Saturday, March 7, 2015

City fails to negotiate lower fine for repeated environmental violations

U-T:
After two years of negotiations, Encinitas has agreed to pay the full $430,851 state fine for twice letting sediment-filled stormwater flow off a city park construction site and into San Elijo Lagoon, state officials announced Thursday.

Under the terms of the tentative settlement agreement, the city will pay the full fine, but nearly half of the money — $206,393 — will be diverted to a San Elijo Lagoon habitat restoration project, said Rebecca Stewart, a sanitary engineering associate with the San Diego office of the state’s Regional Water Quality Control Board.

[...]

Stewart said it isn’t unusual for a settlement agreement to include funding for a local habitat restoration project. The lengthy negotiations also were “typical,” she said. What is unusual is that the city will pay the full fine amount — the state did not agree to reduce the fine that it initially recommended two years ago, she said.
The reason the board is treating Encinitas more harshly than usual? Accidents happen, but in this case the city showed complete negligence and disregard for the law and the lagoon for an extended period of time:
An official with the Water Quality Control Board said the fine is so large because the problem happened twice and because Encinitas failed to significantly improve stormwater control measures between the first and second runoff incidents.

“I’m sure they were disappointed (in the fine) — everyone’s disappointed at the penalties that are sent out,” said Rebecca Stewart, a sanitary engineering associate with the state agency.
As is customary at the City of Encinitas, no one has been held accountable for the violations as far as the public can see.

85 comments:

  1. Shaffer wouldnever support accountability - she has said of many such examples of staff misconduct: "I do not support public shaming.". So now the whole city has to take the shaming for the staff and Council.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Shaffer doesn't support public accountability, because the City's actions, through staff, the city attorney, our ex city manager, and ultimately, through Council, are shameful. Part of the issue in this case is that the relatively new head of Public Works, Glenn Pruim, tried to cover-up what happened, to manipulate the on-site evidence of what actually went down, after the fact, in a failed attempt to avoid culpability for himself and the City.

      GP made misleading statements to the press, as part of the cover-up. Sorry, but we need a complete shake-up at City Hall.

      The public should get to vote on the light structures, as they are being pushed at 90 ft, three times over the 30 ft. high Prop A limit. Alert citizens should make sure that there isn't any exception for 90 ft. light standards manipulated into the housing element update that will go on the ballot. If there is any attempt to combine the light height issue with the ballot measure(s) re updating our housing element, that is just one more reason to vote no on any version of the HEU. Better to battle it out in court, if we have to. The firm hired to deal with the Building Association lawsuit may be good, but we need someone new at the helm of the City Attorney's office who respects Council's direction and who better understands open government law, and her or his responsibility to advise Council on all contract negotiations or renegotiations.

      It's sad to think that our City has so many skeletons in its closet that Council feels obliged to hang on to a corrupt City Attorney, who has managed to spend hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars prosecuting individuals, in the name of the State, for alleged violations, never proven, while failing to provide adequate public reports or accountability on all of the City's failed defenses, including its defense against the current punitive actions by the Water Quality Control Board. Remember, these issues may be discussed in closed session, including the issue of the City Attorney's and City Manager's evaluations by Council, but THEY ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE DISCUSSED BEHIND CLOSED DOORS. Our city attorney and past city council, and now this one, "mine" the Brown Act for its exceptions to open meeting requirements. They seem unconcerned with the spirit of the law or the intent of the legislators in enacting it.

      Public agencies are to be accountable. Transparency assures that. Private corporations do not have the same onus. Making actual decisions at Council Meetings, after public and Council discussion, is not "designing from the dais." Conversations can be messy; the public and council can be thrown off by staff's confusing agenda reports.

      Council occasionally points out agenda report short-comings, but somehow continues to feel obligated to heap praises on undeserving heads of department and our conflicted, corrupt city attorney.

