A raspberry — the Say It Ain’t So award — to both the Magdalena Ecke Family YMCA and the city of Encinitas for quietly poisoning the future of the coastal community’s ancestral baseball fields.One gets the distinct impression that Jenkins is beginning to perceive City Manager Gus Vina as Encinitas council watchers long have: that he manipulates the befuddled council by limiting and distorting (or in this case, glossing over) the information they receive.
The YMCA and the city appear to be playing mutual moneyball. Now it’s time for youth baseball boosters to play hardball.
In negotiating what was assumed to be a pro forma 10-year extension of a 25-year lease agreement on fields used by Encinitas Little League for more than a half-century, the city bent over, selling out the League and, to compound the damage, not sending up a red flag to say they’d done so. (City Council members appear to have been snoozing as they rubber-stamped the contract.)
Vina has, yet again, quite publicly embarrassed the council and poorly served the public. Will the council show any backbone in his performance review next month?
UPDATE: It's much worse! The city had the option to renew for 10 years without a termination clause and gave it away without public discussion!
I said before the hidden agenda is to force to use of the Hall Park. Jenkins thinks the idea of lights there is remote, but if the Ecke fields are abandoned, then it's the perfect excuse for 90 ft. lights. See how this works? I wonder who the contractors are who are waiting in the wings...pals of Vina perhaps?
ReplyDeleteThat's how it works in this city council power void....
DeleteRegardless of what happens at the Y, the Hall Park is woefully underutilized without lights. Lights don't seem to bother the residents at the park on Lake, so it should be no different at Hall.
ReplyDelete- The Sculpin
Move next to the Hall and talk about how much you want the lights, Sculp. Yep, didn't think so. Thank heaven for Prop A. Again.
DeleteI lived by the Lake park for quite some time and the lights never bothered me. But then I was a frequent user of the park.I seriously doubt the Hall lights would bother me if I lived next to Hall, but again, I would be a frequent user so I would appreciate them.
Delete- The Sculpin
You would be in the minority.
DeletePutting 90ft light standards up into the marine layer near the coast will turn the cloud into a giant glowing light bulb.
DeleteLights do bother residents near Cardiff Sports Park I and the Academy. These are the only sports lighted fields in the city. The sports field lighting proposed at Hall Park was half the output of the Rose Bowl, light spillage equal to 80 full moons, probably strobe light on top of the 90 foot lights and a whole hillside of homes who will have their ocean and sunset view blocked by light and poles.
ReplyDeleteMaybe if there were 90 foot lights at Leo Mullens fields, it would help. Cardiff seems to have all the light field in the city.
Yes, it would help if Leo Mullen had lights, but regardless it's too small a field to make a difference. But here's an idea - rooftop fields! In many urban areas there are sports fields on top of industrial and retail space roofs. How many fields could we get on top of the Target to Pier 1 roof? with lights? maybe the next time Encinitas entertains a retail development they could ask for rooftop fields?
Delete- The Sculpin
The YMCA fields, Paul Ecke Sports Park, are lighted. Three fields, two multi-use fields and one baseball-only field.
Delete9:15am, "probably strobe lights", really? Why not strobes on any of the other lighted fields (YMCA, Cardiff Sports Park). SDA is a 3-iron away from the ECP and it doesn't have "strobe lights". The ECP will be the only freeway adjacent park not to have lights in all of San Diego County (and probably further, but I stopped looking after Pendleton).
DeleteCouncil or staff reading contracts -- why start now?.
ReplyDeleteThey never read those from the two bond legal advisers, which included the words, "Because payment is contingent, advisers may not have an incentive to recommend non issuance of bonds" Direct financing between city and EUSC could have saved millions in third party costs, with the exact same benefit for both parities.
