Thursday, July 9, 2015

Council surrenders to developers on density bonus

... and hands them a fat $200,000 check as a parting gift:
The city of Encinitas will pay $200,000 in legal fees and rescind its density bonus ordinance as part of a settlement reached Wednesday with the Building Industry Association of San Diego County.
3-2 vote, Muir and Gaspar voting no. The one consolation is we get to keep rounding down on base density, so we've got that going for us.

Muir and Gaspar comment on their reasoning in the Seaside Courier. No comment from the majority.

UPDATE: Settlement here.

141 comments:

  1. Our new majority is hopeless! I see nothing that has been gained by this settlement!

    Council has agreed to dismantle the ordinances on the books that allow for rounding down--which have been there all along. In place, they will go with whatever is decided with AB 744!

    The six "pipeline projects" that will go to higher density is a bitter pill to swallow.

    The parting gift of $200,000 for the BIA is outrageous.

    I see that Kranz and Shaffer are consistent in their negotiation skills since the Pacific View project! I had hoped that Catherine would bring some value, but apparently not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 8:28 AM
      Council hasn't agreed to dismantle the ordinances on the books. The BIA has given rounding down their blessing.

      Delete
    2. The BIA will go along with the rounding down, unless the State Legislature passes AB744.

      Paying for the BIA's legal fees does seem excessive.

      Unfortunately, as a lawyer, CB stated (in the article in the Seaside Courier) that the City could not have won the lawsuit. This is because the City has not been good at following State Law. The rounding issue was interpreted differently in different jurisdictions.

      From reading the article, it seems that developers will still have to demonstrate, financially, that density bonus projects pencil out, and comply with statutory law. So rounding down wasn't the only policy that the City retained.

      I was surprised there weren't public speakers after SANDAG's presentation Wednesday, at the beginning of the meeting. Was the guy's name Muggs? SANDAG's projections are way off, and Shaffer and Kranz thrive on "regionalism" because they are eyeing grants, for which we are mostly unqualified.

      Delete
  2. The main complaint in the case about Encinitas not having an updated General Plan can be traced back to Teresa Barth. Instead of taking the simple way out and simply reading the General Plan we had in place and making a few minor changes in house, she wanted to totally redo everything. Obstructionists warned her not to open it up as a big project and tried to get her to do it on a reasonable scale.

    The result is that we spent close to $2 million dollars on a plan that was nearly 800 pages, As a city of 60,000 with 19 square miles, our GPU was twice as long as the GPU for the County of San Diego!

    Now we know where our current council majority gets their prowess in handling our tax dollars!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 9:16

      It should be noted that Barth supported the SANDAG target on El Camino Real of 5-7 story buildings in 2008.

      It should be noted that Barth then attended at taxpayer expense ideological stack and pack conferences to "feel" important.

      It should be noted Barth then used her attendance at these meetings to sit on boards and panels promoting stack and pack housing to "feel" important.

      It should be noted that Barth then lied on the Prop A ballot statement to promote her stack and pack ideology.

      It should be noted that Barth then used her attendance at conferences and participations on panels to present herself an an expert with intereviews with KPBS.

      Delete
    2. Well she failed at every turn so no surprise.

      Delete
  3. Are other cities are chaotic as Encinitas? The city council composition has been one disaster after another - it's been an open treasury for special interests and "public servants" .

    ReplyDelete
  4. According to the article, Gaspar says that the city has already invested $120,000 in fighting this lawsuit, and we are paying another $200,000, which makes $320,000 that we have lost because we don't have an updated General Plan.

    It is hard to blame a single person in this since planners wasted our resources and have come up with plans that were written before they did their outreach attempts. The BIA had it both ways since local developers were pushing densification and ended up having the BIA sue when it didn't pass.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Good going council. This just shows how Gaspar is an ineffective mayor along with her sidekick blubber Muir. Gaspar has absolutely no influence as mayor. All she does it sits up there and smiles and says thank you, especially to the men (wink, wink).

    The other three are just as bad. Blakespear was a hopeful, but has turned into a big disappointment.

    Community character my ASS!

    ReplyDelete
  6. That money should come out of Sabines pay, he never should allow the city to be in these awful positions. Failure.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sabine's advice was to avoid this fight in the first place. Council ignored his advice. Turns out he was right.

      Delete
    2. Please explain what you mean about "Sabine's advice," Glenn. What did you advise council to do when they got sued?

      Delete
    3. 12:29,

      Read the article:

      "Council’s interpretation of the state law was that municipalities were permitted to amend their density bonus policies.

      City Attorney Glenn Sabine did not agree with that interpretation, so the Council opted to hire outside legal representation."

      Again, council ignored Sabine, and he was proved right. I'm not a big fan of Sabine, but in this case he was proved right.

      Delete
    4. Obviously he had to hire it out! He loses almost everything that he touches, and he has been under scrutiny by the Council and his job is on the line.

      Delete
    5. Be that as it may, the council must have come to the realization that Sabine was right, or else why would they capitulate so completely?

      If they still beloved they had a winning hand, then why fold?

      Don't let your animosity toward Sabine color your view of the current case. Even a bad attorney is right sometimes.

