Kranz, Muir, and Gaspar, along with Lisa Shaffer, who is not expected to seek re-election, and Teresa Barth, who has retired, approved the giveaway of the city's right to an unrestricted 10-year extension of the use of the fields in a backroom deal between city management and the YMCA. The YMCA apparently had big development plans for the land, and played hardball for months, refusing to undo the contract change, but has finally yielded to public outrage with a compromise.
Union-Trib:
Encinitas Little League will be able to continue playing on three of the four fields at the Ecke Sports Park, even after a proposed construction project becomes a reality, the Ecke Family YMCA announced Friday afternoon.As is customary at the City of Encinitas, no one in city management was held accountable for the backroom deal to give away the fields, and it remains unclear to this day whether any of the council members understood what they were voting for.
Little League officials have been fearful for months that the YMCA’s expansion plans would kick them permanently off the fields, which they have used for decades. The YMCA owns the fields, but leases them to the city.
Worries surfaced last fall when Little League officials discovered that the YMCA’s latest contract with the city contained a clause that the organization could end the baseball team’s use of the Ecke Sports Park with only 30 days’ notice. The YMCA said it would probably need “one or more of the ball fields” when it expands its main facility next to the playing fields on Saxony Road.
Accountability comes in many forms, and right-ing a wrong is certainly one of them. As the article states, the Y played hard ball, they had the legal high ground, yet the city prevailed and "saved the fields". When an entire organization misses the boat, as the city did on this one, it's difficult to hold one person accountable, but let's remember, Vina is gone. I say kudos to the council - they got this one right.
ReplyDelete- The Sculpin
A few points to consider:
Delete- the Y only had the legal high ground because city management gave it to them in a backroom deal subsequently approved without discussion by the council. Before that deal, the city/little league had the impenetrable legal high ground.
- Vina left for a pay raise in Brentwood, and left with a unanimous "excellent" rating from the council. And Rudloff is still here. That's accountability?
- Why kudos for the council? While they were obviously desperate to fix their mistake, there is no indication that they influenced the outcome or that the compromise wasn't simply a result of pressure from hundreds of Little League families, many of whom are also YMCA members. Remember, this is the exact compromise proposed by the Little League with no overt council involvement.
And I don't see how the entire organization missed the boat.
DeleteThis was a backroom deal negotiated by a very small number of people, perhaps even just one manager, out of either gross incompetence, or worse, knowing collusion.
EU - your first point is a organizational fail.
DeleteFor your 2nd point, he's still gone, isn't he? Who cares what his rating is? If he had complete control over the council, as many here suggest, he never would have left. No, he was shown the door.
Your 3rd point confuses me. You correctly blame the council for being asleep on the first vote, but now your're saying they simply just got out the way of the little league folks and gave them carte blanche to negotiate on behalf of the city? I thought they only did that for developers (eye-roll)!?!
Your 4th point is the exact definition of the entire organization missing the boat. There were no review procedures or controls in place to prevent this very thing from happening. On top of that, the council had no idea what they were voting for or against. If that's not an organizational failure, what is?
- The Sculpin
Sculpin, yes, there was an organzational fail to notice and stop the scheme, but that does not mean that there weren't a few bad actors at the heart of the scheme who should be held accountable.
DeleteOn the 3rd point, no. The city didn't give anyone carte blanche to negotiate. The city had no leverage to negotiate anything, having given everything away in the 2013 deal. Yesterday's news was not a new agreement between the city and the YMCA, but simply the YMCA announcing that their development plans will leave three playing fields, obviously due to public pressure.
Since losing Field 1 would impact adult leagues as well as the 13-14 year olds, how does the community park fill in if it has no lights? The city needs to tell us up front where those leagues will be playing because those fields will need to have lights. There are nights when I go to the Y that there are adult games until 10 PM. While adults can play on the weekends, it's more convenient to play on a weekday evening.
DeleteSculpin again gives credit where credit is NOT due. Been wearing your rosey colored specs again?
ReplyDeleteYou mean you don't know? Rosey specs allow you to see through all the crap........
Delete- The Sculpin
Sculp did some premature cheerleading for the clueless council - now he is back peddling and doing a "what I meant to say was...." Foot in mouth syndrome....
DeletePlease explain - the ELL is not a party to the lease between the Y and the city. The ELL is a subtenant with the city. So if the Y changes it's plans and allows more space to be leased to the city, that's a modification of the lease. So the city had to be a part of this since ELL has no direct standing with the Y. Please, let me know if I have this relationship all wrong.......
Delete- The Sculpin
Obviously the city will have to sign off on a lease change. That doesn't mean they played any meaningful role in the YMCA's unilateral announcement.
DeleteActually, Sculpin, what's the point of the city being involved in a new lease at all?
DeleteYMCA is already abolishing Field 1 and converting Fields 2 and 3, so they might as well just exercise the termination clause granted them by Barth-Gaspar-Kranz-Shaffer-Muir and operate Field 4 themselves, charging ELL for use.