And they never read the contract, and I doubt that Vina or staff did, with Peak Democracy, as I had compared the meeting that adopted it with the words of the contract. What it did say is that the city must promote the PD Company using its own emails and public outreach. The local papers and UT are simply printing the press releases, as the city agreed to provide. Objections such as mine are refuted falsely, as when Jeff Murphy replied on the Encinitas Advocate that PD can identify users by their computer IP address. He was quoting the PD salesman rather than facts. This was not an aberration as the city has become the mouthpiece for this company - what isn't misrepresented is simply dumbed down for their social media target market. .
PD did change their program to allow bypassing users signing up with their company, but then your views will be sent to your email for you to print out and get to city hall. It turns out the very best locatin for high density development to meet the State requirements is the Pacific View site. It will require new zoning anyhow to have even a semblance of an Arts Center, and could be a special zone that would provide some amenities as a requirement. It will not be affordable housing, but the equating of high density with low price is an obvious myth, one sold to the state by developers who really could care less about the unwashed masses.
Much of what goes on here (EU website and council) is the inside of inside baseball, with a handful of people knowing the main actors and their motivations,whether real or not. The outer boroughs have finally provided input to the PV purchase by their votes for it's champion Tony Kranz, yet his rushing completion of the sale with no feedback from voters at large goes un-punished. He would have disrupted the city by another election if he had won, and now, no consequences for his signature activity of fast tracking PV being repudiated by the city voters.
We do need a public forum on housing policy along with other issues,but on a regular basis paid for by the city. The three minute oral presentation, with no followup is not a way to have a productive discourse on complex issues. It's designed to discourage those who consider participation, and ensure burnout for those who make the attempt.
9:28 AM
Delete"It turns out the very best locati[o]n for high density development to meet the State requirements is the Pacific View site"
Did you just pull that out of your butt? If this is any indication of your analytical capabilities, and I think it is, why should anyone listen to you?
I agree. PV is close to downtown, Moonlight beach infrastructure including $3,000,000 dollar marine center/ emergency center/ life guard scamming location, transit, and train station, library, perfect for super high density. Al has it right
DeleteBottom slime feeder, lets see how you would like 90' light towers blasting your home, destroying any vision of night skies before you support having them in any other neighborhood. Your reputation in our community with your [un]valuable postings is secure, as always.
ReplyDeleteWhere would we be without your contributions to the public discourse? Our neighbors concerns next to the Regional Sports Complex, lets call it for what it is, have been ignored.
This is not a community park in any sense of the word and the proposed light towers are an abomination at that location. Then again, so was the burying of the toxic dirt that will inevitably percolate to the surface to some degree instead of trucking it off site where it could be contained and treated by microorganisms that can safely break down all that toxicity that was left behind for our kids and pets to play on.
We deserve better and you should be demanding it too, bottom feeder. Someday, someday, may you awaken from your limited vision and become a part of the solution instead of the problem. We have had enough of your type of mentality of enabling much too long.
Just as we hope our elected representatives will someday stand for the residents, we hope you will join us at a future date to do the same. That would be refreshing if the concept could penetrate your thick headedness.
9:44am, have you even driven by the Y at night? The lights don't "blast your home".
DeleteThe "we" you speak of is a vocal, whiny, minority. And Sculpin is a reasoned practical voice on this blog.
9:44 AM
Delete"Bottom slime feeder". Great technique in the art of persuasion and public discourse. Keeping it classy.
I live in Cardiff and I beg to differ with Sculpin. Before the park was even finished the city ran up a 90 light to see how it would affect the dark skies in the Cardiff area near the park. The infrastructure for the lights had already been put in the ground so they could do it when not many citizens were watching. Bottom line-dark skies were greatly impacted. I'm pretty sure the documentation for this particular test in buried in the mounds of paperwork at City Hall if someone wants to a CPRA request. I've already spent over 100.00 this year on CPRA requests so I'll let someone else do it.
Delete10:37 AM
DeleteWith all due respect, to add the infrastructure for lights during the initial construction is prudent, as the cost difference is minor especially compared to installing it after construction is complete. Since the city has to get a minor use permit to actually install the lights, I don't see how they can sneak them in. Your paranoia is getting the best of you.
