Now the Union-Tribune is on the case.
Some local urban planners and developers, always on the hunt for a new catchphrase, say they have largely failed to tell the public what’s ahead as San Diego enters an increasingly urbanized future.Maybe it's the product, not the marketing? If we wanted to live in the big city, we would have moved to the big city.
“It was instructive to me about how we are perhaps not communicating with the average person,” said Joe LaCava, one of the panelists at an Urban Land Institute breakfast Nov. 18, recalling the feeling after one explosive neighborhood meeting earlier this year.
The group toyed with the latest buzzword, “complete communities,” as a new way to communicate what they’re up to. The phrase is meant to entice the public to accept growth by offering a higher quality of life that’s free of congestion, full of housing they can afford and close to shopping, recreation and workplaces.
Previous slogans have apparently fallen flat: smart growth, city of villages, transit-oriented development.
Tony Kranz used the term "smart growth" last night at his meeting. He said he really likes the idea. He seemed unaware that the term has been discarded because it has taken on so many negative connotations. Changing the term doesn't change the idea -- it's still about densification. Yes, "complete communities" is the new term, which is silly because it implies that our present communities are incomplete. Something missing? Yes, more density. City staff has already started using it.
ReplyDeleteBTW, the audience at Tony's meeting were more hostile than friendly. One exchange got a bit heated. There were several pro-development people in the audience, but they didn't participate in the "conversation."
I never saw any hostility the whole time by Tony or any audience member. It was pretty much a softball evening considering many issues that could have been addressed. Then you might have seen some of what you described. Just because someone corrected Tony doesn't make it hostile. Thou doth protest too much about too little.
ReplyDeletePushing Peak's E-Town Hall as the solution to true pubic participation is shortsighted. We let that one slide last night.
The crowd was appreciative that Tony made this effort and were not in the mood to bring up other issues that we all know would be much more contentious. Must be the season having its forgiving effect for the night.
This was a good step and nice to not have Planning or vina around to muddy up the waters.
This community has an abundance of talented dedicated people that could run this town better than it is being run. The nonstop hiring of outside contractors to do the job of staff that are already being paid well enough and too much, in many positions, is infuriating.
Why are we such a magnet for these? Only vina seems to know their worth while the public keeps on paying and paying.
Wow you were not at the Tony meeting I witnessed last night. He talked over people, got quite aggressive with at least one individual, and dismissed resident concerns over poor process, traffic, and City staff issues.
DeleteHe claimed at the beginning of the meeting that he had no idea how "staff" came up with the upzoning map, then said later that GPAC input was used. Hm, which is it, Tony?
He used the party line scare ta tic of developer lawsuits should we not update pur housing element and cited a 26-year-old case as an example. When an audience member called out "And the City won that case," Tony mumbled "Yeah, I know.". So why then he tell only half the story?
Kudos to him for holding the meeting for sure. Raspberries for talking over people, saying endlessly "I'll have to look into that," but note making notes, and for his lies of omission.
That was the meeting I attended! Will copy this over to the right thread....
Sorry for typos...auto correct and multitasking are a bad combo...but you all should get the gist.
DeleteIt sounds like the kind of meeting that I expected it to be. If these council people are so damn clueless on everything, you have to ask yourself why they were elected. They certainly are ill informed and now have come up with the favorite saying of city staff, "I don't know know, but will check into it".
DeleteNow they are coming up with "complete communities" to bamboozle the public. I think the people here are smart enough to see through the "crap".
What we will get in the future is more "stack and pack" development, less affordable housing, more traffic congestion, and more taxes. Thank you city council for NOT doing your job.
11:05 AM:
DeleteDid you miss when Tony asked Kevin why he was shaking his head? Kevin started to answer, Tony interrupted him, and the exchange turned unfriendly. Kathleen Lees turned to Kevin and told him not to be rude. She should have said it to Tony too.
The audience, hardly a crowd, may have shown appreciation for Tony's effort, but Tony played the artful dodger. The audience had to push him to clarify and expand his answers. David Meyer was in the audience. He was responsible for the Nantucket project in Leucadia, where the subdivision was split into two projects of 8 houses each to avoid building any inclusionary housing. Both were Density Bonus projects, yet the two affordable units were never built when the projects went bankrupt. So much fjor contributing to the city's affordable housing inventory. Extra market rate houses were built, so Meyer walked away with a profit.
