strictster announced that "debates are not permitted" after Tony clarified the miserable heroin / suicide incident to which Alex laid blame on the cops. The other times that night candidates spoke out of order went uncorrected.
Tony "clarified?" More like went into full bombastic mode. Those who may have doubted the anger issue stories saw a flash of it then. Anything he wanted to say was obscured by his aggressive body language and complete disregard for the moderator.
I saw no other out of turn instances other than Kranz's and Fidel's.
5:06 I was there the whole evening until 12:20am and was watching everyones behavior from further back. Yes, there were moments of incredulity that those in the audience visibly reacted to but as for audible comments from the peanut gallery I heard none.
Perhaps you should have been sitting on the left where those of your so inclined persuasion usually reside next to slimey Marco. It sounds like you were planted in the good guys section who want nothing but true representation by our elected council members.
Just why were you sitting there when you knew your kind always sits on the left? A spy in our midst perhaps orchestrated by slimey gus to offer an insiders corrupted attempt at besmirching the courage of those who have stepped up to curb the influenced behavior of our council members. ???
I know there were moments that we could not believe we were actually hearing coming out of their mouths but as for audible comments I heard none. Just what did you hear?
By the way, I never saw one audience member move from the right side to the left the whole evening unless it was at one of the time breaks. I am so sorry you had to be subjected to such inflammatory and rude [as you describe] behavior by an audience member.
I did not realize that city council meetings had all the complex and territorial seating dynamics of a middle school cafeteria. I must plead ignorance if I unknowingly sat in the Cameron commentary zone.
I came in a little late. The Little Leagers had already left the building, and were all gathered in the courtyard talking. When I entered, I could only see one chair open, so I took it.
As to your conspiracy theory, you can think what you want. I'm sure nothing I write on that subject would make much difference.
You unfortunately haven't learned to appreciate the seventh grade mindset here. Just look at the all the play on names here like "FAKEspear", "GASbag", etc.
Now you're sitting in the cool kids section. A guess the irony of demanding the council represent the citizens of Encinitas but not the ones who aren't with the cool kids escapes them.
Actually, I've been meaning to comment on that but there is just so much juvenile behavior here that it would be exhausting to point it all out. Yes, I know there is a long history of making fun out of people's names.
6:57 there is nothing high school about how one chooses to sit in either of the sections at our council meetings. What is apparent is that those who want to preserve community character tend to sit out of the camera range when public speakers are at their podium.
The others who are seeking a little camera time sit in the range for the tv broadcasts like catherine is doing almost every week whether she gets up and speaks or not. The intent is transparent.
Anyone is free to sit anywhere but if you surround yourself with those of which you disagree you should expect some incredulity to be expressed when statements are made that defy past actions.
There are times that most of us want to vocally call out bs but refrain from doing so and instead pass written notes back and forth so as not to disturb the proceedings. That is what I witnessed. I heard no vocal outbursts like you describe but did see these written notes being passed around.
If Sheila disturbed the proceedings for you and forced you to move across the aisle, we are all sorry that you were so offended. We all try to observe the decorum of the proceedings but there are moments that test our reserve.
We will try to be better and hope you can return and sit amongst us wherever you choose and not be subjected to any vocal outbursts like you described. Thank you for caring enough to attend and I sincerely hope you are not put off enough to discourage future participation at our city council meetings.
It AGAIN appears that Kranz, Shaffer and Barth have backed away on their word to support the residents. They could of easily voted for their previous position to memorialize the new density bonus and net acreage requirements - but they didn't and backed away like it was all new to them. The 3 are big smart growth (pack and stack) fans!
ReplyDeleteNot
DeleteI bet you won't see a link to this article opposing smart growth in either Barth's or Shaffer's newsletters. The two of them only include propaganda that supports their own opinions.
DeleteUm, yeah, you don't see a lot about OBama's initiatives on the Red State Blog. Generally, Politicians don't give a lot of air time to their opponents. Yeesh!
ReplyDeleteWe're getting kind of redundant on the blog.