I think this was the YMCA-Vina-Rudloff plan all along. Which council members were complicit, and which were just ignorant and negligent?
Kranz admitted prior knowledge, one down.
DeleteEU, I don't see anything that indicates they aren't doing exactly what you say at 1:54pm.
DeleteI'm not sure congratulations are in order. The YMCA hinted all along that the expansion was only likely to affect one field. They got exactly what they wanted in the end. The public lost 25% of the fields, got nothing in exchange, and we are supposed to be happy? I could see it if the deal on the remaining three fields was extended to 20 or 25 years--that would be a win.
ReplyDeleteExcuse me, the city lost a field! This was pure incompetence so save your applause.
ReplyDeleteThere were at least two people at city hall among staff and council that knew the details of the change in the lease agreement before the council voted to approved it. There were probably others, but that information didn't leak out.
ReplyDeleteThere has been no accountability, and there won't be. It's the way city hall does business. Where's our Queen of Ethics to make her pronouncement from her throne on the council when we need her?
The council blew it when they approved the contract (either knowingly or unknowingly). The council blew it when they relied upon the city manager to make a rotten deal. The council did not fix this so they should be given zero credit.
ReplyDeleteI agree with EU that there was pressure from families that got this back on track.
The council still remains clueless.
I, for one, thought the YMCA was upfront on this and I was wrong. They led us to believe that their planning was in the early stages and nothing had been decided. While the specifics of the plan may still need to be decided, I think the YMCA knew at the time of the contract negotiation (Dec. 2013) where they were going to expand and the timeframe to do it in. I think the YMCA lied. The revised contract language wasn't just to provide some future flexibility but to allow them to move forward on their conceptual plans. Remember this as the YMCA moves forward on seeking donations.
ReplyDeleteI don't know what the city was thinking but the contract language changes were hiding in plain sight. In hindsight, given the potential ramifications, the council shouldn't have had this on the consent agenda but the agenda report would have been the same and it was clearly spelled out in the report the new contract language.
Also, when this was brought to everyone's attention awhile back, Mayor Gaspar said they would invite the YMCA to explain their side. Why hasn't that happened yet?
The mayor, in her usual fashion, likes to pretend she's on top of things, but we know better.
DeleteBIG NEWS!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteTony Kranz and Catherine Blakespear have finished a draft ordinance for the growing and selling of produce and homemade goodies from a 120 square foot produce stand in your front yard. No permit is needed in most residential zones.
Here is part of the draft ordinance -
30.36.070 PRODUCE STANDS
A. Produce Stand, Small.
Small produce stands shall be permitted by right in all zones except P/SP and ER/OS zones and shall be subject to the following provisions:
1. Size, Placement and Safety.
a. Limited to 120 square feet or less of sale and display floor area.
b. Limited to one (1) story with a maximum height limit of ten (10)
feet.
c. A permanent produce stand shall not encroach upon sidewalks,
driveways and / or other rights of way, and shall be erected so as not to
create a nuisance or a hazard.
d. Temporary, portable furniture in lieu of a permanent stand is
permitted (example: tables, chairs and umbrellas) for outdoor sales on
residential properties. Placement of portable furniture shall not encroach
upon sidewalks or other rights of way and shall not create a visual hazard
for vehicles and must be taken inside on a daily basis between dusk and
dawn.
2. The display area shall be the area utilized for both the display and sale of
product.
3. Limited to the sale of whole produce, shell eggs and value-added products
produced on-site.
4. Sales in residential zones are permitted up to 12 hours per week during day light hours only.
5. All signs shall be in conformance with Chapter 30.60 of the Encinitas
Municipal Code.
We should all quit our jobs and stand in our front yards and sell produce. What a marvelous idea. Can you imagination the traffic congestion in each neighborhood?
DeleteStupid ordinance you two.
Photoshop their pictures on that classic painting of the farmer with the pitchfork, with his wife standing next to him. Green acres!
DeleteFrom the brain that brought you Spock Week....and the ethical ethos queen.
If we all sell enough we can purchase a missing ball field.
ReplyDeleteDo people need to check with the Health Dept. to make sure that the fruit or veggies are not poisoned, directly or indirectly? Not sure about this idea. Have to learn more.
ReplyDeleteGood question 12:38. Canada just announced a huge e-coli outbreak in leafy vegetables being sold.
DeleteAs a result of Lisa Rudloff's incompetence on this matter and loosing a valuable field, Lisa should be terminated. She as proven her Vina level of incompetence too many times.
ReplyDeleteAre the Y fields going to continue to be free of charge to the sports leagues that play on them? Let's hope so.
ReplyDeleteGaspar mentioned at a recent council meeting Kranz wants to keep bees. This proposal includes a new setback for beehives. Obviously this ordinance is just to serve one term Tony.
ReplyDeleteI want to know what "value-added products" are?? Sounds like an open door to every crafty idea you ever had...and a whole lot of traffic issues. Watch for "complete streets" with sidewalks forced citywide to make us all safe while we buy value-add products from one another and enjoy our brand new community character-killing sidewalks.
ReplyDelete