.
So are we talking about last night with Tony here or the over at the open thread created for it and Olivenhain, which has no entries?
Delete11:05- You are absolutely right. This community is full of educated, involved and talented people. The only thing the city government seems to acknowledge is the art community, which is awesome, but not everyone is an artist. Perhaps it is the safest thing to talk about? I have seen so many people speak at Council meetings, going to the trouble of a powerpoint presentation, and still the city doesn't pay attention or implement some of the "locals" suggestions. I really don't understand why they don't. They tell us to shop locally, so why don't they hire locally?
ReplyDeleteThe art community may be awesome, but reality is you can not make a good living at that profession. Every one has different tastes and look at art in a different perspective. Some of what I have seen done by so called "artists" is quite unattractive to my eye. I've seen my own children do better than some of the "talented" artists.
Delete1:06 Shaffer Kranz and Blakespear (along with Barth) all hoodwinked the arts community-
Deletewhy is PV on the city map for high density housing? Kranz knows this, as does Shaffer and Blakespear- liars one an all
The neigborhood around PV is not only about to get a hihg density housing project but they are also going to get a regional serving arts center that sticks it to local homeowners
wait for it
1:06- nails it. Many of the so called " artists" in this town are hacks. Awful crap laden fools that off load there nonsense on guilble citizens or public officials. The most obvious being The Kook. Recently the SDG &E utility boxes on 101 have been painted.....two of the worst can be found on 101 and Enc blvd and in front of Whole Foods. Simply AWFUL!! Doing something that's been done ten thousand times ( painting a wave and surfer/board and calling it original art is a lie. How about some originality?? Nope not in this town, and yet we pay the city art director $100+K per year for the same old same old. There is a reason they are called starving artists......we can't call them artists.
DeleteGreat, now you're ripping artists in the community. How bitter some of you seem. It seems you love living here except for all the people who live here. 8:43 AM, you sound like one unhappy person. Thanks for spreading your cheer.
DeleteMany who comment here are missing the fundamental fact. City Council and staff members are not clueless. They are pursuing their agenda. That agenda does not agree with the majority of citizens' agenda. So council and staff come up with a variety of ingenious ways to massage the information in an effort to manipulate the public into accepting the official agenda.
ReplyDeleteThat's what the whole game is about. Different councils and staffs have been playing it for years and will continue to do so. There are three ways to upset the process: ballot initiatives, lawsuits and massive organized citizens' protests. Voting in and hiring different people has been demonstrated not to change the agenda. Individuals or a few people talking till they're blue in the face has been demonstrated not to change the agenda.
So following the requirements of Prop A that any substantial change to the general plan requires a popular vote is upsetting the process?
DeleteUnless you were untruthful about the purpose of Prop A. Prop A as written was not about freezing the general plan (plus height restrictions) but to require any major change or upzoning to be put to a vote.
Or was your original purpose of Prop A to freeze the current general plan forever? Maybe that's why you see the HE 2016 vote as upsetting the process. Who's being truthful here?
1:52 You have made a nonsensical leap. Get your brain in gear, read what 1:34 posted, and clearly state your meaning.
DeleteProp A restored the General Plan to the rule that residents, not the Council, determine increases in zoning and height.
DeleteThe HEU presents 95+ parcel upzones not as a choice, but as an "or else" scenario. In addition, it will overhaul many of our housing and land use policy language, something the City is not talking about with residents. The changes that can be stuck in there in a "trust us, we're from the City" move could be just as damaging as the planned rampant upzoning. Will residents get to weigh in on changes to those policies, or just told to vote to approve the entire Update that will include those changes? Anyone familiar with the ERAC meetings knows that the developers in attendance, together with an enthusiastic Peder Norby "facilitating," will be familiar with the gutting of the community character and design standards sections of our Housing Element. It got so bad at one point that even Diane Langager said to Norby "if I pull that much description out of the paragraph, you will be left with a few words that don't even form a sentence.
Does what 2:37 posted have something to do with what 1:34 posted?
DeleteMakes no sense.
DeleteIf the city council and staff want to win a yes vote on a Housing Element that complies with state law, why would they bundle it with a bunch of unrelated and unpopular policy changes that attract no votes?