      Delete
    6. 12:38
      Read the settlement. The BIA "lets" the city use the Municipal Code for determining density. The BIA demanded that the city rescind the council actions of July 16, 2014, BUT once rescinded the council can put them back as policies. .
      Despite what the council had been told about the power of the municipality to change policies and that unless the development has received all approvals and begun building the new policies apply. The council went against case law and agree to BIA's demand to not hold six of the density developments to the law. Worst of all, councilmembers Kranz, Shaffer, and Blakespear paid the ransom of $200,000 to the BIA.

      Delete
    7. I agree with everything you said, which is all evidence that the council majority came to realize that they had no case.

      I was the first to stand up and applaud the council last year for passing these measures, but I'm no lawyer.

      What's populist isn't always legal. I think the council got caught up in the emotional frenzy of populism without digging into the legal reality. Unfortunately, our elected leaders need to be the sober adults in the room, or else things like this happen and several hundred thousand dollars vaporize.

      Delete
    8. 1:28 PM
      The council DID have a case. Blakespear was the swing vote. Unfortunately, her law experience doesn't include standing your ground.
      Tony is in the developers' hip pockets. No question who will win when Tony must decide between developers and the community.
      Shaffer is a socialist - nuff said.
      The BIA can still sue again and this time it will be financed by the $200,000 giveaway by the three turncoats.

      Delete
    9. The city attorney advises the council on legal matters but they are responsible for deciding what actions to take. It's clear from the article that Sabine recommended not to fight the suit but the council ignored his advice and fought it. That is their prerogative. They are the ones who are legally responsible. As I understand it, the settlement doesn't prevent the BIA (or anyone else) from challenging rounding down in the future.

      Delete
    10. 1:36,

      So, the city had a strong case, but elected to fold. Right?

      Why?

      If they were pro-developer, then why pass the changes at all a year ago?

      Delete
    11. The $100,000 lawyer, outside council Barbara Kautz has convinced Tony, Lisa and Catherine, that all they have to do is codify the changes and they will become law: very briefly, as someone above stated, the BIA is planning on suing Encinitas the moment this happens; plus, that will cost another $300K if not more. Density Bonus has been litigated all over the State and the State has always won: and that is when smart and capable people have tried to change it. Look what we have.

      What Lisa didn't mention in her weekly mea culpa blog today is that Kautz assured the Council that if they wanted to go ahead and litigate a defense, the end result would be a judge being empowered to make all land-use decisions for the City because Encinitas has been in violation for over 23 years and there is no precedent that this council will ever get approval for a housing element in any near future.

      Someone needs to send Teresa Barth an invoice for $300K for demanding the July 2014 changes in the first place: anyone who read her written demands last July on Density Bonus knows that she didn't write the demands, Ehlers/Delano/Slater-Price/Taylor most-likely did in an attempt to hurt Gaspar's chances at becoming Mayor.

      By settling without an agreement from the BIA not to file suit against the city again, over density bonus, the adolescents on the council have assured more lawsuits: truly incompetent leadership, and apparently Blakespear's legal skills and acumen are either totally limited by her narcissism, or she, like Tony and Lisa has no compunction to conserve tax payer dollars, making a bone-headed settlement such as this only and adds on to the $25 million dollar black hole that Barth left in her wake... The funny part is Shaffer has convinced herself that her constituents believe her transparent falsehoods. Off with their heads! Tony should be considered for a remake of Happy Gilmore.

      Delete
    12. What judge has time to make land use decisions for Encinitas?

      They are already sick to death of the frivolous lawsuits that our city attorney takes to court and generally loses or has thrown out.

      Judges have huge caseloads even without the extra burden of Encinitas cases that should never make it to court.

      Sorry, but this sounds like more threats from the building industry.

      Delete
    13. If hot shot Berkeley attorney Barbara Kautz was so convinced that the case was not winnable, it would have been greatly appreciated if she would have said so before running up a $120,000 legal bill.

      Maybe she is friends with the MIG people who milked us almost $2 million for the Ugly Baby they threw out!

      Delete
    14. 7:57 PM

      Judges don't have the time and aren't thrilled about doing it but they will do it. I would expect a judge to rule that the city has X amount of days to get it done or he/she will do it for them. The judge may or may not suspend land use approvals until it's complete. This usually has the desired effect.

      8:17 PM

      Once again, you people need to understand it's up to the council to take legal advice. They are the ones who are the legal representatives for the city. If they want to fight the suit that is their prerogative.

      As far as all this moaning about the excessive settlement costs, we can thank all those people who encouraged the council to show some backbone. Three hundred thousand dollars of backbone and we may hemorrhage still more.

      Delete
    15. Personally, I think that most San Diego judges are better qualified than most of our council present and past to rule on zoning issues.

      The judge was right about Desert Rose and Judge Casserly was right to rule that Glenn Sabine could not withhold consultants road reports that showed Encinitas was 42 million dollars behind in road repairs. Another judge said that Sabine could not appeal Casserly's ruling in the Cummins case and threw it out. That does not mean that Sabine didn't charge the taxpayers for all of his wasteful and vindictive hours wasted.

