To: Encinitas City Council, Jeff Murphy, Joan Kling, Mario MoralesLast year the council created another full-time code enforcement position at the request of Gus Vina, using the downtown drunkfest scene as an excuse. Sounds like that new officer is focused on other things.
From: Encinitas Citizens Committee
As was stated in prior messages to Code Enforcement, the Encinitas Citizens Committee chooses not to have monthly meetings with Mario Morales. In our previous meetings he had nothing to report to us about inspecting the offending alcohol serving establishments. We also expressed frustration that the bars are only going to be inspected 2 days a month during warm weather. This is not appropriate given that the summer nights, especially during the weekends, are the historical times for disruptive behavior by the bars and bar patrons. As to Mario's question about whether he can use an email response as a meeting, we would not call an exchange of emails a meeting at this time.
We consider it good news that the City Council has recently approved an ordinance that will raise fines. With the new ordinance, the third citation will go from $500 to $1,000. The Shelter/Saloon and Union have two offenses each. So this means, no doubt, that if there is a third citation it will cost them $1,000. Or, were the first two offenses let go without fines? Shameful if that was the case!
We think it is essential that this Ordinance go into effect before the summer. This would put the City of Encinitas in a stronger position to curb disturbances as establishments would be more diligent about obeying the law. Waiting until part or all of the summer has past would be an extreme waste of a very necessary ordinance!
Finally and of utmost importance, is the need to increase Code Enforcement's visits to problematic places that serve alcohol. The ECC still asserts that frequent and timely monitoring -- as well as appropriate fines -- are vital to a healthy downtown environment and to provide a safe and disturbance-free life for residents and local businesses.
Friday, May 8, 2015
Downtown residents not getting any relief from bar problems
From the Inbox:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Code enforcement is usually used in neighbor wars. People rat each other off using code enforcement as a harassment tool. The city won't reveal the identity of the rat, so people feel safe abusing the system. Obviously the bars have $ clout $, as enforcement appears lax.... Money talks.
ReplyDeleteThe city changed a part-time code enforcement position to full-time, not a whole new position.
ReplyDelete9:39 Actually, when you make a part time position full time, they get retirement and benefits, so technically, it should count as a whole new position.
ReplyDeleteActually it looks like Encinitas gives full benefits to part-timers.
DeleteWhat a generous city!
The increase of the third fine is for any violation of the code not for the bar owners. How many bar owners were fined $500 for the third violation? Staff didn't give that information. With the third violation the city can take the bar owner to court. How many bar owners have been taken to court? Staff didn't give that information.
ReplyDeleteDon't be fooled by the council's concern for fining the bar owners. If the owners haven't been fined the current $500, they will certainly not be fined $1000.
The council is raising the fine for another reason, and it's not to help the downtown residents.
The city attorney can charge the violation as an infraction or a misdemeanor. Ask the council to charge the violating bar owners with a misdemeanor.
ReplyDeleteRead the current ordinance.
1.08.040 Nature of Violations. (Ord. 2003-06).
A. Continuing Violations. Each separate day, or part thereof, during which a violation of this Code is committed, continued, maintained, permitted or allowed shall constitute a separate offense, punishable as such.
B. Responsible of New Owners. When a continuing violation of this code is created or
maintained on real property, each successive owner of the real property, including responsible persons describedinSection1.08.035, who neglects to abate the continuing violation is responsible for the violation in the same manner as the former owner.
C. Aiding and Abetting a Violation. Whenever an act or omission is unlawful under this Code, it shall be unlawful for any person to aid, abet, conceal, suffer, permit, allow or maintain such violation, or become an accessory to such violation after the fact. (Taken from the municipal code)
Section C above - "Aiding and Abetting a violation" is what the city and the council have been doing for the last several years. Mayor Gaspar has a conflict of interest in enforcing the current ordinance. She held a political fundraiser at one of the violating bars. Jeff Murphy, the planning director, held a city informational session at one of the bars with the violations.
Would Mayor Gaspar's and Jeff Murphy's actions be considered aiding and abetting a violation?
The city can decide to prosecute as a misdemeanor, but the downtown residents must be the ones to push for it.
Downtown residents have demonstrated repeatedly for a couple of years now that there were and continue to be violations.
DeleteAt this point the council needs to take care of business. This idea that residents should do the city's job was old from day one.
At some point soon the city will have shown negligence - may already have reached that point. Sadly, the only language the council understands is legal. Sue 'em and sue 'em often. That was Jim Bobd's advice as a sitting council member.
How's the Encinitas City Council Body Count for negligence?