10:53 Yes, paranoia is the correct word for the comments of 10:37
DeleteIt is common to run conduit or other infrastructure for future things like lighting. I heard it is also run at Leo Mullen (but not 100% sure on that).
DeleteThe City needs a lot more than a minor use permit to install above 30'. It needs a Prop A vote of approval.
DeleteI was on the Parks and Rec. Commission for 5 years, so I can tell you I am not paranoid about this. The test was done before Prop. A so yes, it could be challenged. The lighting would also be a problem for the freeway if the lights were directed away from homes. Believe me or not, I don't really care.
DeleteAnd, I only said 1 light was put up, not all of them.
DeleteInstallation of lights on the Hall property needs a major use permit, but also an amendment to the Local Coastal Plan. This means the Coastal Commission must approve it. That could prove very difficult.
DeleteCity Manager Gus Vina has already said that field use fees will be raised to pay for the nearly one million dollar annual maintenance cost for the park.
"so they could do it when not many citizens were watching"
Deletethat was the paranoid part of your otherwise reasoned and informative post
yes, field use fees are likely to be raised
Deletebut "nearly one million dollar annual maintenance cost" is yet to be determined and should be challenged whenever posted
it costs $123K to maintain the three Paul Ecke Sports Fields. even if you triple that amount, you are nowhere near $1mil
there are lights on all of the several sports parks/fields going up and down the 5. there would be no problem for the freeway from lighted fields at ECP.
DeleteGeniuses; because the park land had shovels turning earth: plenty of photos of that, right Teresa? That action suffices as having fulfilled the Avo criteria adopted after Prop A passed and that means the lights can go on-in without a hearing, a vote, nada: it's okay for the children of Cardiff to play on lighted fields everywhere else in North County, but because the Cardiffians are better than the rest of it, the park should be dark forever.
Delete$1 million is about right. Its a huge park with increased staffing on the way. Oh f(*ing joy!
DeleteGreat job Muir, Gaspar, $tock$, Gallaliar, and all you other losers that gave us the huge pension liabilities and huge sports park O and M costs to match.
Five years ago the city estimated Hall property park maintenance at $0.5 to $1 million per year. Prices haven't gone down. The park is 44 acres. There are plans to have a "ranger" living in a trailer on site and no plans to close the park at night. Security doesn't come cheap.
DeleteOK. What soccer player needs a 90ft lights to see high balls? Illuminate the lovely grass. (And turn the sprinklers off for a few days till well after our mega storm passes, N K?)
Delete9:52
ReplyDeleteThere is a helicopter landing site directly across the street from the park at the hospital, (short chip shot). And there are no established ocean views that are blocked at the Ecke Sports Fields. And the city wanted to put in massive stadium lights equal to half the lights of the Rose Bowl.
11:24 - Maybe that's what the city wanted to do, but, as Dr. Lorri points out, the infrastructure is in, and as 10:53 points out, the city will need a minor use permit, so it follows that there is room for compromise. There will be lights, as there should be, but it's doubtful they'll fill the Rose Bowl.
Delete- The Sculpin
Got it.
DeleteBut also understand the hyperbole: "half the lights of the Rose Bowl". Really? The lights would be pointing downward, not outward from a stadium structure. It would be more accurate to compare the lighting to Cardiff Sports Park or the Y.
The established ocean views (of homes across the freeway).
The bottom line is there will be fewer sports fields if the Y expands into Paul Ecke Sports Park.
Save Paul Ecke SP!
I'm 11:40am and was responding to 11:24am.
DeleteNo, Sculpin, it is not a given that there will be lights. An environmental impact report will need to be performed, and then (of course), there will be lawyers.
If they want to have lights by the time the Y makes their next move (the article estimated 2 years), then they better start now..