      Delete
  7. I don't see anyone at the city who looks good in this fiasco. As usual, Sabine looks terrible but has made out financially since he handled the case for the first months of the process and could bill through Sabine and Morrison. The Planning Department, as usual, looks like clowns, and our council looks terrible. Encinitas taxpayers get shafted again!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dump Sabine - he is bilking the system and no one seems to care (except activist citizens).

      Delete
    2. Sabine gave the council his best advice and they chose to ignore him.

      The council is responsible for this and needs to own up to it. Where do we get these idiots?

      Delete
    3. Who are all of these people supporting Sabine? The development community should go to another website if they want to be his cheerleader. I know of no Sabine fans here.

      Delete
    4. I don't support Sabine in general. But I try to be objective, and realize that no one is wrong 100% of the time. In this case it's clear he was right, and ignoring him cost the city (you and me) over $300K.

      I'm sorry if that shatters your simplistic worldview (Sabine bad).

      Delete
    5. 6:49 PM
      You didn't read the settlement paper. The BIA agreed that the city was right, but first the city had to rescind their actions of July 16, 2014. Once that is done the city can set the policies in place again. BIA had a clause that the city should have a vote on the housing element in Nov. 2016. Well, duh, that's been in place for some time so why would Kranz, Shaffer, and Blakespear think that was a bargaining tool for BIA. The whole settlement stinks. Let's bring out of the closed session everything that was said. Since Kranz, Shaffer, and Blakespear were sure that the city wouldn't win, daylight all the discussions in the closed sessions.

      Delete
  8. Like a decades long cancer at City Hall. The citizens of Encinitas deserve a new city attorney.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pallid cheerleading at best - saying Sabine got it "right" by random decision. How much did the city shell out this time to his "private" practice? He's like the Double Mint twins - pay him twice for the same service, but the taste is bad.

      Delete
  9. Sabine has been paid plenty-that's already been shown over and over again. And yet, Sabine is still here. Go figure. Many citizens have stood up during oral communications and given facts, figures, etc. and yet, he is still here. A citizen hired a private investigator and found out all sorts of dirt on Sabine, and yet he is still here. So the question is "what does he know about these council members that they don't want others to know?" This is a man who had a relationship with the Finance Director while she was still employed at the City. This is a man who has had tax liens on his own property. This is a man who never bills for a paralegal when he uses his own firm. The list goes on. Maybe he got this one right, but it still begs the larger question, which no one seems to be able to answer. Why is he still here? Another citizen did a comparison of what it would cost to hire a full time city attorney, and staffer, and found it would be cheaper than Sabine. Yet, the Council ( and other Council's over the years) still keep him. He is golden. No one is going to fire him. That is about the sum of it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 7:02 If you are not the shrink, you sure sound like her. In any case, he (Sabine) and $tock$, for that matter, kept "pulling your leg" because they knew you were (are) nieve. The guy can marry anyone he wishes without your approval.

      How many patients have you hugged and kissed lately? Just asking.

      Delete
    2. The "shrink" has cancer so I doubt if it is her 8:58. You are as asshole, BTW.

      Delete
    3. 9:11 She announced it was benign. Do your homework A-Hole.

      Delete
  10. 6:49 PM
    You didn't read the settlement paper. The BIA agreed that the city was right, but first the city had to rescind their actions of July 16, 2014. Once that is done the city can set the policies in place again. BIA had a clause that the city should have a vote on the housing element in Nov. 2016. Well, duh, that's been in place for some time so why would Kranz, Shaffer, and Blakespear think that was a bargaining tool for BIA. The whole settlement stinks. Let's bring out of the closed session everything that was said. Since Kranz, Shaffer, and Blakespear were sure that the city wouldn't win, daylight all the discussions in the closed sessions. Put it on an agenda.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is there a copy of the formal settlement available on the internet? If so, could you please post the link.

      Delete
  11. Reading the idiotic conclusions, interpretations and baseless conspiracy theories posted on this article reinforce my opinion that the majority of the people who post on this blog are not very smart. No matter how much you don’t like the law doesn’t make the councils July 2014 actions any more legal. Council settled because their actions were illegal and were in direct contradiction with the state law. If you don’t like the law change it where it was created – the state! Glen got this one right so how on earth is this his fault??

    It’s time for the other 95% of the citizenry to start voting in normal people. I’m so tired of the looney’s running this city. How is that 10 angry idiots can ruin everything for everyone? I care about this city, I want to protect it for my kids, I want to ensure it’s charm and character are preserved too. Stop labeling everyone who disagrees with you a BIA rep or home builder or corporate something.

    Signed,
    Friend of Fred

    ReplyDelete
  12. FOF = LOL And to have the audacity to say he got it right.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 9:13 How do you know it is a "HE?"

      Delete
    2. FOF has no integrity. He just started boning the finance manager and has made a killing of stupid city council members.