If anything, when you expect a significant opposition to a ballot measure, you think of popular sweeteners that can be added to attract yes votes.
I expect to see sweeteners added as the process moves forward. Maybe some type of temporary tax refund on the city's share of property taxes?
2:37 PM
DeleteYou're right. I scanned it too quickly and assumed that the 1:34 PM post was like others I've seen on this blog claiming that putting the HEU to a vote is contrary to the spirit of Prop A.
But the larger point is still valid. Other than language about height, calculating height and number of stories allowed, Prop A is about process (i.e. requiring a public vote) not about freezing the general plan in time, although I suspect that many of those who campaigned for and voted for it hoped to create such a large hindrance, that no changes to the general plan would be attempted.
So I'll let this stand by itself and not as a reply to 1:34 PM.
A project in the planning stage in Cardiff asking for a height variance over 30 feet case # 14-292 so much for Prop A.
Delete3:07 - it's not a case of asking "why would they bundle...a bunch of unrelated and unpopular policy changes that attract no votes, that IS what is happening. The strikeout version that Murphy refers to when pressed that the public may get to comment on early next year will supposedly show the before and after changes to policy. Those changes are part and parcel of the HEU, the same as the actual upzone parcel choices.
DeleteAnd I would not assume that those policy changes will attract no attention. If they're even half the gutting of community character and quality of life policies that the ERAC wanted to make to our General Plan, people will be plenty attracted, although outraged is the more correct word.
1:52: there was no "original purpose" in Prop A to "freeze the current general plan forever."
DeleteThe purpose was to restore the General Plan rule that required a vote of the people for upzoning.
The purpose was to stop the side deals that developers were making with City Hall. Sounds like you might have a problem with that?
3:51 PM
ReplyDeleteThere is no such thing as a variance over 30 feet. What is the height of the cutesy hotel now? Planning should have never accepted an application asking for a variance over 30 feet. Barth and the other council should have told Vina that Murphy and Ranu have to go. But nooooo, Barth and the others on council were so taken with Vina. Council, tell Vina to fire Murphy and Ranu. Get some planning director who knows how to follow the General Plan. Murphy and Ranu make up their own rules. If Vina doesn't do it immediately, get rid of Vina now.
It is for a proposed elevator shaft to make the top floor ADA compliant.They want a 10 seat bar and lounge area with music on the roof.No elevator no bar and so it goes.
ReplyDeleteAny chance it's near Barth's home? One can only hope.
DeleteIt's the Cardff Lodge at 142 Chesterfield, across the street from the complex where Barth lives. The case number is 14-292, if anyone wants to check the file. There is a roof patio, if over 30 feet, that is legal non-conforming. If the new elevator to the roof patio to make it ADA compliant goes over 30 feet, Prop. A should apply, as the height limitation applies to any structure. There will also be a need to obtain a liquor license.
DeleteI thought that the Coastal Commission would not let anything over 30 feet get passed without their oversight? Am I wrong. I know that Marion Ross got a 29'6" variance, as 26' is the max. height for a sloped residence in Encinitas. She decided not to tempt fate and got what she wanted. Not sure if the Coastal Commission would have approved it.
DeleteThe city has a Local Coastal Plan approved by the Coastal Commission. Unless someone appeals a Planning Commission or Council decision to. the Coastal Commission, the CC plays no role.
DeleteDriving through San Elijo Hills today, there were temporary signs erected that appear to be portable and used daily. The large signs blocking one end of a commercial parking lot said: "No School drop offs or pick ups". San Elijo Hills is Mayberry on steriods. It has its nice new feel with beautiful buildings and landscaping, but when it comes to parking problems due to too much density, they're just as backwards as Encinitas is. In the 1700's, Marie Antoinette said "Let them eat cake" and was thought to be insane. Today, our leaders have the same problem solving mentality: "Let them ride bikes". Arthur Brisbane
ReplyDeleteOh great, a roof top bar gets the view and the neighbors get screwed over. This seems to be no problem for Planning to accept. The unmitigated noise level is not a concern to Planning. [?Pacific Station? Bier Garden? Union Station? on and on.
ReplyDeleteNeighbors to this seem to have only one option. Where can we, the pubic, purchase decibel readers wholesale? There seems to be a need for these all over our community. How about the city providing these on loan so we can prove to Planning that what they are allowing is beyond sensical? Yea right, that will happen.