      Thank God for the Prop A folks; now citizens will be able to weigh in by their vote. And yes, 90 ft. tall lights have been found to be problematic at the Coastal Commission level, too. A public vote is the best public needs assessment.

      Delete
    2. I'm against the lights in a residential neighborhood.

      But I believe the city pulled a permit for the lighting plan back in 2010, and it was covered in the EIR. If true, It's not possible that Prop A applies. That would be an ex post facto law:

      http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law

      "Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3."

      Delete
    3. The 90-ft. lights would have required a General Plan Amendment. The city never did it. If they had, the light towers would be up now. Conduit and bases have been installed. "Just in case," as Gus Vina said. The light towers will require a public vote.under Prop. A because they exceed the 30-ft height limit. The ex post facto law doesn't apply here.

      When the Coastal Commission rejected the appeal of the city's approval of the park, the CC required the city to remove the light towers from the approved plans or do a new EIR. The city choose to remove the light towers from the plans. Any plans for 90-ft. lights will start the whole process all over again. And require an EIR.

      Delete
    4. Actually the lights are not covered and will not take any vote.

      Delete
    5. Dead wrong. Any structure over 30 feet is covered. And the council knows it. The Planning Department had actually started working on the General Plan Amendment for the lights before the Coastal Commission nixed the plans. The city will have to do an EIR, get Coastal Commission approval, and then put it to a vote. Call the city if you are confused.

      Delete
  2. Where's Sabine on this one? As I recall, the case was out sourced? Where's the bad analogy apologist that proposes the "general practitioner" theory to explain Sabine's inefficiency and non-effectualness? Where's the aspirin today,eh?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Non-effectualness?

      I think your over-gramatcalization of simplicated concepualisms is impresstellegenic.

      Delete
    2. Avoiding the core issue again - simpleton you are.

      Delete
  3. Not only another fine mess by Sabine, the settlement includes removing those palm trees that give such great atmosphere there. Can this guy screw up everything he touches or what!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Oh there is so much more, but God forbid I say anything.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, go on - say anything. This coverup goes well beyond Sabine.

      Delete
    2. Explicit instructions by people on this blog indicate they do not want to know more. Remember insiders are outsiders on this blog. Too bad that has to be true, as insiders usually have pretty accurate information. You will have to go to one of the usual suspects for answers. These answers have already been gotten by CPRA requests, and yes, those requests came from people you continually trash.

      Delete
    3. I don't know what you're talking about, 10:53? No one ever gave any "explicit instructions" to my knowledge, stating any one posting or reading here doesn't "want to know more."

      Delete
    4. Well done city staff, or as the Mayor would say, "Excellent job staff. I know it's not easy".

      Nope, staff is not to blame for anything.

      Good job, "brownie!"

      Delete
    5. 4:37 does an excellent job imitating a fictitious persona. You're just not quite good enough at it, though.

      Delete
  5. 5:14 don't be so sure attorneys are not looking into shady dealings at city hall. It's not like they are going to let on.

    ReplyDelete
  6. 5:14 and 9:16 are Mikey being paid by the word to "warn" folks to have legal $$$ or else. Yawn.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Speaking of Mikey, I saw him the other day talking to merchants in Cardiff. What brings him to that side of town I wonder?

      Delete
    2. Getting more business for his "network" in between planning sessions with Gaspar and developers.

      Delete
  7. Any business that associates themselves with such a low life deserves to be avoided by anyone who cares about the future of this community. His claim to legitimacy rests solely with these 22 mostly El Camino Real properties but the big surprise is that a couple of our respected businesses on the 101 are listed among them.

    It would not be beyond mikey from claiming supporters that don't support his vision but these folks need to clear the air on whether they are part of his network or not.

    The expected members like Gaspar Medical, Harwood Properties, Stocks Insurance ? are no surprise but those on the 101 are. Knowing them and finding that they are part of his network raises suspicion that there is something fishy going on with mikeys list of supporters.