      Delete
  13. They did nothing to change the law

    ReplyDelete
  14. In Encinitas the BIA developers illegally use the density bonus law to build more million dollar houses in exchange for one little low income house. Once the BIA developers get planning and council approval of the density bonus waivers, the BIA developers come back to the council and ask to be relieved from building the one low income house. The BIA developers don't want low income housing in their million dollar housing developments. Kranz, Shaffer, and Blakespear know that but they would rather protect the BIA developers than require that the BIA developers build the low income housing in the development.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "In Encinitas the BIA developers illegally use the density bonus law to build more million dollar houses in exchange for one little low income house." Not again. Don't you people ever do a little research. While you may not like it, developers use of density bonus is perfectly legal. And there was only the one time, for unique circumstances, that a developer was able to combine the affordable units from different sites into one. The units were built but instead of modest size houses they were apartments. Density bonus requires that the affordable units are built.

      Delete
    2. 2:16 PM
      Density bonus requires that the low income housing be built in the housing development. So the BIA developers and the council at that time colluded to illegally use the density bonus law for financial gain.

      Delete
    3. 2:22 PM

      Actually, the planning commission got Shea to add an affordable unit. There was no collusion. The situation was unique because of the Barrett bankrupcy. It was a one-time deal.

      Give it a rest.

      Delete
  15. 3:39 PM
    The Shea homes density bonus scam should go before the council for a completing vetting of how BIA developers get "a one time deal" from the city council.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 3:47 PM

      I can only assume you are a hard core conspiracy theorist. No amount of reason will satisfy you. The planning commission is a public forum. The situation and reasons for proceeding were explained. The neighbors of the unfinished Barrett properties were upset with the deteriorating unfinished houses and empty lots. One of the affordable lots was in the possession of Bank of America who wanted full market value. The first attempt by previous owners to avoid building the affordable unit was rejected by the planning commission.

      So I guess your position would be screw the neighbors, I take it you don't live near there.

      Delete
    2. Shea Homes-

      Mr. Shannon was a VP of Shea Homes and pushed the Stack and Pack density increases in Solana Beach at the train station

      His wife Joanne Shannon was appointed to the Planning Commission by stack and pack buddies Stocks/Dalager/Barth

      During the Housing element update meetings in Cardiff Mr. Shannon was loudly proclaiming stack and pack as the best use of and and his wife and planning commission Joanne Shannon was huddled with Gus Vina

      Delete
    3. 10:51 AM

      You prove nothing in regards to the above discussion. The Iris apts. have nothing to do with stack and pack or any other cute term you can come up with. The Iris apts development (two stories) was already approved prior to Shea using it for all affordable housing. You are really reaching here.

      By the way, the Solana Beach project was initiated by the city and NCTD as a conbination TOD and addition station parking which was to be underground. Maybe the Solana Beach council were stack & pack.

      Delete
    4. 2:44-

      The Shannon led Shea project of stack and pack at Cedros failed- for the time being

      That NTCD worked with Sol Beach in an effort to initiate community character killing high density is telling. Kranz has been working with NTCD. During the Cardiff Specific Plan hearing of 2007 Pedr Norby and the city were pushing upzoning the NTCD tracks in front of Seaside Market up to Montgomery for high density housing. Residents voted it down in 2010 on the citizens committee,but will Kranz bring it back?

      Yes, the planning commission that approved the Iris deal was telling, the committee referred to the future tenants as "those people".

      Delete
    5. 5:48, The acronym is for North County Transit District and is not "NTCD". And it's "Peder" not Pedr.

      Delete
    6. 5:48 PM

      Tell us the minute mark on the video where the planning commission referred to the future tenants as "those people".

      Delete
  16. As I recall, when David Meyer sued the City over the Bahlmann project (now Shea) Sabine represented the City and settled the matter without paying Meyer his attorney's fees. Does anyone else remember it this way? If so, then maybe Sabine is unlikable but more competent than the person the Council hired to defend them after they didn't like what Sabine said in the back room about their chances of winning the BIA suit. As many of you have stated here, the real problem isn't Sabine, it is the Council people we keep electing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When the Planning Commission originally did not approve the Bahlmann project, David Meyer refused the changes the PC wanted and immediately appealed to the City Council and won his appeal. Of course, Meyer knew he had three votes on the council, the old Stocks troika. He came back later to ask for changes, which included adding one more market rate home to the density and the deletion of one affordable unit, a request to not pave Puebla Street, and other changes.

      Meyer sued the city. The city signed a settlement agreement. The details were kept very quiet. Meyer seems to have gotten what he wanted. I had heard that the number of affordable units was reduced. The Density Bonus Act gives a developer the option of how many affordable units to build in order to get up to 35% more market rate units. Developers play with the numbers to get the maximum market rate units, waivers, and concessions and build the minimum number of affordable units.

      To clarify Gaylord Bahlmann was a long time flower grower and owner of the property on Saxony. The family was not interested in continuing the business. Meyer is not a builder, but a "facilitator" pushing projects through the Planning Department. Shea Homes came in the build the houses. Meyer was responsible for the major screw up of the Nantucket project in Leucadia, another Density Bonus project. Meyer never built the two affordable units and wiggled out of the responsibility. Shea combined the affordable units from various projects and clumped them together in the apartment complex on North Vulcan. This was of questionable legality, but the city had created a mess and needed a solution. The community might have been better off if the affordable units had been integrated into the community.