-MGJ
KING AND QUEENS (KRANZ, SHAFFER, AND BARTH) OF THE HIGH DENSITY STACK AND PACK!
ReplyDeleteAs an owner of several properties In Leucadia I actually want the high-density because it will lead to higher property value and I want more money for property. What's wrong with that that's the American way.
ReplyDelete11:14 What you want is a government handout. What you want is for government to rewrite laws to benefit you, the community be dammed.
DeleteYou are certainly entitled to your opinions, it is the american way, but let's be truthful, you are not about earning wealth, you are about rewriting laws to benefit you- they have a word for that, Cronyism
12:03 PM
DeleteI guess you wouldn't want to live in Houston where they don't have those damn zoning laws infringing on people's right to do whatever they want with their property. Whether you think zoning is good or bad (I think it's good), it does protect your property from being impacted by changes to surrounding properties.
Zoning isn't perfect but it sounds like it's working for you, as long as nothing changes. So don't get all righteous about government handouts.
What 11:14 really wants is goats! He's goading them, and he got a few!! Nice job..........
Deleteheeheehee
- The Sculpin
12:30 what's your point? My post was
Delete1. I like the zoning encinitas now has
2. Everyone should keep theur current land rights
3. I opposed government rewriting laws to upzone select parcels to trample on the rights of others.
Simple
12:30,
DeletePeople buy property based on existing zoning (or lack thereof). If you buy a house in Houston, you buy it knowing somebody could put an apartment building next door.
People bought houses in Encinitas believing they could trust that the zoning of their neighborhood wouldn't be changed underneath their feet.
"12:30 what's your point? My post was
Delete1. I like the zoning encinitas now has
2. Everyone should keep theur current land rights
3. I opposed government rewriting laws to upzone select parcels to trample on the rights of others.
Simple"
Lets not forget, your beloved Prop A took away property rights of all who owned property along 101.
That's OK, though?
I'm glad the world never changes here in Encinitas. How many people who live in Encinitas, work and play in other parts of San Diego County where changes were made so they could do that?
DeleteOf course if you mention change on this blog you get the stack & pack mantra. Any change has to be bad. And to speak of change at all means the city is adopting a "let'er rip" mentality.
As an example, one minor change was made in the downtown area when the post office decided to close their facility on Second St. which was the original Encinitas post office but was only a satellite facility by then. Even as a satellite PO it still generated a fair amount of traffic. But the problem was the site was zoned public/semi-public. Who would ever think the post office would close one of their facilities (or a school ever closing)?
So here was a site surrounded by commercial businesses zoned for public use only. According to Prop A, they would have paid for a citywide vote. Luckily for them this was before Prop A and the city council rezoned the land commercial similiar to the surrounding lots. If you go by the property now there is a lot less activity then when it was a post office, especially when it was the main post office.
Some of you may say that they could have built a medical facility there or some other public type use but that would have severly limited their options. But hey, the property owners lived in San Diego so who cares about them.
The point is that over time things change and making limited adjustments to those changes makes sense. But if you automatically assume that any proposed change is in bad faith or more typically, corrupt, we aren't going to get anywhere. And I don't include unwanted densit bonus projects in this as they are a prescription from above by the state and are in no way sensitive to the city or its neighborhoods.
Two things: given the city's history, residents would be idiots to assume intentions are on the up-and-up. Thinking so is akin to approaching a dog that's bitten you repeatedly and expecting not to be bitten.
DeleteSecond thing: your "prescription" is the city's way of getting out of creative problem-solving and instead handing out building permits.
Prop A didn't take away property rights; it restored property rights inherent in the General Plan. The Specific Plan that added to those rights, primarily for the building industry association's interests, was never voted upon by the people, as was misleading alluded to by turncoat council members in their unsuccessful opposition to the citizens' right to vote on upzoning or raising height limits.
DeleteThe same property rights protected by the right to vote initiative were assured in the original General Plan. Too many loopholes were tacked on by pro-development council members.