The information concerning half the output of the Rose Bowl is what the light manufacturer stated at the meeting to change the general plan, not hyperbole, it was what the Musco Lighting rep stated. Not "..they will fill the Rosé Bowl" An yes the homes with ocean and sunset views east of Hall Park would lose their established views.
DeleteI believe the Ecke Fields will be there for many decades. That is a good thing.
The Ecke Fields are now in peril and there is no guarantee that they will be there for many decades, thanks to the amendment that gave the Y a 30-day out.
Delete11:44 - it was a given that the park would be built. It is also a given that the park will have lights. The park is coming on line soon, and after a few years or so of use, the regular users of the park will be clamoring for lights, and there will be many more users of the fields than residents surrounding it. In addition, the make up of the surrounding neighborhood will change. Those who find the park too challenging to live next to will move. New residents will see the park as an amenity and will wonder why the field has no lights. Last, field lighting technology will change, will be better than today and less intrusive. Now it's not going to happen overnight, rather it's how the slow process of inevitable change occurs. So yea, it's inevitable that there will be lights at Hall, as there should be.
Delete- The Sculpin
11:52am, the Rose Bowl comparison is misleading. The ECP would use different lighting arrangement, and not stadium (outward) lighting. The valid comparison is to Cardiff Sports Park and the Y fields lighting, not the Rose Bowl.
DeleteSculp,
DeletePlease tell me how a lighting "technology" can prevent scatter when the light source is on a pole extended into a marine layer fog.
12:09 - I have no idea. But then I had no idea how important a smartphone could be, or "hearing aids" that essentially replace any headphones or earbuds you may own, or that my neighbor's drone is always scaring the horses! Maybe bend the light?
Delete- The Sculpin
The claims about the light being half the output of the Rose bowl and light spillage was offered by the lighting contractor, Musco, and the city. It seems valid if the city and the light manufacturer told the community these details at a CPP meeting when the city tried to change the general plan with a spot zoning change.
DeleteUhhhh the City claims it can contain light out of doors. "Bend the light?" Sculp, I'm embarrassed for you.
DeleteI don't know if this figures into the Y's thinking about the potential impact of their future plans but the lease for Ecke Sports Park includes the north end of the parking lot as well as the sports fields. The Y may be concerned with parking requirement impacts on any building expansion.
DeleteAnd just because there is a 30 day notification clause doesn't mean that the Y will demand abandonment in 30 days. I've seen situations where the tenant continues for a long time on month to month. I just don't think that right now the Y knows what they may want to do either.
OK - serious tangent, but what 12:17? Are you saying light can not bend?
Delete- The Sculpin
The Y has sent a shot across the bow with their statements indicating that one or more fields may be impacted. And that they want to communicate that early in the process (which is commendable). The master plan time estimate is 2 years, so expect change in 2 years. It will be here before you know it...
Delete30' Lights for ECP!
DeleteTwenty-six feet is max for lights. Thirty feet requires a variance.
Delete26' Lights for ECP! :-)
DeleteThe Leucadia Blog predicted it: the same people that claimed it was kosher to go against the wishes of the long dead local that donated Pacific View: only to turn around hypocritically and now say that the Y cannot do what they want with their property because they many played the dying sport of baseball (You can look it up!) Don't save the Y fields! They are owned by the Y! Why should their property rights be violated? How about the City condemn several Leucadia neighborhoods and build playing fields there: its the same thing. You might not like it, but other people who don't always agree with you, have rights too!
DeletePeople want what they want: the situational ethics on this blog are so pathetic.
The Y hasn't been maintaining the fields for years, the city has as part of the lease agreement (to the tune of $123K last year alone). A partnership between the Y and the City. Thank goodness for good hearted people.
DeleteParks for Kids!