Why can't Planning do their own research before approving sound generators like this? They only listen to the opportunity to have another tax levied on any proposed business to support their overblown salaries and pensions.
There is so much that is farmed out to contractors that falls under the jurisdiction of Plannings responsibility, one has to wonder what they are actually doing down there. That our council reps allow this to continue unabated has to fall back on us voters for not caring enough to even vote for those who would have stood for the residents.
We have two years to see just who is on our side.
If this project is near Teresa Barth, maybe it is just deserts. When the housing bubble popped and construction was at a downturn, Barth pushed for the complete General Plan Update to "keep staff busy." They have been busy alright. After the disastrous GPU was rejected, they brought on new Planning staff, and all who messed it up before remain on staff. They have brought in a new round of consultants.
DeleteGus Vina keeps going to council and telling them that if only they give him money for this or that and let him hire MORE employees and consultants that he can do his job. He is prevented from doing his job by 28 obstructionists.
Wake up City Council!
If it wasn't for Bob Bonde and a handful of other community leaders alerting the public to the up-zoning of Cardiff in the Cardiff Specific Plan than Cardiff would be doomed and the hotel/lodge, seaside, vg and headline graphics buildings woul all be lot line to lot line with 3-5 stories and bars opening out on to the street-
DeleteCardiff residents stopped the plan- no thanks to Barth who was more concerned apparently with claiming harassment and crying poor me rather than lead the community
Barth should be thanking Bonde that the remodel will not be worse
Because an applicant asked for a variance on the 30-foot height limit doesn't mean they'll get it. Planning can't grant that variance. Like upzoning, anything over 30 feet requires a public vote.
ReplyDeleteThis will be interesting. In the past, planning could grant a variance. If neighbors didn't want it it could be appealed to the Council. That's what happened with the Marion Ross house. She won at the Council lever. This was before Prop. A. If planning gives them the variance, someone has to appeal to the Council against it. And, that is were the rubber will hit the road with regards to Prop A. The appeal process is now $250.00 if I am not mistaken. When my neighbors and I appealed the Ross decision it was $100.00. Not sure why it is more now.
Deletethat is simple. None. Vote them all out. Vina is still here.
ReplyDeleteVina is the root of all this BS going on. Extract the cancer, Fire Vina.
Might as well Launch the campaign to crush the Housing Element Ballot Measure in 2016. Staff totally f9087cked this thing up on every occasion from the start. Where the F98ck is the communication director? This thing is a train wreck with no transparency.
ReplyDelete1. How was the map with the Blue Dots Developed? What was the criteria for identifying which lots were shown in Blue?
2. What purpose does this really serve beside devaluing existing properties for developer profits at the expense of existing residents quality of life?
Vote NO in 2016 on the housing element and vote no for any politician supporting it!
THANK YOU!
Delete9:19 PM
ReplyDeleteA variance is the building height going from 26 feet in the municipal code up to 30 feet max in the general plan. Read the requirements for a variance in the municipal code. There is no variance after 30 feet - it requires an election. Would you vote to increase the hotel height for a bar and outdoor entertainment?
9:50 Thank you for repeating what 9:19 posted. Read much?
DeleteDoes the Wine Steals building have an elevator? Does the Cardiff Town Center have an elevator?
ReplyDeleteWines Steals has an elevator. It has underground parking.
DeleteVariances are seldom approved.
ReplyDeleteBelieve it or not CHANGE is coming .What do they say get on the BUS or get run over by the BUS .Your choice.
ReplyDeleteI am tired of developers and councilwomen like Shaffer and Barth making statements about change. They imply that if we don't accept their personal vision for what they want our neighborhoods and communities be become, that we are wrong.
DeleteThis sounds a lot like Manifest Destiny, the idea of overlaying mainstream American culture from shore to shore at a time that it was already inhabited by people. Shaffer is no Teddy Roosevelt and Barth is no JFK. They are disrespectful and dismissive of the residents who already call Encinitas home and want any grown to be thoughtful and sensitive so as to maintain what we all love.
Barth = John L O'Sullivan and Shaffer = George Armstrong Custer?
DeleteWe already have the buses bringing the drinkers here. Thanks, but I don't want to be part of that bus trip.
