Thursday, April 16, 2015

Shaffer and Muir spar in Seaside Courier

Council Member Mark Muir wrote a commentary on the budget process in the Seaside Courier. Council Member Lisa Shaffer responded with a commentary of her own.

Muir:
The Encinitas City Council has begun one of our most important annual tasks, drafting the city’s annual budget.

Mayor Kristin Gaspar and I both voted against increasing taxes because we believe that, as with your budget at home, our city must live within its means and exercise fiscal restraints. Just like at home, there are always more wants than dollars available.
Shaffer:
Mr. Muir wrote that he and Mayor Gaspar voted against increasing taxes. The truth is that there has not been a proposal to raise taxes since Mr. Muir was elected, and there has not been a vote on this question.
As we have pointed out before, Shaffer is again dissembling the truth of what happened. True, there was not a vote specifically on the question of raising taxes. The vote was formally only to obtain cost estimates to run a sales tax poll. In reality, however, City Manager Gus Vina had already planned to hire propagandist Catherine Lew, who advertises her services not as an unbiased pollster but on her success in tax increase advocacy campaigns. Shaffer, Kranz, and Barth voted 3-2 to push forward with Gus Vina's sales tax increase scheme, and their plan was only foiled when both Muir and Gaspar were adamant that regardless of the propagandist's poll results, they would each refuse to be the fourth vote to put a tax increase on the ballot.

44 comments:

  1. Shaffer is still the arrogant double talking academician. She thinks her convoluted explanations provide a smoke screen for the facts and rearrange them into a convenient truth. She must have attended the Donald Rumsfield Academy of garbled rhetoric, where there are the known unknowns, the unknown knowns, known knowns and unknown unknowns. In her case, her ability to act as a cohesive and truthful council person is now a known known - she is incompetent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Reminds me of "Doublespeak" from Orwell's book "1984. Anyone else see that in Shaffer?

      Delete
    2. Audet exposed the Lew Edwards chicanery with a Freedom of Information request. Emails show that Vina-Barth-Shaffer-Kranz tax hike sceme was rolling along-

      Barth and Shaffer tried to shame Muir and Gaspar playing politics about not giving people the chance to vote on a tax increase

      Lisa Shaffer has proven herself to be self-centered and a spreader of untruths-

      During Lew Edwards she said "The idea of raising $ 5 million in taxes sounds like a good idea to me"

      that is supporting the tax hike

      Thankfully aware and alarmed citizens alerted the public

      Barth and Shaffer later tried to use their newsletters to say it would cost $ 20,000- they were again exposed as fabricators

      nice to see Blakespear has so far no aligned herself as a Shaffer lap-dog

      Delete
  2. So it sounds like Muir lied and Shaffer called him out on his lie.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Muir is an incompetent also.

    ReplyDelete
  4. WC has it exactly right. Both Muir and Gaspar made it very clear with their NO votes on pursuing the Lew Edwards proposal of a sales tax increase that they would never vote to put the tax increase on the ballot, which takes a super majority of four. Shaffer was pissed. She knew her desired sales tax increase was dead. It''s fair to say that the two voted against a tax increase and that Shaffer is being less than truthful.

    Shaffer also proposed putting parking meters downtown, which could be considered a tax on parking. Shaffer has never met a tax or fee increase that she didn't like. She has become vindictive after the over priced Pacific View purchase and the setbacks she has faced the in funding improvements of the former school.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks. I don't recall Shaffer's reaction, but I do recall Barth's sourpuss face and pestering of Muir when he wouldn't go along with the tax increase scheme.

      Those who doubt what went on are invited to watch the March 26, 2014 council video. It's quite amusing as I recall!

      Delete
    2. In all legal fairness, there was no vote taken for a tax increase. I am sure the city clerk can back that up.

      Delete
    3. Thanks for your legal opinion, but we're really discussing intention here. No one can doubt that Shaffer would have happily crowed "with gratitude" that 4 out of 5 council members voted to stick it to the public.

      Delete
    4. Muir put a spin on this and he knows it. There was no vote to increase taxes. Period. I think we all can figure out his lame intent to make himself look good.

      Delete
    5. So when Muir worked in the Fire department did he refuse any pay increases because he wanted the city to live within its means?