I lived on Crest in Cardiff, not directly behind the Cardiff Sports Park, but close to Santa Fe and on the other side of the street. Even so, I could see the glow of the lights in the night sky. I can only imagine how bad it is for people closer to the park. I recall visiting a friend's house on Black Mountain, 10ish miles away, and being able to point out the Cardiff Sports Park from the bright lights. Granted light technology has improved, but the lights do affect people's quality of life.
ReplyDeletePlay ball!
ReplyDeleteWhen Logan Jenkins knows the CM is a weasel what does that tellyou about the council?? What a bunch of maroons....
ReplyDelete1:59- I am not Lorri but I heard the same story as she stated. They tested one light at 90 feet and they did it at night, which would make sense. The backstory was that they didn't want to upset the citizens of Cardiff at this time. The other backstory is entering the park and parking itself. There are only 2 entrances, both on city streets. At one time CalTrans or SANDAG said they would give us the money for McKinnon to be widened and there could be a freeway offramp. Didn't happen. If you think about it, there are 427 parking places at the ECP. Let's say all 5 fields are full. Where is everyone going to park? Street parking in the area is not all that great, and residents are also concerned about that. This was not a well thought our plan. And, yes, CalTrans said the lights could not face the freeway because it might be confusing, or some other bullshit, to drivers. Hard to keep all the ducks in a row on this fiasco.
ReplyDeleteThere was never a plan to have a freeway exit. There is not enough room between MacKinnon and Birmingham.
DeleteThe MacKinnon bridge will likely have to be torn down and rebuilt as part of the 5 widening. It would make sense to realign the bridge to improve the flow from 5 to the park.
3:28- You are right. I misspoke. I should have said what you did, but those funds are gone as well. MacKinnon will not be rebuilt anytime soon.
DeleteYes, the original plan was to have a freeway entrance to the park.
DeleteThere is a plan to have a new enterence to the park from Villa Cardiff directly into the park. A roundabout is planned there, too.
Roundabouts are good.
DeleteIn December 2002 the city had Dokken Engineering prepare plans to realign and widen Mackinnon Bridge to five lanes to give direct access to the Hall property park. Plans were scraped as too expensive. The city also studied the possibility of entering the park from Santa Fe Drive directly through the Vons shopping center. Too expensive again. Caltrans would not allow ramps at Mackinnon as the distance between Santa Fe and Birmingham interchanges is too short. We are left with problematic access.
DeleteThere are plans to realign the Mackinnon Bridge with the I-5 expansion, but this is in the distant future. There is no funding at this time. Caltrans says the work will be done between 2020 and 2030 or even later. With the recent loss on appeal of the lawsuit filed against them, SANDAG and Caltrans must either appeal to the State Supreme Court or change their I-5 expansion plans. The new bridge may never be built unless the city pays for it. That's $10-$12 million in today's money.
Update:
DeleteThe County Board of Supervisors just voted to appeal the lawsuit to the State Supreme Court. SANDAG board of directors is expected to discuss that decision in closed session Friday.
http://m.utsandiego.com/news/2014/dec/02/environment-county-court-appeal/
3:03 brings up a point that relates to the city still not being honest about the Hall Sports Park. The Planning Commission rejected the Hall EIR because of unresolved traffic mitigation and showed that citizens wanted the "fields reduced by one or two". Still the city is saying there are FOUR SPORTS FIELDS. There are six fields shown on the city map. Maybe the two smaller fields work out to be five fields, by the city is not being honest if they say there are only four fields.
DeleteWhere does the city say that there are "four sports fields"? The city is not being dishonest, you are.
Deletehttp://www.ci.encinitas.ca.us/index.aspx?page=365&recordid=12&returnURL=%2findex.aspx
Some citizens wanted the fields reduced by 5 (or 6)!
DeleteSome citizens also wanted fields increased.
And then citizens voted for city council members to build the park.
I'd go with that city council election versus the 5 members of the planning commission as a better indicator of what "citizens wanted".