Deletehttp://encinitasundercover.blogspot.com/2014/04/rip-rachel-anne-morrison.html
You didn't post this part:
DeleteB. Misdemeanor. Any person convicted of violating a provision of this Code, where such
violation is expressly made a misdemeanor, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand
dollars, or by imprisonment not to exceed six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. (GC
§ 36901)
So, to be prosecuted as a criminal misdemeanor, the specific code that was violated has to explicitly state that violation can be a misdemeanor. If the code is silent, then it can only be considered an infraction, which is a less serious form of violation.
At some point people have to take personal responsibility for their actions. In the case of Rachel Anne Morrison, I blame the serial drunk that hit her, not our city council. That's a cheap shot to make that claim.....
Delete"Bond" - Jim Bond.
ReplyDelete12:40 PM
ReplyDeleteNo, that's not how the ordinance reads.
You didn't post this part of the code -
C. Discretionary Charging of Infractions and Misdemeanors.
Not withstanding any other provision of this Code, any violation of this Code that constitutes an infraction or a misdemeanor, may be charged as a misdemeanor or an infraction, respectively, at the discretion of the City Attorney.
(Ord. 2003-06)
Good catch, but it still won't happen. Council too scared to cross the business community, no matter how badly behaved.
DeleteYes, good catch. At first glance, I thought this provision gave the CA discrediting only to downgrade a violation from a misdemeanor to an infraction, but you are right--it goes both ways. He can also charge a criminal misdemeanor which may result in jail time for violations written into the code as infractions.
DeleteI'm not sure I like giving any CA that power. To my knowledge, this provision has never been used much less abused, but I still question why it's a good idea to give one non-elected person the prosecutorial discretion to pursue jail time for minor offenses.
Again, not a problem with this council. You can sleep soundly tonight, whoever you are, so worried about unfettered "prosecutorial discretion.".
DeleteIt has nothing to do with council. The power is granted to the City Attorney
DeleteThe City Attorney works at the discretion of the council. He's not elected. He can be fired anytime, if the council so chooses. He was recently given a good job evaluation. The council likes whatever he is doing or not doing.
DeleteThe city attorney, the planning director...it all comes back around to what the council directs. No free pass, 4:18.
Delete4:52, 10:58,
DeleteYou have missed the point.
The point is, our general code grants the power to city attorney's office to prosecute the most minor of offenses as a criminal misdemeanor with up to six months of jail time, and council does not have oversight or approval of CA's decision (other than to fire him).
Question: is that a good law? Bear in mind we do not write laws affecting an office based on the individual office holder. This isn't about Sabine per se. Is it a good idea to grant that kind of unchecked power to ANY single unelected official?
And you all really think that Glen Sabine, who has his hands in many pies, is actually going to prosecute, with or without Council telling him to do so? Have you been watching how many times Council has asked him about something, and he has no answer. When Dr. Lorri attempted to show how incompetent he was (9 minutes worth and 1100 pages of documentation), along with Donna Westbrook, the only person who even asked anything was Mark Muir. And Glen attacked, instead of answered. Actually he verbally attacked Dr. Lorri but oh well, you all hate her so there we have it. Word on the street is she is done with city politics. Can't say I blame her.
Delete1100 pages you say?
DeleteWow.
I would think any citizen who can print out more than 800 pages should be able to remove any office holder from public service. Apparently, this council has a higher bar. Maybe next time she needs to bring in 2000 pages, better yet 5000, better yet 20,000.
But I agree with you. It's all about the size of the stack, not the quality of evidence contained therein.
The 1100 pages were chalk full of things Sabine has and has not done. For example, he NEVER bills us for a paralegal when he uses his firm. Paralegals are less expensive, but Sabine bill full fee. The 10 million dollars we spent on him in 7 years came from that documentation. He turfs his cases to his own firm, Morrison and Sabine, and of course, outsources a lot as well. It will be interesting when the former mayor of La Mesa's "tell all" book comes out. I wonder if Sabine will get mentioned, as he is their contracted attorney as well. At this time, I think a full time City Attorney is the answer and it would be less expensive for the citizens. He or she might get benefits, but we already pay Sabine for his Continuing Education, which by law he has to have to renew his license; we pay for a generous car allowance; we pay a lot more than those 2 things, but let's not get mired down in why he should be gone. Council gave him an excellent rating. Makes me wonder exactly how they rate employees.
DeleteChalk full you say? Now, why did I just get a really funny picture of what would be inside a can of "Chalk Full of Nuts?" ("This tastes nasty.")