      Delete
    6. 11;53 Oh, but of course not. Muir would never ever refuse to take our money for HIMSELF. He would starve to death if his pension were any lower.

      He is one BIG JOKE, "as it relates to"___________________.

      Delete
  5. Muir's vote was to stop, or to not start, the process that could have led to a tax increase. I don't see that as a stretch that he voted against raising taxes.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thank you EU blog for keeping this Lew Edwards tax scam alive. Wish you could also keep a reminder about the Mike Andreen meeting with a property owner on Saxony who was advised that the Housing Element Update would be a positive potential investment...a secret meeting that council member Kristin Gaspar attended. Way before the Update Map was seen by the general public!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Correct. GASpar is not as squeaky clean as she presents herself.

      Delete
    2. She stared down the entire time that little expose was read, beet red as could be. The city's secretive contact two weeks prior plus the Andreen/Gaspar follow-up meeting doomed the HEU to failure from the start.

      Delete
    3. Thanks for the reminder!

      That story is here.

      Delete
    4. A lot of people are getting sucked into the rhetoric and positioning of the council by backing up or buying into their positions. I am not agreeing with Muir, but residents do need to speak up and support what's important to them. That's the problem, the overall lack of engagement. This blog is one of the few regulars in town that focuses on what goes on. I don't really care about Muir and Shaffer arguing about who has the moral high ground. Muir's pension alone eliminates him from that discussion, and frankly Lisa hasn't ever really come up with any potent initiatives, except for some of these revenue ideas.

      The train issue is relevant, but as we know, it takes a huge federal cash outlay to get all the under grounding done. Another study doesn't mean squat. If you have a Federal contact lined up who can try and get the $, that's the most important part.

      -MGJ

      Delete
  7. Blakespear is the only good Council Person. Boot the rest in 2016!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. From what Shaffer has been saying it doesn't sound like she plans on running for reelection in 2016.

      Delete
    2. Interesting. Last time I spoke to her she said she wasn't going to run again. HmmmmPower must give her a sense of self-importance.

      Delete
    3. Shaffer said during her 2012 campaign and has said many times since that she would be a one term council member. That point has also been made more than once on this blog. IOW, it's very old news. WTFU!

      Delete
    4. Shaffer has exposed herself as all bluff and bluster. She could get away with it in the protected Ivory Tower; in politics, she is just inefficient.

      Delete
  8. Housing Element Update is going down!!! Get the word out!

    Any new City Manager needs to come in and fire directors and staff. City Hall needs an Enema.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Off topic: at Barth's water summit last night, one of the water authority execs talked about an emergency section of state law that empowers water authorities to impose a meter moratorium halting all new construction. He said it's not up to the subjective disc reason of the water authority, but rather, can be invoked only if certain legally defined conditions are true. He said he thinks we may hit that point in the next six months. Another alternative to a complete moratorium would be a fee levied on new meters that would fund water conservation projects (like subsidizing residential turf replacement).

    It was a good session. Thanks to Barth for making it happen.

    ReplyDelete
  10. 7:17 AM
    Name names. Stop with the nebulous water authority execs reference. Who and what agency.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here are the names. I'm not Anonymous at 7:17 AM. However, I did get the email advertising the water summit.

      Mike Thornton, general manager, San Elijo Joint Powers Authority; Joey Randall, customer service manager, Olivenhain Municipal Water District and Cardiff resident; Dadla Ponizil, owner/operator of Ponizil Energy

      Delete
    2. Ah, Dadla...a "Smart Growth" proponent.

      Delete
    3. It was the OMWD guy who said we could freeze new meters in six months.

      Delete
    4. When we had the previous drought, and locally, we were at "Level 2," no new water meters were to be given. Speakers at SDWD meetings stated, during agenda items, and during oral communications, that we should once again restrict new water meters being issued. The current plan, according to Catherine Blakespear's latest newsletter, would allow new build developers, without projects already in the works (already with permit applications being processed), to buy "purple pipe credits."

      The temporary answer to the HEU (housing element update) is to go back to what was Stage 2 water restrictions, also including limiting issuance of any new water meters for projects not already in the works. Health and safety issues surrounding the drought must trump affordability mandates, which reward high density market rate development, with an emphasis on profit "penciling out," not on affordability.