    Perhaps they are leftovers from when mikey ran the chamber of commerce but it is more than time for them to declare their positions publicly on whether they are current supporters of mikeys efforts to hold on to any sense of legitimacy.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "The reason the board is treating Encinitas more harshly than usual? Accidents happen, but in this case the city showed complete negligence and disregard for the law and the lagoon for an extended period of time:"

    So does this reasoning apply to the state housing element laws or just when you can criticize the city for being "inept"? The city has disregarded the housing element law for many, many years. Of course, consistency has never been a strong suit here. I'll guess that you'll try to differentiate the laws as one is good and should be followed while the other is bad and should be resisted.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you trying to get me to admit that the city's years and millions of dollars wasted on GPAC, ERAC, IAG, Peak Democracy, etc., were a complete clusterf@$&?

      'cause I will.

      Delete
    2. 12:16 PM

      With so many here trying to derail the process at least you had a hand in the clusterfuck. I must say, this site tries awfully hard to avoid any kind of responsibility. Pacific View purchase anyone? (which I didn't support)

      Whether or not this blog is the primary cause isn't the issue. It's been a contributor. Have officials reacted correctly? I would say no but you don't get off scot-free. If you're going to take some credit for Prop A then you have to take some responsibility for everything, good and bad.

      But of course, when we are all anonymous we can pretty much say what we want without penalty or accountability.

      Delete
    3. 12:27 How about posting your name Mr./Mrs. Double Speak?

      If this blog has been a contributor to anything, it's been to get the attention of the council and the city. It has been very effective so far. Why should we take the blame here, we don't sit on council, nor do we run the city. That is not what we get paid to do.

      Delete
    4. As a matter of fact, nobody who participates on this blog gets paid ANYTHING except possibly city employees or representatives paid by developers. There are thousands of hours of professional research that citizens contribute for free in this city.

      I also disagree with Lisa Shaffer's comment about "public shaming." Are we supposed to let those at the city lie and manipulate and sit silent? Lisa Shaffer has never been brought to account for her own untruths nor has she made any public apology. Instead, she attacks people who try to set the record straight and calls it "public shaming" when citizens present evidence that disproves what she and city workers promote as truth. The public shaming should be that there is a pattern of lying, not that there is a pattern of citizens presenting facts to set the record right.

      Delete
    5. 12:45 PM

      "It has been very effective so far."

      So you admit that you're partly responsible for what EU calls the clusterfuck (sorry, we all know what the symbols mean so I just spell it out).

      "Why should we take the blame here ..." So you only take credit but absolve yourself of blame. How comforting.

      Yes, I'm aware I too an anonymous as you are. So if I attach a name to my comments, you'll give them more credence? I doubt it.

      One other thing. Don't think I didn't notice that EU's response (12:16 PM) avoids responding to my original point.

      Delete
    6. 1:08- Actually attaching your name would give you more credibility. Of course, the downside is you would get hammered. Just ask people who have attached their own names.

      Delete
    7. 1:51 PM

      Thanks for your comment but as you point out, attaching your name to a post makes you a target. Even using a pseudonym, as some do, doesn't make a difference. The seventh grader in many still comes out. And if you're wondering, I've handled worse personal attacks then I've seen here. That's not a factor.

      I still disagree that it would give the comment anymore credibility. After all, the proprietor of this blog remains anonymous and his/her credibility doesn't seem to suffer among the faithful.

      Delete
    8. 1:51 PM

      I point you no further than the posts below concerning a certain Dr.

      Delete
    9. 12:27 is an oddly insincere new voice on this blog, most likely put up to run a low-level hum of misinformation. Many noticing, none taken in. False concerns about Encinitas ring very hollow.

      Delete
    10. 4:06 PM

      Please pass the Kool-Aid. I must be thinking for myself again because that can be the only reason I don't swallow everything said here. And the only reason I do read and comment on this blog is my very real concern that other people get bad information.

      Whether you are sincere or not, and I have no reason to believe most of you aren't sincere, I often see comments that are poorly informed and insular. I get it. Most of you hate the city and the people who run it. Fine. Just don't keep making things up.