DeleteAs relates to your Perry Mason moment, did you bother to request the city contract with City Attorney, or contracts for legal work performed for the city by his firm? Those documents should contain the rules for how and when City Attorney can recommend or select outside council, and how billing works. That would tell you if the use of Sabine's firm or the lack of paralegal billing violates the agreements, or comports with them.
It would also be instructive to assess the same contracts, policies, and billing models at five or six other cities who contract for a part time CA.
Through that analysis, if you could show that Sabine or his firm is/are violating signed agreements, OR you could show that the city has entered into agreements that are unusual and improper, then you'd have something.
Unfortunately, you don't have those things. All Dr. L had was a big stack of paper, incoherent outrage, and arm flapping. None of which earns you serious consideration.
--FP.
It is true as I sit with someone who has a stack of documents that supports these accusations. It is just a matter of time at this point.
DeleteIn the past, the City Attorney's specific contracts have been checked, through public info requests. There is no detail in past contracts about "the rules for how and when City Attorney can recommend or select outside council."
DeleteBilling is only referenced as a per billable hour amount, with no mention of paralegals, as Sabine has a whole City Dept, here in Encinitas, doing his "Risk Management," with Jace Schwarm as his Encinitas office manager/Director.
Our City Clerk, Kathy Hollywood, an excellent public servant, originally worked under Jace Schwarm, in Risk Management.
To have had a re-evaluation of City Attorney Glenn Sabine, without more subcommittee meetings, or without going through, and asking specific questions about, past public comments, presents as a disservice to the citizens, a disservice not in the spirit of transparency and accountability.
The City Attorney's evaluations can be open to the public. Private corporations can form private clubs, have secret meetings. Fortunately, municipal corporations answer to a higher authority, the Brown Act, part of Government Code.
Council has a challenge understanding laws that often appear to be written to be intentionally confusing, open to interpretation, and yes, unfettered discretion, discretion abused by conflicted public officers seeking personal gain.
Conflicted public officer seeking (and getting) personal gain$ accurately sums up our CA.
DeleteCharge the council with aiding and abetting and give them their first citation.
ReplyDeleteDalakranz will drink to that - Vulcan ale!
DeleteWait till the family of the gal killed by the over served drunk driver gets a good attorney and sues Encinitas. That will straighten the council sober.
ReplyDeleteThey might go after the bar, if they can prove which one(s) were involved. But that trail has gone cold by now, and the testimony of the perpetrator would be challenged as "impaired". There is probably no case on file where someone has successfully sued a city for liabilities caused by bars in their jurisdiction.
DeleteSo drink up, me hearties! Encinitas continues to be the favored port o' call!
Yeah, you can't sue the city for the negligence of an establishment serving that person. Where's the ABC in all of this? They don't have any discretion to rule on some of these places being a disorderly house?
DeleteLook at the composition of this council - nothing will happen. It's like the motto for the Chargers - "Maybe next year (election)".
ReplyDeleteOne of the main issues is the quality of people who are supervising these issues. As long as our Planning Director and City Attorney are in charge of oversight, expect nothing except more opportunities for Sabine to line his own pockets.
ReplyDeleteGet rid of city attorney council. His welcome wore out a decade ago.
ReplyDeleteWhat a great idea. Why hasn't anyone else thought of that? 9:49-How exactly do you propose we do that/ The only person who ever gave it about 10 shots to get rid of him is the hated Dr. Lori. Of course, we all know she is crazy, right?
DeleteCouncil is completely intimidated by the city attorney. This council is afraid to get rid of him and many more than the Dr. want him removed, this has been the case for years.
DeleteIf more citizens were like Dr. Lori, we might have an accountable city government.
ReplyDelete12:42 In your very humble opinion. She knows ZIP about government. Good riddance to her non-sensical comments. Sabine didn't pay much attention to her. Smart man.
Delete10:58- You are right. Sabine paid no attention to Dr. L. However, it still doesn't make it right what he has charged our city. He didn't have to pay attention as he knew the Council would back him. I could care less what he thinks about Dr. L, but I do care about all of the stuff that was in the documentation Dr. L asked for. Even Marco's Coast Law group got a slice of the pie. She only had 9 minutes. Kind of hard to go thru everything in those documents in that short of a time. Dr. L actually does know a lot about government, but I won't try to convince you of that. You dislike her. No problem. I like her, but then again, I know her very well. At this time she is through with city politics so one less agitator for you to throw mud at. Remember she was on Parks and Rec. Commission for 5 years and left because of Lisa R. So did Dennis Lhota, who is a friend of Jerome's as well as Sandy Shapiro. Something is up with P and R and she know the details. So far she hasn't shared those with me, or anyone that I know of. Perhaps you can ask Dennis, as I think you might be a friend of Jerome, if not Jerome himself.