      Delete
    2. 8:41 AM

      You highlight one aspect that gets ignored here. Many of these density bonus projects are the results of long time owners deciding to sell their property for maximum value. While development is ultimately done by a home builder, it starts with the owner. Don't believe that the owners are unaware that density bonus increases their property's value. Some of them, like desert rose, actually process the density bonus project in order to sell to a developer.

      So the problem is really with your neighbors

      Delete
  17. 9:56 PM
    Read the settlement agreement. It doesn't make sense and reads like something Sabine would write.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Sabine is a huge City risk. He may decide to start banging another City employee and hence a huge legal mess costing us the tax payer millions.


    He has a negative track record. Cut bait and get new blood.

    ReplyDelete
  19. It seems character and behavior are overlooked at the city. Moral bankruptcy.

    ReplyDelete
  20. EU double-standard?

    Over a month ago, EU posted a headline. In both the headline and the comments, EU implied that a wrong way freeway driver had been drinking in downtown Encinitas. There was no mention of drinking or drunk driving in any of the articles, charging documents or court records. The evidence relied upon by EU was that the driver drove near bars. We were told to wait for the arraignment, and EU would be proved right, so no retraction or apology was issued. Well, arraignment has come and gone, and still no mention in court of the subject drinking at Encinitas bars. So We learn that it is okay for EU to make direct accusations without any supporting facts, and those comments are allowed to stand here, so long as the story reinforces a popular narrative about problems downtown.

    Now the double standard.

    Nearly a year ago, there were several city council meeting agenda items, speakers, and news articles written about a code violation dispute in Encinitas. The city decided to enter into a deal to forgive the debt owed in the dispute in exchange for remedial actions from the home owner. In all, the city agrees to forgive six-figures of money owed to the city, which the city attorney advised would constitute an illegal gift of public funds (debts and judgements outstanding are listed in our official financial reporting as assets owned by the city)..

    This is a valid topic of city business, based on facts and public reporting. One would think the subject has more relevance and factual substance than EU's accusation a month ago.

    Yet, when I posted an update a couple of days ago, pointing out that the home owner has failed to follow through on the remedial actions required in the agreement, and called for the city to impose a time limit on completion, my comments were deleted.

    EU, compare and contrast these two editorial decisions. How do you defend letting stand your own unsupported wild accusations, and your decision to delete discussion of well-documented public city business?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 8:20 AM
      Ecke still owes the city coffers over hundreds of thousands of dollars in a sales tax loan the city gave to the Ecke's company. The loan has been quietly removed from the books. Now that is a gift of public funds.

      Delete
    2. 8:38,

      Sounds like a valid topic to me.

      Hopefully you would agree that any public agenda items and council decisions affecting our CAFR should welcome for open debate and scrutiny here.

      -8:20

      Delete
    3. Follow-up question for EU:

      Based on whatever rationale you come up with to explain or justify these editorial decisions, can you give us a list of the agenda items and/or news articles from Encinitas that are automatically off limits here? Are there others, or just one?

      Delete
    4. Cat crawl up your ass, 8:59?

      Delete
    5. Thank you for your thoughtful and witty comments, 9:10. Gives us all a lot to think about.

      Hopefully you agree that EU is a useful venue for open public debate on matters affecting our city, and that the editorial decisions of the moderator are important to the continued success of the blog.

      Delete
    6. Please send source about arraignment with no DUI.

      As for the homeowners' battle with code enforcement, let's leave them alone.

      Delete
    7. EU,

      Please explain your thinking.

      What other agenda items from public meetings and published news stories affecting the city business are not allowed? Is this the only one?

      I find it hypocritical in the extreme that EU and commenters claim to be financial watchdogs, and yet the ONLY public news/agenda item that is off limits affects a questionable financial agreement between the city and one of our own.

      Is this an open forum for oversight and critical analysis of local public policy, or a middle school lunch table?

      You can do your own homework on Mr. Leacock. The DA even has a handy automatic email bot that will update yiu on the case.

      EU is a smart person. The non-answer above clearly shows that you don't have a substantive explanation.

      Delete
    8. Yep. The cat crawled up his ass. No other explanation is possible. It has also made him kind of snotty.

      Delete
    9. The homeowner's battle with the code enforcement (The City) is public news. They are in the same arena as any other things that are on the docket of the city meetings.

      Lynn Autumn Marr, or whatever her real name is, has intentionally and spitefully attended and spoke on just about every issue, fully and intentionally making the meetings go on longer than necessary.

      We all had to sit and watch her go through her tirades and publicly demean members of the council, city staff, city manager and city attorney.

      Now, this is off limits? They made their bed, let them sleep in it as the saying goes. They continually wasted our time on things she cared nothing about, but was bound and determined to get in everyone's face week after week.

      I feel no pity for these people. I'm sure my comments will be deleted.

      Delete
    10. 11:48,

      I started this thread, and while I appreciate your passion, I'm trying to keep the discussion as respectful and impersonal as possible. This should be about debating an issue, and the editorial policy of the blog, not an attack on the individual players.

      I think it should be possible to debate an issue on its merits. That's why I refused to take the bait on the cat comments. Let's try to stick to the high road.

      Delete
    11. It doesn't make you any less of a pretentious ass, 12:31. There is no law that says fools must be taken seriously.