The needs of the community, as a whole, to maintain our quality of life and small beach town and rural neighborhood character must be balanced with the right of a few to profit by land speculation, in a time of drought and scientifically verified global warming. Profit is the way of life, here, but the right to profit must be weighed against an individual's or a corporation's mandate to cause no harm.
Prop A protects the zoning and property rights of the residents. Our votes could not be bought, although anti Prop A interests dramatically outspent Prop A supporters. That was a true grassroots victory, which council, the city manager, the city attorney and the director of planning are working hard to undo.
Won't happen.
That General Plan you are referring to, adopted in 1989, was never voted on by the citizens of Encinitas either.
DeleteNo, the original General Plan was not voted upon by the public, and I didn't say or imply that. But the GP did and does provide that changes to it, such as the Specific Plans, should be voted upon, with specific exceptions, which loopholes were eliminated by Prop A.
DeleteMy point was, Tony Kranz is infamous for publicly proclaiming, as were other Council opponents of Prop A, that the communities chose their specific plans. We didn't "choose" by a public vote. It was more about "stakeholders" deciding for the rest of us. Many were deceived by false promises, such as the one Fred spoke to. The N101 Specific Plan mandated that a three story structure could not be located immediately adjacent to a one story pre-existing structure. That didn't work out well for Fred.
Do you know that expression in carpentry? Measure twice, cut once. Well, for elections, take the measure of the candidate twice (or more); vote once.
The phrase "stack & pack" seems to be the mindless mantra here.
ReplyDeleteThe Clairemont area in San Diego was built in the 1950's. This large development of primarily single story ranch homes was considered to be on the city's northern border. How dare the City of San Diego now try to make a few changes fifty years later especially as they are building the Mid-Coast Trolley line through there.
Please. Change happens everywhere. I'm not saying the initial plans proposed by the city are the best and that they shouldn't be modified. That's what the public outreach is for. But this blog is the home of NIMBY and "Scare Tactics-R-Us".
Be scared everyone, be very scared. Chant repeatedly, "Stack & Pack".
Now lets get back to Agenda 21.
I don't need handouts. I've done well in my own thank you. I'm actually an owner here vs the plethora of renters here.
ReplyDeleteSo does this pit you against Encinitas residents who may be renters but are registered voters or the owners of those rental units who may not be Encinitas residents?
DeleteIt's a mixed-up, crazy world.
1:28 - you are an arrogant douche. As "an owner" do you feel entitled to greater rights than should be given "the plethora" of renters?
ReplyDeleteThe judge issued an order on the Desert Rose property. Nothing can be done until an EIR has been done. What Marco Gonzales wants for the owner is to grandfather in a clause that would allow them to start building immediately. If the council doesn't go along with his plan, he is going to file another law suit. I say, let it play out. Absolutely an EIR should be done on this property. All they have to do is comply with the judges ruling and play a good ball game.
ReplyDeleteActually, it has nothing to do with the EIR per se. From Gonzales' comments it appears the owner is contemplating doing an EIR while waiting on the outcome of the appeal. The concern is whether the development will need to recalculate net acreage based on council's direction in July to round down all fractional net acreage calculations including density bonus. This only reinforced that all developments follow the existing ordinance. Desert Rose had a fractional result and would lose a unit or two if forced to follow the new rule.
DeleteThe appeals court may overrule the trial court on the EIR requirement.
Or the appellate court may overrule the lower judge. It happens all the time. That's why the appeals courts are there.
ReplyDeleteHigher - much higher density is coming to Leucadia and there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING you foul mouth renters can do about it. I know your sad because your going to be pushed out soon. That's ok, Escondido and Vista is waiting for you.
ReplyDeleteThe douche is back.
DeleteOver 90% if appeals fail. It's very unlikely that the Desert Rose developer will prevail. That's why he is contemplating doing an EIR, now. It would be less expensive than losing in the Court of Appeal, as he probably will, and then having to do an EIR, anyway.