      I too am critical of certain actions of the city. I for one was against the Pacific View purchase, especially for $10M. Not because we overpaid but because we couldn't afford it. But this blog had many commenters here urging everyone to petition the council to buy PV. But when the council did what you wanted, the vast majority criticized the council for paying too much. You can't have it both ways. If you're going to put pressure on the council to do something you have to accept the consequences.

      So don't give me this crap about insincerity. There are plenty of people who disagree with me but I don't doubt their sincerity.

      "run a low-level hum of misinformation"? I'm fascinated. How would a low-level hum of misinformation even work?

      Delete
    11. This blog has multiple voices. Those who supported the purchase of PV are not the same voices now damning it. Pay more attention to the style of the writer, word choices, and grammar. It's not hard to recognize certain writers if the post is long. For example, your style is very distinctive. There's a passive-aggressiveness in it. Not hard to spot, unless the post is very short.

      Then it possible to skip the writers you don't like.

      Delete
    12. 5:57 PM

      Yes, many of the voices on this blog did campaign for purchasing PV and then tried to distance themselves after the city agreed to pay $10M. Some even said in their posts that they wanted the city to buy PV but not for that amount and the city should have negotiated better, etc.

      Also, if people who post here are expected to be an echo chamber and simply accept whatever statements are made regardless of fact or knowledge, then I confess to not following the (unspoken) rules. But as the PV example shows, this blog does have some impact outside its core commenters and I for one (and there are others) want any occasional readers to be exposed to all the facts. If that sounds presumptuous, well I'm sorry but I'll chime in when the discussion involves those areas I'm very familiar with.

      "passive-aggressiveness"?? Hmmm. That doesn't sound good but I think it's misapplied here. However, if I have to be that so be it.

      What's the psychological term for ignoring any argument by claiming it was made by the enemy? You know Stocks, Andreen, etc. even when they're not. I see a lot of that here.

      Delete
    13. Thanks, 10:44. Yes, we can "have it both ways." Many did support the City's purchasing Pacific View, so that it could remain in the public domain.

      But we didn't want the majority on Council to cave in to Tim Baird's manipulation and distortions of the truth, and the assessed value of the land. Kranz, Barth and Vina were horrible negotiators.

      The City Attorney should have done a better job in informing Council that it could still invoke the Naylor Act, thus reducing the price, and assuring that at least 30% of the land would remain for open space, including gardens.

      Delete
    14. It's 4:32 trying to pass the Kool-Aid. Most have been on this blog far too long to be taken in. On your way....

      Delete
  9. Well, what then is the benchmark by which you say the blog is an effective tool to get the attention of the city? It's a great forum for discussion, and it's a great resource that WC gives us. But as far as direct impact, what are the measurables?

    -MGJ

    ReplyDelete
  10. And as for the lagoon runoff, I'm glad the city got nailed, and someone's head should roll on this one. Way to much money down the drain without accountability.

    -MGJ

    ReplyDelete
  11. The lagoon thing was a clusterfuck. The outfit the City used to even begin the process didn't have the proper credentials and the City knew it. It was just cheaper. Moving along, many, people, including me, asked the city about it, only to be told it's no big deal. John Frenken, who is now retired, was one of those employees that said that. Also, Lisa Rudloff, who is still here, also said the same thing. So, yes, the City should pay all of it. These are our tax dollars at work, and as far as I am concerned I'm not getting my money's worth. Many roads need paving in our City, many other infrastructural concerns are there, and yet we somehow found a way to pay God only knows what for a Park and PV? It's time to go on an austerity program, except the City doesn't know what that means.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And they retire on pensions that make the private sector's look like pikers. Incompetence apparently has its rewards!