      Delete
    12. 1:28 PM

      "There is no law that says fools must be taken seriously." Which is why your comment will be ignored. (I'm not 12:31 PM)

      Delete
    13. You stay classy, 1:28.

      The "victims" of this massive conspiracy always seem to cry character assassination. Yet the people on their side of the argument (like you) seem to be the only ones actually issuing personal attacks.

      How's that for irony?

      Delete
    14. In your case it is more character suicide, 2:20.

      Delete
    15. The homeowner's "battle" wasn't really with Code Enforcement, but with the City Attorney, who used Code Enforcement to instigate litigation for which he was very handsomely paid, by the City, at the City's discretion. He had and has a conflict of interest when he makes hundreds of thousands of dollars in litigations which he brings to the Court in the name of the State as a public prosecutor, whereby his law firm, Sabine and Morrison, reaps huge rewards by having unnecessary depositions, improper ex parte hearings when he knows defendants have notified the City and the Court they are out of area, and then staging a fraudulent "default" judgment before a hand picked judge.

      Delete
    16. 5:02 Code Enforcement (part of the City) was brought into the Marr situation for LACK of being up to code. It was brought to a council meeting, and a sub-committee was created to meet with the offenders to try to get them compliant and up to code.

      No one can hand pick a judge. You should know that Lynn.

      Delete
    17. so sick of hearing from this woman. She goes on and on, trying to start trouble all over again. It was enough we had to listen to her every week. I sure as hell won't put up with her here. Go away and fight your battles. That's what the rest of us have to do.

      Delete
    18. Someone has a vendetta against the homeowners.

      Delete
    19. The city attorney can only bring action at the direction of the council. They are the ones who are the legal representative of the city. When are you people going to get that through your heads. The city attorney can recommend action or no action but it's the council who decides what happens.

      If you read the appellate opinion, the Marrs first called code enforcement on one of their neighbors who subsequently filed a complaint against the Marrs. Also in the opinion was how the Marrs did everything in their power not to cooperate.

      This whole vendetta trope is just a lot of nonsense. I want this all to go away. All long as the Marrs live up to their part of a sweet deal we can move forward.

      Delete
    20. 10:47 PM
      Stop posting about it.

      Delete
    21. 10:47 PM

      I meant "As long as the Marrs live up to their part of a sweet deal we can move forward." I'll stop posting when the Marrs fulfill their obligations.

      Delete
    22. Someone has a vendetta against the homeowners.

      Delete
    23. Code Enforcement was NOT brought into the Marr's case for our allegedly not being up to code. That's false. The only citizen's complaint and violation was for a "potential illegal unit." The violation notice was for having more than one dwelling units in a single family residential zone, when the zoning here was previously for duplexes, on this side of the street, under the County, with mixed use across the street, and when Encinitas Municipal Code allows for one accessory unit BY RIGHT in all single family residential zones.

      You can stop posting 11:09. We have fulfilled all of our contractual settlement agreement obligations. The citizen complaintant was a developer, who went bankrupt and cheated local vendors and his former neighbors in Olivenhain out of more than $7 million. He then went on to use his son's name to wrongly open up a line of credit.

      Russell and I were contacted by a deputy district attorney regarding this developer's criminal activities, which are still being investigated, including financial fraud, representing himself as a broker, when he never was. But he worked closely with the City Attorney's office to engineer a fraudulent default judgment against us, by lying and saying we had not left town for an Easter break, when we had informed the City and the Court we would be out of area for approximately one week. In our absence, more improper ex parte court hearings were held, where the judge was told again and again that we were being "defiant." That was not true.

      Questioning corrupt authority is not defiance.

      Delete
  21. 8:42 AM
    Councils have leased for one dollar a year for 50 years public property to certain favored organizations of the councilmembers. That is a gift of public funds.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sounds like another valid topic for debate.

      Hopefully you would agree that all financial decisions made by council affecting our financial statements should be fair game here.

      Delete
    2. Which properties and council members and when?

      Delete
  22. 8:59 and others-Let's remember this is a blog and anyone can post anonymously. It is not a newspaper, nor is it in any way representative of what is true or not true. Therefore, EU's blogmaster has total control over what is left or deleted. If you don't like it, may I respectfully suggest you either start your own blog, or better yet buy a newspaper and publish your thoughts and opinions. No one expects everything posted on this blog to be entirely accurate. It is away for citizens to vent, share, and comment on things affecting our city. Sometimes people use names of other citizens who they think posted something, when they actually didn't. This happens quite often to people some others don't like, or who may be telling the truth and others don't like it. There are trolls on this blog, and since anyone can post anonymously, I am pretty sure it is difficult to find out who all of them are. Anyway, my point is, if you want to say something, or share something, great. But, don't think for minute that EU does not have the right to delete comments. It's been done to me, and yet here I am still reading.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 10:21,

      8:59 here. Of course EU has editorial privledge to delete posts. I don't think anyone is challenging that--certainly not me. in fact, I would argue that in most cases, EU does a great job weeding posts that are defamatory or abusive.

      But I also believe I would be able to present a case when I think EU has misused editorial powers to play favorites, which is clearly true in this instance.