DeleteMarco raises an interesting question about when the new policy is applicable. The Government Code he cited and put up on the screen seems to show it's from the date of application, for density bonus projects, not from when the permits are "vested." This is another instance where our local policy and ordinances are not in sync with state law. In some cases, localities can have stricter standards than state law, but with respect to affordable housing and density bonuses, the requirements cannot be stricter for a density bonus/affordable housing project. The state is trying to provide more affordable housing.
The City needs to initiate a real amnesty, and count accessory dwelling units already existing. Then our state mandates would not be so onerous. But City Manager Gus Vina and Planning Director Jeff Murphy are directing Council, not the other way around.
They would like more development for more development fees, more property taxes, more sales taxes. Their first concern is more money, not the traffic, failing infrastructure, inadequate water resources, higher fees for all residents, that comes along with increased density.
The City should count the true density it has now, and the actual rather than projected affordable housing.
3:29 is right. That is what is going to happen, off to Vista and Escondido, and Shaffer could care less that Encinitas residents will be forced out.
DeleteShe has a vision for a much different Encinitas than exists today.
Never should have voted for her, or told other people to.
3:29 PM
Delete"foul mouth renters"?? Where is that coming from? Maybe you ought to switch to herbal tea. Good thing you know where the caps lock key is or we wouldn't get your point.
Not sure why renters wouldn't want more density as that would build more affordable units and help keep rents down. Maybe you think it's only renters living in the older, smaller units in Leucadia.
Upzoning to build "affordable units" is a major piece of the scam.
DeleteThe zoning change allows higher density buildings to be built.
The units will be sold and rented at market rates. There is no control that they units will be priced for low income renters.
11:18 AM
DeleteFunny you should think my affordable comment meant below market rate. It didn't but you automatically assumed it did. Even young, successful couples are being priced out of the market here in Encinitas. Many of us could not afford to live here if we had to buy our house today with 20% down. The monthly mortgage payment would kill us.
Too bad.
DeleteTrailer Parks are also in the chopping block.
ReplyDeleteWhat rights of Hwy 101 property owners did Prop A take away?
ReplyDeleteCitywide, Prop A limits heights to 30 feet and requires upzoning to go to a vote of the people. Both provisions are good for the community, and it's easy to see why self-interested, greedy property owners are against them. When you care only about yourself, that's how you think.
As a property owner (not on 101) I think Prop. A is great. The citizens get to decide what they want, and not 5 people who are bought and paid for by the big monied interests in our community. That's why it is important to consider who you want to vote for come November. The City is already trying to do an end run around Prop. A, as evidenced by Mike Andreen's get together along with Kristin Gaspar being there. Something to think about when voting this time. Remember if you vote for Tony, Kristin is out, BUT there will be an empty seat on the Council. And, I would bet a lot of money that seat will go to Teresa, or Catherine if she doesn't win the Council seat. Choose wisely when you vote.
ReplyDelete3:43- That makes sense. So are you saying we should vote for Crazy Cameron for Mayor? I know I'm voting for Graboi, but Cameron, not sure. Your argument has some merit. I don't want Kristin, and since we will lose a council seat, I can very easily see how, if Blakespear wins, Teresa will be asked to help out until 2016. It is odd that she is on a couple of long term subcommittees that the Council just formed, since she is not running again. Or is she, just unofficially?
DeleteBarth is bowing out of local politics. She's now in her swan song period. She will not be appointed to an empty council seat should one occur.
DeleteAll things considered, the best candidates to vote for are Graboi and Cameron. That is unless you want the city to roll along has it has been for several years.
Your pet name for Sheila is both rude and tells you won't be voting for her; you're just hoping your grade-school teasing will catch on.
DeleteI like Sheila. She sometimes did act a little "crazy" the fist time around. But she acts pretty cool this time and i am voting for her and Graboi. After listening to Blakespear's appeal the other evening I am convinced she would be a horrible council person. There was only one thing that night and it had to do with zoning. Period! It had nothing to do with anything else, but like Gaspar, who rallied the troops when Shaffer wanted to revisit the Mayor idea, this was no different. Catherine and company rallied the troops and spent 4 hours on irrelevant stuff having nothing to do with zoning. It was a huge waste of time, especially when there were 2 other items on the agenda that were as important. If she doesn't know basic zoning laws, she has no business on the Council, even if she wants things to change. She has to change them by letting the voters vote. Was she supportive of Prop. A, or did she even know what it was?