Whatever they do, I hope they provide enough parking. It is absolutely ridiculous to build any kind of park without proper parking space. As it is now, with all the parks in this city and the inadequate parking unavailable, those wanting to go to the park have to park in front of someone's residence. That would be extremely annoying if I couldn't park in front of my own home.
ReplyDeleteWhere are the heads of the planning department when they build these things. Parking is an important part of it.
In terms of the lights and noise coming from this new park, I think I would pack and move elsewhere. Yes, there will be some that say "good riddance", but I won't be affected by it all, but feel for the ones who will.
Write when you get work. Mojave is nice this time of year. If you cannot stand change and the passage of time, it probably is time to go.
DeleteBoo hoo.
4:49 I don't need to work and it is not time for me to go. Sorry to ruin your hopeful plans for my life.
DeleteLove means never having to say you're sorry.....
Delete3:16 PM
ReplyDeleteLisa Shaffer has you covered. She believes that no one has a right to park in front of their house. She may want to park there and take a walk.
Do you really mean she thinks you should not be allowed to park in front of your house if the space is open, or she doesn't think you have a right to claim exclusive use of parking in front of your home?
DeleteIf the former, I disagree with her. If the latter, she's absolutely right.
8:55
DeleteLisa Shaffer believes the government, the city, should take private property from residents, and use that private property for parking-
For instance- If you buy a house on Arden, say a nice 2 BR 1 ba. nice lot, and you go to city and want to add 500 sq ft to the back of house to expand the kitchen/living room, or add a bathroom
well bingo- good Ol' socialist Shaffer will only let you have a permit if you give the government part of the private land you just paid for to be used for "communal parking"
Hey- after all, it's not your land, it is the government lands in the name social equity
Call it theft with ethics
9:19 AM
DeleteYou of course paid for all the roadway to get to your house on Arden.
9:19
DeleteWe all pay for the streets- taxes, sales tax etc-
Shaffer wants to take your private land, in return for "allowing " one to build on their private land-
in the name of "Social justice" Shaffer style- she lives in a government Kleptocracy
1:33 PM
DeleteSo when a developer wants to build (or just create) a subdivision, requiring the dedication of the streets/right-of-way (let alone building the streets) is Kleptocracy?
the City should just borrow another 20 or 50 million and buy the legacy Ecke Sports field. It is a historic legacy. Just ask Tony he played ball their right along with Dalaliar's family.
ReplyDeleteCome on Tony- Spearhead buying the fields. They can even put an Art's clinic and other Arts venue on the sight. What a great idea. Common Tony take the lead and buy the legacy property.
Use the pension liability as reverse collateral.
DeleteMaybe the Y should pack n stack dorms like they do in every other worthy city. Maybe baseball is dead too. It might even remove some 90 ft lights.
ReplyDelete"it's fun to stay at the YMCA."
DeleteI've been to over 50 YMCAs around the world through the Y Away Program. The only ones that still have dorms are one on the Upper East Side in New York, and the original Y in London.
Guess you've never been to San Diego.
DeleteI think people just like to write "stack and pack". They must like the ring to it and it sounds just so ominous.
DeleteAnd it is ominous and it does not belong in Encinitas, especially not to sell at market rate under the guise of "affordable."
DeleteActually, "stack and pack" is just another name for Smart Growth. So, we may as well call it like it is. Smart Growth is to build housing that would eliminate the need for garages and cars so that people could walk to the local stores, etc. That is what I believe is planned for parts of Encinitas.
DeleteI think people understand the language of "stack and pack". Smart Growth is not as easily defined IMHO.
People have a hard time imagining that they will suddenly take to the streets by foot or bicycle and radically change their shopping and transportation habits. It is a picturesque fiction that lives in the minds of folks like Shaffer and Barth and causes developers to salivate.
DeleteI agree that Smart Growth has taken on many shades of meaning and the versions imagined on this blog sound ominous but trying to do a little density here and there doesn't bother me. Yesterday, I drove past a building I've driven by hundreds of times and noticed it was three stories. I hadn't noticed that before. It's all how you build it.