Delete4:03. I hope when the change comes, it takes you two hours to travel 10 miles. Wave when you are stuck in the traffic so we know it's you.
Manifest Destiny was realized after 1846 when James K. Polk was president and provoked war with Mexico. The US invaded Mexico through what was then the Republic of Texas. The US took New Mexico and Alta California from Mexico. That region comprised almost everything south of the Louisiana Purchase. It's now the entire American Southwest. After the treaty that ended the war, the US paid Mexico $15 million. That's about $455 million in today's dollars. Teddy Roosevelt had nothing to do with it. He wasn't even born yet.
DeleteTroll 12:10, Manifest Destiny was a driving philosophy for most of the 19th Century when the phrase was coined, but it was based on a history of expansion into areas inhabited by Native Americans starting in colonial times. Your Wikipedia definition of when the phrase was coined is not how it was "realized" since it was a process that took place over hundreds of years. Within a few years after the first Thanksgiving, colonists were engaged in the most significant Indian war in American history based mostly on turf issues.
DeleteMy point is that like areas where people (Native Americans) were already residing, this council continues to tell us that "change is good," and that those who object to high density "are afraid of change." We don't want to have our city denser to benefit developers and city tax coffers at the expense of our own communities, neighborhoods, and property values. There are absolutely no standards of performance on their side since they only have to say, "this doesn't pencil out, give us more," and our council will accommodate. Who is sticking up for taxpayers?
Lisa Shaffer has nothing to do with TR because she did not understand the context of his famous critic quote. He was standing up to Gilded Age critics who thought that he was a traitor to his OWN class. He wanted to PROTECT workers, public health and natural resources. Lisa Shaffer was a traitor to the Prop A supporters who worked to get her and Kranz elected because she misrepresented her positions. When Roosevelt was talking about critics he was fighting to curb abuses of the upper class and create responsible government agencies. Shaffer is fighting to enable developers and lower performance for Encinitas city employees in a plan that guarantees no housing for actual low-income people.
Barth's JFK quote missed the mark since increased density is not really the kind of change that he was speaking about. He inspired standards of excellence and aspirational goals like going to the moon and not community degradation to enhance the bottom line of developers.
Isn't Encinitas a little denser now than when its original inhabitants were the only ones here? Too bad they didn't have a blog like this when that happened. Or even when the original settlers came here and set up shops and farms. And talk about density, look how development leapfrogged with the development of Village Park. Good thing nothing changes here in Encinitas.
DeleteGood think that we have Prop A so that CITIZENS--not council members, the Planning Department and developers get to decide how the city changes!!
Delete12:10 is not a troll, and 7:57 doesn't know what he/she is talking about regarding manifest destiny. The concept of an Atlantic to Pacific US did not start at Plymouth Rock.
DeleteIts first manifestation was in 1803 when Thomas Jefferson made the Louisiana Purchase. The US bought all that land from Napoleon because France needed the money. Almost the entire region south and west of the Louisiana Purchase was then Spanish territory. Soon after, with Mexico's independence, it became Mexican territory.
Before John O'Sullivan coined the term "manifest destiny" in 1845, the concept was called Western expansion. It was a hot political issue. There were probably as many people against it as for it.
President James K. Polk, Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton and others in government were strong advocates of Western expansion before it became known as manifest destiny.
Those and other very influential politicians and business people were largely responsible for the US becoming the Atlantic to Pacific nation it is.
It came about as it did because Polk ordered the invasion of Mexico in 1846 and soon after sent Brigadier General Stephen Watts Kearny to seize what became US New Mexico Territory and California (both much larger geographically than the states of those names today) from Mexico. Part of Benton's role was for his son-in-law, John C. Fremont, to effect what Benton wanted.
Post whatever you want about TR and Shaffer, and Barth and JFK, but don't embarrass yourself any further by provoking a debate with a professional historian.
Professional historians get information from other sources than the Internet!
DeleteThere are a number of online historical articles that suggest that the phenomenon of manifest destiny, particularly with its religious implications, actually DID start in colonial times Anon 12:10!
DeleteSome in Encinitas treat development as their religion!
First, it's just plain silly to draw a comparison between development in Encinitas and manifest destiny, whether or not that comparison draws Shaffer, Barth, Teddy Roosevelt and JFK into it. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.