Delete10:05 You are not as "slick" as you think and we are certainly not as "dumb" as you think, Ms. Lorri Greene. No one, except yourself, cared what was in all those big secret documents you keep talking about. They are public records and any one can get them if they so desire.
DeleteSo, Ms. Greene, since you like yourself so much, go and pet yourself because you obviously need the strokes. As for me, please stop posting under "anonymous" and pretend to be who you are not.
I see now why you are in the shrink business. You do have a multitude of problems.
Stay out of politics please. You are only out to destroy good innocent people.
10:05- Oh my- are you psychic. I didn't know there were any psychics anywhere. In case you are wondering who really posted this I will cop to it. It was me, as in Doug Long. Does that make you happy now.
Delete10:05- As further evidence that this is not Lorri, I will say that she was on the Parks and Rec. Commission with me. I suggested she be chair one year. I have deep respect for her and get really tired of all of the B.S. she has taken over the years on this blog. To the best of my knowledge, as others have said, she is not actively engaged in Encinitas politics and I understand it. Having said that my best guess at who hates her the most is Glen Sabine. He alone calls her Ms. Greene. I would hate to think it's my friend Jerome Stocks, although I have heard him say that. If it is you Jerome, please stop. It's beneath you.
Delete11:06 No physics anywhere? Come out of your house more often and drive down the coast highway. There are several open for visit. Perhaps you should visit one.
DeleteDoug Long? Not familiar with you or your name. Means nothing to me.
Are you another one that Ms. Greene thinks she is beyond beautiful?? Glasses.....need glasses or get a stronger pair.
11:27 If she was that good, she would still be on the Commission. I heard it had to be her way or she would get upset. Does not play well with others.
DeleteWhere did the word "hate" come from? No one used that except 11:27 am.
Delete12:34- Where exactly did you hear this about Lori on the commission. News to me, as I am on it. My recollection is she tried to hear everyone out, and she left because Lisa R. gave her a verbal bashing over something that happened between two of the men on the Commission. BYW, Doug Long, is on the Commission so you can ask him. He wasn't one that get a tongue lashing from Lisa. He is also one of the best volunteers this City has. So, if you haven't heard of him I suggest you get out of your house, put the hate pipe down and enjoy our city. Who cares what you think since you don't have a clue what you are talking about.
Delete1:54 If you don't care what I think , why bother to respond? I don't care who is on what commission. The point is Ms. Greene has problems with a lot of people. That has been obvious from the day I heard her speak at a meeting.
DeleteAre you also one of those Blakespear fans who now believes BEER = SALAD? Check out her FB page. No wonder we have probems with the bar establishements. They have vapor stores nearby so you can get a double whammy.
Nope, no physics anywhere. No chemistry or biology either.
DeleteNothing is beneath Stocks, and Long was militantly against Prop A.
"Doug Long? Not familiar with you or your name. Means nothing to me."
DeleteNew in town?
Ignorant and proud. Not a good mix.
Delete5:13 You should know.
DeleteParaphrasing 6:25: 'nuh-uh, you are.'
DeleteVery intelligent. You Win.
6:37 I always win.
DeleteSweet Dougy Long is known not just for his plumbing skills, but also his singing skills while in council chambers.....
DeleteEncinitas Guerrilla deeply philosophical... attacks Mulholland and yet drinks, bathes and waters his/her lawn with water supplied from the man and his ideas. Sadly it never occurs to people like EG to move away from SoCal and stop being the problem.
ReplyDeleteSo here's the history lesson on this one. Actually a very cleverly written take...
Deletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Francis_Dam
1:01
DeleteAttacks? You must have misread the entry. Try again.
Unless Encinitas Guerrilla lives in Los Angeles, he's not drinking, bathing, and watering with water from Mulholland's Owens Valley aqueduct. Try again.
Delete1:01 gets to stay and to decide who else has to leave. Arrogant and absurd!
DeleteI have decided I've voting for 1:01 come next election.
Delete6:50,
DeleteWhile Mulholland's system goes directly to LADWP, there are interconnects with other plumbing. Besides, water is a fungible asset. What do you think would happen if the LA aqueducts ceased operations? Answer: the pain would be shared across Southern California, and our allocations from MWD, SWP, and the Colorado River would be reduced.
If the sources go dry, the plumbing doesn't matter.
Delete