      I welcome an explanation and answers to my questions from EU.

      Delete
    2. I don't like it either but the homeowners are going through a lot right now and asked me to keep their issue off the blog.

      Sorry for being a softie in this case.

      Delete
    3. EU 12:08,

      I can respect that explanation.

      I don't agree with it, but I can respect it.

      I'm not sure why I had to drag it out of you. But it also begs the question: is it your policy to honor all such requests, or only from certain people, and under certain conditions? If so, which people, and what conditions. And will you disclose when a subject has been blacklisted, and why?

      It's your blog, and you make the rules, but it would be nice if you would tell us what the rules are.

      Delete
    4. Someone has a vendetta against the homeowners

      Delete
    5. There never was a "gifting of public funds." The homeowners were charged, by a corrupt judge, because they were self represented in court, without legal counsel, with the City Attorney's costs and fees. There never was a public hearing before Council before the case went to litigation, and there was no trial, in court. The City Attorney's office set up, through improper ex parte communications with various judges and other public officers a fraudulent default judgment. The homeowners were wrongly charged with Sabine and Morrison's costs and fees, which the City has long since paid in full.

      Nothing was ever done to collect the amount. After 10 years, without notice to the then new Council or to the homeowners, the judgment was renewed, through another improper ex parte hearing before the same corrupt judge, Jacqueline Stern. She became the judge and reopened "discovery" after more improper ex parte communication, when Lisa Schall recused herself after she attended one of the homeowner's depositions at City Hall, also without prior notice to defendants, despite an eight page court order Judge Schall wrote out.

      Defendants were prejudiced by Judges Schall and Stern. Lisa Schall has had three censures from the Council on Judicial Performance. She should no longer be on the bench.

      Delete
    6. The defendants never violated any law. The alleged violation for which they were cited, in September of 98 was for having more than one unit in a single family residential zone, when the studio was pre-existing, and when a single accessory unit has been allowed by right in Encinitas, since at least 1993, and before, when duplexes were allowed at that location, under the County, and mixed use across the street. There never was any zoning violation proven, or any public nuisance. The "default judgment" was a ploy to allow the City to win a nominal victory. There was never a single attempt to collect or enforce the judgment.

      The award of costs and fees was not done timely, in accordance with the default judgment, but was granted 128 days after the entry of default. This is contrary to precedent and the rules of court, and the monetary judgment is void, because defendants were to be notified of the amount when Sabine and Morrison filed their notice for entry of default.

      You really don't know what you're talking about, obsessive one. Please try not to dwell on the business of Lynn Marr, although that is very challenging for you, obviously.

      Another reason is that there is no gifting of public funds is because a settlement automatically excuses that, legally. All of the cases cited by Sabine for gifting of public funds were not on point and actually went against his contention. Furthermore, he only brought up gifting of public funds because Council, including Barth, as Blakespear was not yet on board, were asking why the judgment amount had doubled, with 10% interest added for each of 10 years since the Oct. 2004 late award of costs and fees.

      Council was also asking why they had no notice, through a closed session, if necessary, that the judgment was being renewed. Sabine's answer, they were running out of time, as the ten years was almost up. And he said they didn't have time to notify council and have a closed session, because if the ten years expired, that would be a "gifting of public funds."

      He was absolutely wrong on that. In all of the precedent, public agencies are given great discretion in deciding when its appropriate to renew a judgment, or not. Also, any time after five years, the judgment could have been renewed. Sabine didn't have to wait until the very last minute to renew, and then say he was running out of time, and couldn't notify Council or the defendants, through closed session notice.

      The Clerk of the Court wouldn't automatically renew, because the award of costs and fees was never merged with the default judgment, until the improperly noticed ex parte hearing before Judge Stern, who is in the City Attorney's pocket, a year ago.

      Can you let this rest, now? You are off topic. This has nothing to do with the settlement. Why do you care so much? I suspect this could be Jerome Stocks, posting, as he has a lot of time on his hands, now, and he's bitter about community commentaries Lynn wrote. Council Meetings are public hearings. All agenda items are open for public discussion. Lynn hasn't been speaking at Council Meetings for many many months, now.

      Can you let it go, Jerome? The Marrs are doing everything that they have been instructed to do through the City. They are not holding up the permitting process. It's a labyrinth for everyone, especially individual homeowners, who are doing remodels, etc.

      Delete
    7. 4:52,

      I won't address the legal fantasies, because that's what they are, and they are moot now anyway. There is a path to resolution, and it's not any conspiracy theory. The path is to follow the agreement and make the unit legal. It would be nice if this was over, and may of us thought (hoped) the end was near when the deal was struck almost a year ago. Whole new houses are built in less time. The longer it takes, the more there is a valid concern that the Marrs are not following through. The more wacky legal theories are brought up, the more it looks like the Marrs have abandoned the agreement as the proper path to resolution. And like it or not, the resolution of this matter is a matter of public record and city business.

      Frankly, I haven't thought about or checked on the status of the Abstract for a few months. You know what prompted me to check? Lynn posting here over the past days and weeks and slamming Tony. I don't care what you personally think of Tony, but you have several distinctive writing ticks, and Tony was the guy who took the initiative to broker a deal worth six figures for your benefit. I thought it was pretty interesting that you would do that. Them's some pretty sharp elbows you got there.