DeleteSecond, the first settlers who came to what became the US from England had no intention of expanding to the Pacific. They had their heads and hands full simply surviving near the Atlantic.
Third, what the professional historian wrote above came entirely from her memory. She has read dozens of historians on the subject and doesn't have to rely on Web sources. If you know which are valid, however, Web sources are fine.
This is a blog to share ideas. How many here trust the council and the Planning Department to decide what kind of change we want in Encinitas? I think that we can look at the Pacific View property as an example of how well they have handled land acquisition and change.
DeleteManifest destiny has similarities to the type of misleading and poorly executed processes that have come from our Planning Department in that they are geopolitical in nature. I agree that Shaffer quoting TR and Barth quoting JFK after buying Pacific View was a silly thing for both of them to do and an example that change may not always be prudent or for the better.
I am going to trust citizens and Prop A to decide how the Housing Element Update will go. The City can't even handle the Pacific View purchase.
Citizens--not developers, council, or the Planning Department should be in charge of the way our city develops.
Manifest destiny came about in the middle of the 19th century! It was a national endeavor. Without it, California and the entire American Southwest would still belong to Mexico. That's not to say manifest destiny was justifiable behavior, but it happened more than 150 years ago. It's a done deal.
DeleteThere is no comparing manifest destiny with the Encinitas City Council and staff's actions. That's incredibly silly as a proposition. It's worse than apples and oranges. It's elephants and gnats. Yes, they're both animals, but . . .
Now come back and compare our local council and staff to the Spanish Inquisition. That would be equally apt.
Manifest Destiny dealt with a geographical area--a large one. Encinitas is a small city, but it is a geographical area as well. Developers, planners and council members all say that change is coming, yet they won't let the people who already live here and who pay them have a say. In that way, it is like manifest destiny. If you can't see the similarity that is your right.
DeleteHow do you classify what is happening in Encinitas? Do you support the quality of work that we have seen from the Planning Department? Instead of saying it is wrong, share why you support this and tell us what we have gotten for the millions of dollars spent on this ongoing process?
6:46 By your deeply flawed logic, because I built a garage alongside my house on my geographical area in Encinitas, I engaged in manifest destiny.
DeleteNo, I don't support the self-serving lugheads in the planning department, nor do I support much of what the past few councils have done.
Great! We have found areas of agreement!
DeleteYes you do sound tired
ReplyDelete"City of Villages" sounds like a contradiction. I didn't move to Encinitas for the "urban vibe". Woke up to a coyote barking loudly outside my window at 4:30 am this morning. What about the impact on our wildlife, they are losing so much habitat so fast.
ReplyDeleteFascinating that Enc has so many evolutionists yet they worry that a skunk won't be able to adapt.
DeletePS- 40% of all water from NorCal is being dumped into the ocean to save a 2" fish. I say to the fish, adapt.
That 2" fish many be an important link in the web of life the way that bees are important to the existence of other living things.
Delete8:25 And you would be yet another unbelievably ignorant yahoo posting on this blog.
DeleteDuring ERAC, one developer spoke about his vision of the Cardiff Strawberry fields covered with 5 story apartments. Another said that he wanted to have 10 stories on his McDonald's franchise. Other developers have talked about the model of Hong Kong with skyscrapers next to the water for Encinitas.
ReplyDeleteIs this really the destiny that Encinitas home owners want for our city?
Plannings single answer is three story apartment buildings everywhere. This is what our taxes are being used for and wasted on? This community clearly told them what is not acceptable and yet look at what they proposed.
ReplyDeleteThere is no community representation in Planning that we have seen as of yet. This rests clearly on our councils shoulders to point them in another direction and they have not. It is councils duty to stand for the residents. It is with the slightest of hopes that we will see a change of strategy that does not compromise the strides we have gained by having the power to vote no on limiting density and building heights.
The responsibility for the latest attempts to satisfy SANDAGSs false projections call for council to say bs and tell SANDAG where they can stick their lies. [where the sun doesn't shine].
Besides dumping our miserable cm and ca, they can add SANDAG and Peak Democracy and E-Town Hall and Tyler Inc, to that growing list and not to leave out Plannings head honchos who persist in defying the will of this community.
January will be telling of what we can expect for the next two years. Have any of them learned a thing? Please prove you are going to finally listen to us and stop following this proven loser before this city falls in line behind Stockton and Sacramento.