      Delete
  11. Interesting article in the LA Times today on some ways to stop growth. Here's the link:


    http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-shaw-tenderloin-20150417-story.html

    ReplyDelete
  12. 7:04 PM
    Why don't you ask Larry Watt or Christy Guerin. Both are on the OMWD board.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Muir comes along every few months to write a "commentary" in order to make us believe that he actually does something to earn his council pay.

    Did you ever notice how he NEVER volunteers to be on a sub-committee? He always shoves it off on someone else to do the work, then he comes back and criticizes. What a guy! He needs to be voted out next time around.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wasn't he on the subcommittee with Shaffer that wrote the lies for the ballot argument against Prop A?

      Delete
    2. Muir, along with Gaspar, was on the subcommittee re the contracted study that allowed SDWD to raise its rates. Now the State is advocating for a tiered rate structure, where a minimum amount used could be classified as a "lifeline" amount, at a reduced rate of pay.

      Muir and Kranz were also on the subcommittee that was to decide about educational materials that were to be mailed out to foist misinformation on the public, trying to incite public fears about passage of Prop A. Kranz was all for sending out the supposedly neutral "educational" materials. He had a printer all lined up, and sample flyers, sample copy prepared by staff for a city Q&A page. Muir announced he had an "epiphany," that he realized any informational materials would not be neutral as all of Council and staff would be essentially opposing Prop A, as the ballot arguments had. So the idea of a Q and A page, online, as well as the educational mailings through the USPS were discarded.

      Don't allow your dislike of a particular politician to get in the way of the facts. History is usually hearsay, but this is recorded history, as the subcommittee meetings were open meetings, and were recorded.

      Delete
    3. That's becuz most of the sub committees are far off or far out items like tsunamis, bee-hives and/or forcing the CBDG grant winners to sign a volunteer agreement to pick up fruit on the ground after the new city trees are planted and start bearing edible fruit.

      Delete
  14. Whenever Mark has some article appear in one of the local papers like the Courier or the Advocate or even the Coast News, there is not one 'as it relates to' yet when he speaks at Council, he can hardly compose a single sentence without using that once , twice, even three times during a single comment. He is not able write those editorials himself obviously, so just who writes those for him? Any guesses out there, anyone? Who is his ghost writer for these editorials? Anyone who has listened to him during council meetings knows well that he cannot write these himself. Only and year and half left before Sluggo will be out of our hair and he will not be missed one iota. It cannot come too soon.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 5:33 I thought the same thing. Muir can only blubber through sentences and not in a coherent fashion by any means.

      If Muir was on the Prop. A sub-committee, I don't remember that, but it is possible. I do remember all of the council lying about the consequences if it passed.

      A year and half can't come soon enough. Bye, bye Muir.

      Delete
    2. Editorials are called that because editors write them. Muir writes commentaries. My guess is his wife helps him.

      Delete
    3. Actually Sluggo is Bruce Ehler's nickname, for over a decade now.

      Delete
  15. Muir doesn't write squat! He is abundantly fed [haha] everything that comes out of his pie hole. We have all seen what happens when he is left to his own devices every time he speaks during council meetings. That is the real Muir. All of those occasional columns that show up in our local papers have nothing to do with him except that his name is attached like he is the author. Really???? Not a chance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who cares whether Muir wrote those articles or not. If he signed them then they must reflect his thinking. This is just an exercise in juvenile putdowns.

      Delete
    2. 5:34 We care and that is why you see the comments. These are not juvenile putdowns. The guy can not complete a sentence that makes sense unless he puts in "as it relates to". By the time he uses that phrase over and over to make a point, it turns out to be pure mush.

      "As it relates to" the commentary published in the paper, we all know that he had help with composing it. No way could a man of that kind of intellect (or lack thereof) write something on his own. His mama was feeding him as usual.

      Delete
  16. Muir was in fact on the Prop A ballot statement subcommittee with Lisa. He wanted to include Keith Harrison's bizarre claim about 30' trellises up against neighboring fences. Tom Curriden, the Planning Dept representative at tbe meeting, had to inform both Muir and Shaffer that "that gentleman [Harrison] was wrong.". Muir n' Shaffer still managed to pack the ballot statement against Prop A full of "unintended consequence" whoppers.

    Shows just how far our dear council is willing to go to get their way.

    ReplyDelete