Delete3:24 PM I don't know anybody who believes that but it will never happen at all, ever, if you don't start somewhere.
That somewhere can be you. How about it?
DeleteWhere was the three-story building?
4:24
Deletethanks for deciding for me that I don't need the freedom of movement and need to give up my car to ride a bike like chinese peasants-
What has happened is lot's of people choose to live their life how and where they want- it is call freedom, even though the social police are trying to take it away every chance they can
Here in America, people get around in cars. It's been that way for about 100 years. The switch from horses was rapid because cars were clearly superior.
DeleteNow there are so many of us and so many cars, roads and emissions that cars are a problem of sorts. The solution is not to divert people away from cars — hint, hint, that works only in urban areas where there are intense transportation alternatives — but to change the cars from internal combustion engines that run on fossil fuels to no-emissions alternatives. That move is being stalled by the companies that have us all dependent on fossil fuels.
6:22-" Here is America, people get around in cars"? That is certainly true in a lot of America, but if you live in San Francisco, D.C., NYC, Boston and many more American cities what you will see is rapid transit. When I was a kid, growing up in Los Angeles, there were street cars, like in San Francisco. I-5 had not been built. So, in comes General Motors, buys up the cars and the tracks, demolishes them, all in an effort to sell more cars. And, of course, they needed roads to run the cars on. Now, I can imagine L.A. wishes they would have at least kept the rails.
Delete6:53 Did you miss the part about "urban areas"? Most places are not thickly urban areas with mass transit that makes it convenient or even possible to get around quickly and efficiently. That's why there are so many people getting around in so many cars. An active person living in Encinitas without a car would spend half the day on public transportation. What you can do and where you can go in a few minutes with a car takes hours otherwise.
Delete8:19-If you lived in the Bay Area you could around pretty easy with rapid transit. I am not talking just San Francisco, but all of the outlying communities as well. We could even reduce our carbon footprint if who owns the Coaster would make it run more often and longer hours. I know I would take it if it wasn't so friggen ridiculous.The Bay Area Rapid Transit, however, has BART, street cars, autos, and the car is probably the least efficient way to get to work. In Encinitas, our cars provide ways to work. What if the Coaster did too?
DeleteThe Bay Area is more heavily urbanized and more thickly populated than coastal North County. There aren't enough people here to make more frequent Coaster runs profitable. If there were, NCTD would do it.
DeleteAnd getting around in town without a car just doesn't work. There aren't enough people to create enough demand to have buses or whatever running everywhere frequently enough to make it practical for riders or financially for the provider.
I'm buying my property in that area. No more light glare!
ReplyDeleteI am also selling my property next to the Regional Sports Complex Black Hole. Between the pressures of drunk idiots sleeping and )(*&()ing around the park, traffic pressures and light glare; that areas property values are sure to go down.
The City Council approving that financial nightmare sure screwed Cardiff on that one. Congratulations Dalaliar- You really screwed the Encinitas citizens on that one!
5:29- Don't forget to include Jerome and Jim Bond in the mix. They all fell for it and Bond stayed on the Council longer than he even wanted to, just to make sure that the park went through. And, he even named it for us. Encinitas Community Park was not on any of the names people gave to the Parks and Rec. Commission. When the Council was presented with the top 10, Bond negated it all and said he wanted ECP.
ReplyDeleteGood for Jim Bond! Otherwise we might have an empty 44-acre monument to NIMBY-ism. The citizens of Encinitas wanted a park, the residents of Rubenstein Ave didn't.
Delete9:26am. The citizens wanted a community park. In that, you are correct, sir. What we got is a regional sports park.
ReplyDeleteA couple of decades ago at a downtown street faire, a booth to provide public input on ideas for the park were sought and received and ignored. Big surprise to no one.
The folly that allowed this to morph into what it is now, will cost this town dearly for many years to come. It is much more than the nimbyism you claim for the residents closest to this site.