I'm anxiously awaiting you circulating a referendum on Encinitas succeeding from California. That way we can make up our own laws.
DeleteAnybody who made it to sixth grade knows you mean "seceding."
Delete11:02pm We all hope to succeed and that is a good thing. Secede on the other hand, not so much. Seceding from SANDAG, hmmmmmmmmmmm. Now that's a thought that should bring plenty of responses from the peanut gallery out there.
ReplyDeleteHow's "Manifest Density" for a new catch phrase?
ReplyDeleteAwesome. Would you like to select a moniker so we can credit you when we use it?
DeleteSince everyone has been bitching here about the housing element and affordable housing requirements, I wonder how many state legislators were defeated this last election? That would not include those who have been termed out. I ask because it's their legislation that's causing all the belly aching. I've seen numerous posts bemoaning the lack of the city council marching up to Sacramento and demanding changes but as far as the ballot box, I haven't seen any penalty. I know Rocky got reelected and a few others in the San Diego area but I have no general sense one way or the other.
ReplyDeleteSo other than bitching, why hasn't there been an effort here to target the legislators? But hey, we've got "Manifest Density" for a new catch phrase. Now we're styling. Oh yeah, and fire Vina. Can't forget that.
Something like 3 Assembly members and 0 State Senators were defeated... which is a modern-day record.
DeleteDistricts are gerrymandered and most of the voters blindly vote on party affiliation, not policy records.
Neutral redistricting in California pretty much eliminated radical gerrymandering about two years ago.
Delete... or not.
DeleteFor example?
DeleteResult for us:
DeleteWe were CA 50, where Randy Duke and Bilbray were our reps for about 20 years. We became CA 49, where Issa is our rep and will be for as long as he wants because the redrawn district is heavily Republican.
If the Dems corrupted the redistricting process, Encinitans didn't benefit.
Yes, that's exactly how partisan gerrymandering works. You put your own side into 55-45 districts, enough so that the seat is safe but you're not wasting too many votes. Then you put the other side into 60-40 or even 70-30 districts, so they win automatically but get fewer seats.
DeleteWe're in one of the 60-40 districts the Democrats gave Republicans.
State senate and assembly members' districts are much bigger than Encinitas. We are in the unfortunate circumstance of being in districts that vote Republican by big majorities.
ReplyDeleteThat situation is much worse for us in the 49th federal congressional district that has overwhelmingly voted for Issa. Before redistricting and getting Issa, we had Randy Duke for eight terms and Bilbray for at least two.
Those facts should tell 1:03 a lot about affecting state and federal legislation with a hometown Encinitas point of view.
While I'm sure there is more to it than just 2 people but Proposition 13 was spearheaded by Howard Jarvis and Paul Gann, so I don't give much weight to your district size argument. Besides, you want to try to make it a statewide issue not just one district.
Delete1:03 & 3:42
DeleteIf you're the same person, you mentioned Rocky and legislators, which puts your suggestion in state senate and assembly districts.
The statewide office that determines the fate of legislation is governor.
If you want to spearhead a statewide ballot initiative like Prop 13, good for you. That was in 1978, 44 years ago. Got something as significant but a bit more recent?
4:49 PM
DeleteMy point is basically most everyone here bitches about things but I see very little action. Sure people might write emails, sign online petitions and occasionally show up at a council meeting but it's mostly bitching and making fun of council members. The only plan of action here is fire Vina and Sabine for just about everything.
While Julie Groboi may not have been a good candidate, at least she ran. You don't have to run for council to be doing something. My Prop 13 example was to show that it doesn't have to be a large group to have an impact. Prop A started with a small group and built on that. Either you tap into others feeling aggrieved or you find out that you're on your own.
The governor has the ultimate yea or nay power but as far as I can tell, the housing element requirements support lies in the legislature. The legislation to temporarily designate Marin County suburban for RHNA purposes started out last year as more broader legislation and went exactly nowhere. Died in committee.
Yes, Mr. Sagacity, the legislature, which is composed of the assembly and the senate. That brings us back to districts. Our assemblyman is Rocky Chavez, our senator is Pat Bates, both Republicans.
DeleteNext time you post, include a list of your accomplishments as a community activist. What action have you taken?