      Delete
  12. 1:56 PM & others

    I have no wish to pile on but in regards to the substance of the Leucadia Blog entry it is totally uniformed. It sounds like the author wanted the city attorney to expand on meeting notice procedures based on Prop 59 but the proposition gives no such guidelines other than to say that when interpreting open record and meeting laws to interpret them broadly in favor of openness and accessibility. The Brown Act requires at least 24 hours notification for a special council meeting, which from Sabine's memo, appears to have been violated in this case to some degree and directs the city manager to follow the code. While the city can adopt more generous guidelines, like increasing the notification period to 48 hours for a special meeting, that is a council function not the city attorney.

    Many people on this blog just don't understand the role of a city attorney.

    Here is the text of Prop 59 Constitutional amendment:

    (1) The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business, and, therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny.

    (2) A statute, court rule, or other authority, including those in effect on the effective date of this subdivision, shall be broadly construed if it furthers the people’s right of access, and narrowly construed if it limits the right of access. A statute, court rule, or other authority adopted after the effective date of this subdivision that limits the right of access shall be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

    (3) Nothing in this subdivision supersedes or modifies the right of privacy guaranteed by Section 1 or affects the construction of any statute, court rule, or other authority to the extent that it protects that right to privacy, including any statutory procedures governing discovery or disclosure of information concerning the official performance or professional qualifications of a peace officer.

    (4) Nothing in this subdivision supersedes or modifies any provision of this Constitution, including the guarantees that a person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or denied equal protection of the laws, as provided in Section 7.

    (5) This subdivision does not repeal or nullify, expressly or by implication, any constitutional or statutory exception to the right of access to public records or meetings of public bodies that is in effect on the effective date of this subdivision, including, but not limited to, any statute protecting the confidentiality of law enforcement and prosecution records.

    (6) Nothing in this subdivision repeals, nullifies, supersedes, or modifies protections for the confidentiality of proceedings and records of the Legislature, the Members of the Legislature, and its employees, committees, and caucuses provided by Section 7 of Article IV, state law, or legislative rules adopted in furtherance of those provisions; nor does it affect the scope of permitted discovery in judicial or administrative proceedings regarding deliberations of the Legislature, the Members of the Legislature, and its employees, committees, and caucuses.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Did my post on Prop 59 get trapped again in the spam filter?

    Also, sometimes the Reply button doesn't work. I've tried refreshing the page, closing and reopening it in both Firefox and Internet Explorer. When this happens the Add Comment box at the bottom still works. Just thought I'd pass it on and that I like the current way to verify posts. It's a little annoying (any system would be) but it works pretty well.

    ReplyDelete
  14. ALERT!
    Jeff Murphy and Manjeet Ranu have lied to the residents and the Council on the housing element update.
    Murphy and Ranu used the excuse that they were too busying working on the housing element update to release it earlier than 6 days before it goes to Council for their decision to approve.

    Murphy and Ranu took the a large part of the MIG housing element update that was rejected and placed it in the agenda report as if they had written it themselves.

    All the residential properties that MIG had photos, addresses, and APN#s for up zoning are now back in the housing element update that Murphy and Ranu want to submit to HCD for their approval.

    Go to the staff report and click on Attachment D - part 2 and scroll down to page 321.

    Your house, your neighbor's house, or a house in your neighborhood has been identified as sites for up zoning.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Let's recap what we have learned in the last 24 hours:

    • It is fine and dandy to post all manner rumor and hyperbole here, as long as EC and crew don't like the object of your slander.

    • A very different set of rules applies to people they like. We can't even joke about those people, because they are beyond reproach. Insinuating that a pet bereavement therapist may not be an expert on legal matters broaches the bounds of decorum.

    • if someone throws a hissy fit, commands you to "shut the fuck up," threatens legal action, and demands that sarcastic posts be removed, that person will be rewarded by the moderator, and their request will be honored.

    I only wish I knew these rules 24 hours ago. Maybe WC can post them somewhere for future reference.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The difference that I see is that people who are paid by citizens like Jeff Murphy, Ranu, Council Members and Rudloff are paid to represent us and are therefore fair game. Although council members make very little money, the Planning Department has more employees who are in the $100,000 and over club than any other group. Lisa Rudloff makes $160,000. Our City Manager makes over $200,000, and the City Attorney was paid $10,000,000 over 7 years.