DeleteIrrespective of CB's stand on Prop A, what was on the agenda were two appeals, and those are what the appellants and public speakers addressed.
DeleteWhat constitutes legal non-conforming was on the agenda, and that was addressed. Zoning is supposed to protect community character, not cater to a few complainants, involving code enforcement, when a use has been grandfathered.
Zoning does not trump common sense and basic property rights. Under the guise of zoning, some are trying to control and insist their property rights are more important than pre-existing property owners' rights to continue enjoying and sharing the bounty of their small farm.
It's the principle that counts, not the size of the farm.
Tell that to the Marr's 10;57.
DeleteWhy is a property owner considered greedy. You BASTARDOS
ReplyDelete7:11 Take a class in reading comprehension.
DeleteWC, sorry to change the subject for a moment, but this afternoon at Orpheus Park there was a notice posted by EUSD for this coming monday sept 29th at 6pm to support the current school board members seeking reelection .
ReplyDeleteThis community will have a chance to let them know in person at Orpheus Park just how you feel about their performance and whether they deserve and have earned our votes.
Come on down and let them know how much they are appreciated, one way or the other.
After personally witnessing their attitude toward their public at a couple of the meetings, it is about time to give them a dose of reality.
Please, anyone who can make the time try to show up. It is a shame we don't have more non incumbents besides Jen Hamler but it is a start and thank you Jen for stepping up. You are a shoe in and I hope we can choose to send the worst of the bunch packing.
Spread the word if it matters to you. Thanks for your consideration. Lets pack the park monday at 6pm.
WE NEED TO VOTE "ONLY" FOR JEN HAMLER FOR US TO MAKE ANY KIND OF CHANGE!!!! DON'T WASTE YOUR VOTE ON ANY OF THE OTHERS.
ReplyDeleteWHAT!?!?
DeleteI CAN'T HEAR YOU BECAUSE THE HAIRDRYER IS RUNNING, MY DOG IS BARKING, THE CITY CHAINSAW IS CUTTING DOWN ANOTHER TREE, AND I LIVE NEAR THE RAILROAD TRACKS.
What our council is failing miserably at is steering the "titanic" of Encinitas into an iceberg of development, traffic, and all the ills that will diminish quality of life. Tried to navigate Encinitas blvd any Friday afternoon? Or during concerts, woodyfest etc? We are on the edge of the iceberg council, don't make citizens get out life vests when you can choose to navigate better.
ReplyDeleteThe council is pitted against each other and we have a "NO" party of two most of the time (Gaspar and Muir).
ReplyDeleteWe have no real leader as a mayor. She just smiles, bows, and curtsies whenever she can. She thinks she is still in school and thinks she is impressing everyone by constantly writing things down at meetings. I find this to rude and ignoring speakers.
Failed leadership from top to bottom.
The party of No is Barth Shaffer Kranz
DeleteShould we have responsible sepnding? NO! say Barth Shaffer Kranz
Should we have honest government? NO! as Barth Shaffer Kranz look the other way at Vina's withholding financial information
Should we protect community charachter? NO! say Barth Shaffer Kranz as they lie on Prop A
Should we protect resident safety? NO! say Barth Shaffer Kranz as they vote against residents on at Desert Rose
You have gone to too many Franncine Busby MSNBC Huff Post meetings, the party of no in this town are all members of the council.
12:53- I agree. Not one Council person is a leader, despite the fact that a Jewish Foundation sent Kranz on a $5000.00 junket to Israel, saying he was a leader. If Kranz is a leader, we are screwed big time. I still would love to play poker with him. After the PV fiasco, it is apparent he needs to go. And, most certainly I would be embarrassed if he were the Mayor. All the new Mayor position does is give the person elected a $100.00 raise over what the COuncil gets, and goes to ribbon cuttings, etc. In other words that person represents our CIty. Given Kranz's issues with anger and drinking, I'm not sure he is the ideal candidate for that position. Actually I don't think any of them are ideal for representing our City, but we have to chose one.