Round and round we go. Where we stop only our bankers know. Where is the plan to pay the yearly nut for maintenance of this park? Selling memorial bricks?
You don't know a regional sports park from a hole in the ground. A regional sports park does not have playgrounds, dog parks, skate park, open fields, walkways and buffer zones. It has sports fields.
DeleteIf it truly is a regional sports park, it is a pretty crappy one with very few fields that have no lights.
Everyone wanted a park.
ReplyDeleteEncinitascommunitypark.blogspot.com
Define "park". Many nearby residents wanted simply open space.
DeleteThe website you link to promotes the false narrative that this is a "regional sports park". It is intellectually dishonest and does not accurately describe the type of park we will soon have (and should have had years ago). Where the site highlights in red "special use park", I would highlight "consistent with a community park".
Basketball and tennis courts are not in high demand as there are plenty of options in the community and in neighborhoods. They alone don't make or break a community park.
4:25
ReplyDeleteThe definitions of "the park" are from the city, general plan and city websites. No false narrative here. You can call it whatever you want. And no there are only three tennis courts listed by the city. They are always people waiting to play on weekends and after work/school and few city basketball courts.
And there are plenty of options for sports fields in the community and neighborhoods. Not city funded or maintained, but many bore than tennis courts.
It sure appears from the community input map, that the city sponsored, indicate that they wanted sports fields, basketball, tennis, teen center, gardens,amphitheater, skate park and dog park. Not just open space.
You wave your finger and say that the city says its a special use park, but then ignore that it says so because of a technicality only (it's too big!). And then also ignore what the city then says, that it has the characteristics of a community park. So do you want to tell the whole truth, or just the part of it that fits your narrative.
Delete6:07
DeleteThe city states it is a community park because it has the elements of a community park, like tennis courts/basketball courts/ teen center/amphitheater THAT IT DOES NOT HAVE, if you read what is stated. It is a special use park by all definitions, to tell the whole truth.
A special use sports park doesn't have dog parks, a playground, meandering walkways, buffer zones, open fields, and a skate park.
DeleteThe city currently says it is a community park because of these features. They are not being dishonest about what the park is (as you posted on 12/3 at 8:55am, which is laughable since you refer to the city's own map to make your point).
I would prefer if there were a teen center and amphitheater too. And hopefully there will be some day.
There will be three phases to the park. What you see now is a compromised first phase
DeletePhase two will have a Teen Center and maybe lights for the ball fields. If the nimbies stop the lights, I'm sure there will be enough space to put in ball courts if there is a real demand for them. There are basket ball courts at Leucadia Oaks, Cottonwood, McPherson, Glen, Leo Mullen and Oakcrest Park as well as a great court at the Community Center already. Not to mention every single school.
Tennis courts? Fuck tennis it's a dead sport anyway. Phase three will have a Aquatic Center .
We all want we want, I get that. Shit, I want a pink poke a dot pony with wings too!
A park with open space. Wow. What a novel idea. Too bad, Bond and Stocks got a hold of this when they did. Now we have more than we ever thought we bargained for, thanks to their [mis]leadership. Of course, we have so much more that we can [un]thank them for.
ReplyDeleteThe city should have never bought the land in the first place, we wouldn't have to drive to Carlsbad to go to Costco. Imagine the tax revenues!
DeleteBetter yet, i think 2000 affordable housing units would have looked nice at that location.
You can call it whatever you like, 9:55.
ReplyDeleteThe general plan, park and rec and the EIR all indicate special use park.
"...park. As stated in the Recreational Element, “Special Use Parks which provide major
facilities usually found at Community Parks (athletic fields, community centers, game
courts)( The proposed park is consistent
with the description of a Community Park as defined by the Recreational Element, except..." It does not have these elements.
Neener, neener, pumpkin eater! Keep waving that finger and playing your solo game of gotcha.
DeleteI'm calling it Encinitas Community Park.