      Why is it wrong to expect something from people who we pay?

      Delete
    2. Okay, that's a good starting point. You seem to suggest that sometimes harsh criticism is acceptable for people who draw a paycheck from our tax dollars, including elected officials and staff. Conversely, private citizens who don't live off our public payroll should not be fair game for rough treatment.

      Let's test that.

      Al Rodbell -- private citizen (off limits), or fair game?

      Lynn Marr -- private citizen (off limits), or fair game?

      Dr. Lorrie -- private citizen (off limits), or fair game?

      Glen Sabine -- private citizen (off limits), or fair game?

      Andrew Audet -- -- private citizen (off limits), or fair game?

      Lisa Rudloff -- private citizen (off limits), or fair game?

      The first few were easy, now let's make it harder.

      Shiela Cameron -- private citizen (off limits), or fair game?

      Jerome Stocks -- private citizen (off limits), or fair game?

      Both once were fair game as elected officials, but are no longer. If you don't put them both in the same category, why not?

      Even harder:

      Mike Andreen -- private citizen (off limits), or fair game?

      Marco Gonzales -- private citizen (off limits), or fair game?

      Scott Chatfield -- private citizen (off limits), or fair game?

      Doug Harwood -- private citizen (off limits), or fair game?

      These are all polarizing figures, but they are clearly private citizens, right? So what objective standard could you use to protect the likes of Dr. L, but not Marco?

      Be consistent. Don't dish it out if you can't take it. You can't condone character assassination for some private citizens, then clutch your pearls when someone calls out someone you personally like.

      This forum should either ban everything below the belt, or allow it all.

      Delete
  16. 8:56-What in the world are you talking about. I guess I missed something. Your rant sounds strange without the context in which to judge it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yesterday there were a lot of comments rehashing old allegations about unwelcome touching at a party, and naming individuals involved. I deleted them as too personal and salacious and not relevant to public policy.

      Delete
    2. Seriously. Not that old stuff again. Glad you deleted it. If someone wants to read trash they can buy the National Enquirer if its still around.

      Delete
    3. Not worth rehashing. In short, I made a sarcastic post, someone jumped ugly on it, and I responded in kind. WC caved and gave the instigator his wish--thread deleted.

      No big deal, but IMO, WC demonstrated some bias and double standard in the decision to delete.

      Delete
    4. WC, the first half of the deleted thread had no such content.

      Delete
    5. Also, re: " too personal and salacious and not relevant to public policy"

      In light of this, how do you defend the decision to leave up fat jokes about Muir?

      Delete
    6. 9:35, sorry if I over-deleted. I try to be judicious.

      9:40, OK, no more fat or plastic surgery jokes please.

      Delete
    7. While I am often critical of EU, I applaud deleting any personal attacks and think it makes this a better blog for it. I would go further removing the juvenile attacks on council members, like the Muir fat jokes, but that's up to EU. What should be one of the benefits of posting anonymously is reacting to what is said and not who said it. Of course it doesn't usually work out that way but at least it's a goal.

      Delete
    8. If I were the blogmaster I would do exactly what EU did. Nothing useful came from the quite lengthy discussion about a few people yesterday. I agree that if we cannot confine our discussions to relevant issues, then this blog becomes irrelevant. Thanks EU for being sensitive to people's feelings.

      Delete
    9. If the person regarding the "touchy/feeling" situation wouldn't have posted the incident here on this blog in the first place, no one would have ever known about it. Period.

      Delete
    10. 12:04-Can we all just get over it and move along. The person has no intention of suing anyone so it is a moot point.

      Delete
    11. 12:58 We can't read people's minds now, can we?