ReplyDeleteAlex would be interesting, but certainly does not represent the majority of our citizens.
Kristin is articulate and does have a stage presence, but she has not been true to her word on many things. Remember her first campaign was about wayward horns and we have yet to see them. She was against Prop. A and represents developers. Again, I doubt if that represents the majority of OUR citizens in Encinitas.
Sheila, while an interesting choice, is iffy. She definitely knows the issues and is represents the views of a great many of our own citizens. However, again since the Mayor position is one of high profile, the question is, can she pull it off? Past experience tells me no, but I have been to enough things where she has spoken more recently that I think perhaps now she could do it. She has matured and mellowed in a good way. I really don't think she would sage the Council chambers again.
There are no other real contenders that I can think of. A write in vote for anyone is a waste of a vote in this election, as it is an off year. Comments anyone?
The wayward horn
DeleteIs a restless horn
A restless horn
That loves to wander
Oh I was born
The next of kin
The next of kin
To the wayward horn
Kristin was a broadcast journalism major. Her "presence" is worthy of a teleprompter and the nightly airhead news.
Gaspar couldn't make it as a broadcast journalist so she settled for answering phones in her husband's office. In short order, she became CFO of his company. Now that's worthy of news.
DeleteWell then, she's perfectly qualified for politics!
Delete2:36, Thanks for thinking outside the box. All the candidates should have saved their money for a game of poker at your house instead of forums tailored to stage their catchy sound bites for the masses. The bad news is if you won you;d have to be mayor, but my money is on a strategic leader. Fair warning: Kranz is pretty good at cards.
Delete12:56 That's for sure -- no qualifications for politics. You just have to smile and show your big teeth. Doesn't matter if there is no brain to go under the hair.
Delete2:00, She has the brains, money and fictional heroin costume to win the election and she will. But she wouldn't even need those things with the other side diluting their votes this election like they are.
DeleteHahaha you said "heroin." That explains a lot....
DeleteI just wanted to relate a story about this week's council session.
ReplyDeleteI happened to be sitting near Sheila Cameron for part of the night. I had to move because she could not shut up. Every 30 seconds, she had to make a comment in response to something that was said. Didn't matter who was speaking, council, staff, citizens. Apparently Sheila thought everyone within a coupe of rows of her had paid extra to hear her color commentary.
I am an undecided voter, and I honestly want to hear from the candidates to make an informed decision. But there is a proper time and place for that. I thought it was really uncool, distracting, and disrespectful.
5:06- I was at that meeting but not sitting next to Sheila so I didn't hear her commentary. This is something she needs to think about and it is a valid critique. I agree that it was all of the things you state. Did you happen to go to the Mayoral debate? If so, I wonder what you thought of her there? I am also still on the fence about which person to vote for as Mayor. I wish we could have codified the rotational system we once had before Stocks and Company screwed it up because of their dislike for Barth.
DeleteI have not been able to attend either of the debates. We have young kids, and my wife has been traveling for business. Would like to go to the last one, though.
DeleteI follow local politics pretty closely in the last couple if years, but was not following during her previous tenure.
I still have an open mind, but this was not a great first impression.
7:36- We are fortunate to have this blog to help people follow our own unique rantings and ravings about Encinitas. I understand it is very hard for so many people to attend the debates, or for that matter, actually attend a Council meeting. They are,at least, televised, but I don't think one actually gets the flavor of some of the Council meetings from t.v. The looks people give one another, the chuckles under the breath, etc. are not what the camera is watching. Hopefully there will come a time when your kids will be old enough so you can attend if you feel like it. Us old people are going to die off and we will need younger people to keep this city accountable to the people.
DeleteI'd be very happy to see Sheila up on the dais, comments from the peanut gallery or not. At least we'd have someone really working for us and not just paying lip service.
DeleteYou must have missed the LTC candidate forum. Ms. Strictster announced that "debates are not permitted" after Tony clarified the miserable heroin / suicide incident to which Alex laid blame on the cops. The other times that night candidates spoke out of order went uncorrected.
DeleteTony "clarified?" More like went into full bombastic mode. Those who may have doubted the anger issue stories saw a flash of it then. Anything he wanted to say was obscured by his aggressive body language and complete disregard for the moderator.
DeleteI saw no other out of turn instances other than Kranz's and Fidel's.
5:06 I was there the whole evening until 12:20am and was watching everyones behavior from further back. Yes, there were moments of incredulity that those in the audience visibly reacted to but as for audible comments from the peanut gallery I heard none.
ReplyDeletePerhaps you should have been sitting on the left where those of your so inclined persuasion usually reside next to slimey Marco. It sounds like you were planted in the good guys section who want nothing but true representation by our elected council members.
Just why were you sitting there when you knew your kind always sits on the left? A spy in our midst perhaps orchestrated by slimey gus to offer an insiders corrupted attempt at besmirching the courage of those who have stepped up to curb the influenced behavior of our council members. ???
I know there were moments that we could not believe we were actually hearing coming out of their mouths but as for audible comments I heard none. Just what did you hear?
By the way, I never saw one audience member move from the right side to the left the whole evening unless it was at one of the time breaks. I am so sorry you had to be subjected to such inflammatory and rude [as you describe] behavior by an audience member.
I thank you for your participation anyway.
9:58,
DeleteI did not realize that city council meetings had all the complex and territorial seating dynamics of a middle school cafeteria. I must plead ignorance if I unknowingly sat in the Cameron commentary zone.
I came in a little late. The Little Leagers had already left the building, and were all gathered in the courtyard talking. When I entered, I could only see one chair open, so I took it.
As to your conspiracy theory, you can think what you want. I'm sure nothing I write on that subject would make much difference.
You unfortunately haven't learned to appreciate the seventh grade mindset here. Just look at the all the play on names here like "FAKEspear", "GASbag", etc.
DeleteNow you're sitting in the cool kids section. A guess the irony of demanding the council represent the citizens of Encinitas but not the ones who aren't with the cool kids escapes them.
Strictly junior high.
"I guess" not "A guess" -- Sorry
Delete12:13 Where have you been? This is the first time "play names" have been used on this blog. Better catch up with your reading.
DeleteCorrection -- This "isn't the first time"
DeleteActually, I've been meaning to comment on that but there is just so much juvenile behavior here that it would be exhausting to point it all out. Yes, I know there is a long history of making fun out of people's names.
DeleteI think it is actually quite creative, i.e., FAKEspear. I especially like that one.
Delete6:44 PM
DeleteDo you attend Diegueno or Oak Crest?
6:57 there is nothing high school about how one chooses to sit in either of the sections at our council meetings. What is apparent is that those who want to preserve community character tend to sit out of the camera range when public speakers are at their podium.
ReplyDeleteThe others who are seeking a little camera time sit in the range for the tv broadcasts like catherine is doing almost every week whether she gets up and speaks or not. The intent is transparent.
Anyone is free to sit anywhere but if you surround yourself with those of which you disagree you should expect some incredulity to be expressed when statements are made that defy past actions.
There are times that most of us want to vocally call out bs but refrain from doing so and instead pass written notes back and forth so as not to disturb the proceedings. That is what I witnessed. I heard no vocal outbursts like you describe but did see these written notes being passed around.
If Sheila disturbed the proceedings for you and forced you to move across the aisle, we are all sorry that you were so offended. We all try to observe the decorum of the proceedings but there are moments that test our reserve.
We will try to be better and hope you can return and sit amongst us wherever you choose and not be subjected to any vocal outbursts like you described. Thank you for caring enough to attend and I sincerely hope you are not put off enough to discourage future participation at our city council meetings.
Thanks.
DeleteI'll be there.
I regret not following local politics heifer these past couple of years. We can't invest blind trust in five people to make all the decisions.
Before, not heifer.
DeleteGot something against heifers?
Delete