      Delete
    12. 1:30- No we cannot read people's minds, or at least I can't. Having said that, I'm pretty sure that the person will not sue. Is that better. Are you afraid of something?

      Delete
    13. 1:59 Not afraid of you or the horse you rode in on. Get over yourself.

      Delete
    14. Is EU morphing into the Leucadia Blog, which is heavily censored and now irrelevant and seldom visited? Maybe somebody is scaring the blog-master into compliance with conformity?

      Delete
  17. EU getting more PC .....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good for EU. Shows some class. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being as you call it PC. Isn't that what we are trying to do in this city? Growing food is PC. Recycling is PC. Making people's lives a little better is PC. You probably didn't like that Filner was taken down by the PC crowd but it happened. Step up to the 21st century my fellow citizen of Encinitas and let's make this city a better place for all to live. Right now this blog can contribute a lot for that to happen.

      Delete
    2. 1:01's voice is new here and falls oddly insincere on many ears. Maybe it's the City spin doctor, maybe it's Mikey on his meds and taking a break from the usual unhinged ranting, maybe it's Jerome after a grammar intensive, but something is off.

      Delete
    3. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.......

      - The Sculpin

      Delete
    4. YEP! said Freud.

      Delete
    5. 1:01 PM Sounds like a sound byte out of a Shirley Temple movie.
      Gee wilikers - let's have a sasperilla!

      Delete
    6. Exactly point - and that person has been posting here left and right in a rather transparent effort to have a sedating effect.

      Delete
    7. 1:40 PM Depends where that cigar has been.

      Delete
  18. ALERT!
    Jeff Murphy and Manjeet Ranu have lied to the residents and the Council on the housing element update.
    Murphy and Ranu used the excuse that they were too busying working on the housing element update to release it earlier than 6 days before it goes to Council for their decision to approve.

    Murphy and Ranu took the a large part of the MIG housing element update that was rejected and placed it in the agenda report as if they had written it themselves.

    All the residential properties that MIG had photos, addresses, and APN#s for up zoning are now back in the housing element update that Murphy and Ranu want to submit to HCD for their approval.

    Go to the staff report and click on Attachment D - part 2 and scroll down to page 321.

    Your house, your neighbor's house, or a house in your neighborhood has been identified as sites for up zoning.

    Jeff Murphy and Manjeet Ranu want the Council to approve the housing element draft this Wednesday, March 11.

    Call or email each Council member and tell them NO on approving the draft housing element.

    ReplyDelete
  19. So whether the (new)? posters were stirring things up to ruin this blog it may have worked. I'm not so inclined to post anymore as my posts were civil and still deleted. So what's the point? We are trying to steer this city in a MUCH NEEDED better direction, the citizens are clueless except for a few how terribly ripped off the taxpayers of Encinitas are. Only Bell had a worse government, and yes City Hall is corrupt / inept to the core. More on that later, probably will post in the other media depending if free speech or censorship is the future here. The dozen residents that are working diligently to keep our city sane have my utmost respect.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 3:48- I am rather new to this blog and I think that the stuff I read yesterday was so over the top that I would not have continued to read it if it was nothing more than a blog to get out your anger toward someone you don't like. So I guess my posting will take the place of your posts.

      Delete
    2. 7:20 If you knew the whole story, you would have known what was happening. Feel free to tune out or off any time.

      Delete
    3. 7:20 = another "innocent" poster here.

      Delete
  20. It is time to pack the halls again this wednesday when Planning and Council are having the evening meeting together. Numbers do make a difference, so all who can, please make the time and effort to show up. Our community is at stake.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Knock off the conspiracy theories. Keep it relatively on topic and not too personal and WC won't have to get out his magic wand. Make it a forum for info sharing and knowledge acquisition, not the art of the put down.

    -MGJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The great and mighty OZ has spoken.

      Delete
    2. Follow the Yellow Brick Road!

      Delete
    3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THbY7EL8k5w

      Delete
    4. Why is the City Council and Planning Commission meeting together again?

      Delete