      But if you are going to have such sharp elbows, then don't cry to the moderator as too frail to take any mention of your situation.

      Don't dish it out if you can't take it.

      Delete
    8. 5:34 Totally agree. These people want someone else to solve their problems for them. It isn't going to happen. How ironic that she has EU believing that they are in a life-threatening situation.

      I want to throw up. This woman needs a shrink and fast.

      Delete
    9. Someone has a vendetta against the homeowners.

      Delete
    10. The vendetta dude should go back under their rock and stay mute.

      Delete
    11. Someone has a vendetta against the homeowners.

      Delete
    12. Was agreeing that someone definitely has a vendetta against the homeowner. Fact. Obvious.

      Delete
    13. 5:34 PM -- Why the vindictiveness and compulsiveness? If you want to talk about gift of public funds, look no further than Ecke/Carltas.and their role in ERGA. Two gifts of public funds totaling $127,000 were credited Ecke/Carltas against the sales tax advance made to them. More than $600,000 is still owed and was due in 2013. It was suspended by the city council Why the largesse? You are going after the wrong people. Even a lawyer in the biggest HOA on the Encinitas Ranch said the whole setup of ERGA through a public/private entity was illegal because of the gifting of public funds through the profit sharing arrangement.

      And please let us know what are the "writing ticks" that indicate that a certain person is slamming Tony.

      Delete
    14. Tony deserves slamming. Name one positive contribution..... Pacific View at 10 million plus?

      Delete
    15. 8:24, Good start.

      Delete
    16. 7:48,

      Sounds like a valid topic for scrutiny and debate here. In fact, I think I have seen it discussed openly here, which is good.

      Hopefully you would agree that all public agenda items/published news stories that affect our Consolidated Annual Financial Report (CAFR) should be fair game for scrutiny and debate.

      Delete
    17. 5:50 either has memory problems or the mouth isn't working properly. We got it the first time.

      Delete
    18. 10:13 PM
      You must be a city hall insider to keep pushing the yearly financial report. It takes the finance department over a year to compile it and another 6 months to publish it for the previous year.. It will be ready in April or May of next year. Come back then.

      Delete
    19. 10:32,

      Are you staking out the position that the official financial statement of the city is irrelevant to public policy debate?

      Interesting position.

      Say more.

      Delete
    20. The financial report won't be available until a year from now. Without the information there nothing to read. Do you have a copy of the report? Stop with the bait and switch.

      Delete
    21. 10:44,

      Financial reports show both assets and liabilities. Assets are positive, liabilities are negative. Assets for a municipality are things like tax revenues and owned real estate. Liabilities are things like bond debt owed, payroll, and pension obligations.

      In this case, the Abstract of Judgement is considered an asset on the city's books. It is a debt owed to the city, so it shows up as a positive on the financial report.

      If the city enters into an agreement to forgive the debt owed, then the asset disappears from the financial report, and the balance shifts toward the negative.

      It doesn't really matter which specific year of CAFR we are talking about, because the general idea is the same. For the financial health of the city, we want MORE assets and LESS liabilities.

      The deal with the Marrs directly reduces the assets listed in the financial report.

      I hope this helps.

      Delete
    22. 10:32 PM & 10:44 PM

      The CAFR is usually completed by the end of the calendar year after the fiscal year books are closed and the audit is finished. The last CAFR was presented to the council on December 17, 2014. If you're going to be so ignorant please do it in private.

      I'm not 10:13 PM just someone who is tired of people making comments who don't have a clue what they are talking about.

      Delete
    23. 11:02 PM
      The last CAFR was on the council agenda at Christmas time when most people are preparing for the holidays or on vacation? Wonder why.

      Delete
    24. Does the unpaid sales tax advance of Ecke/Carltas reduce the assets listed in the financial report? The suspension will probably be extended in 2018, as the golf course in still not making enough money to pay its fair share of the Mello-Roos taxes. The couple gets charged interest at 10%, while Ecke/Carltas at about 2%.

      Delete
    25. 11:25 AM

      The year before that it was in January. Nice try. First people complained it took to long now you complain that the council was trying to sneek it past. Wonder why? It's because many people don't know what they're talking about.

      Delete
    26. I didn't post here and slam Tony. I am posting here and reading here far less.

      "Lynn posting here over the past days and weeks and slamming Tony." The City is dragging the process out. New homes are not built, including going through Planning and Esgil in far less time.

      Past actions by past Council and the City Attorney's office and judges of the superior court are not "theories."

      A certain individual has been trying to silence me, for years, attempting to drive me away from this blog, where I participate much less, now, and doing everything he can to silence me at City Council Meetings through his obsessive compulsive bullying, changing the subject to our legal ordeal every time he thinks I have made a post, although it's often not me.

      I didn't slam Tony, either, and he should know that. I did state that re his councilmember agenda item last week, that he could have followed through with his initial comment that we already had a draft General Plan Update at a cost well in excess of $1 Million.

      Only the Housing Element has been going through a re-start. It's a good idea to coordinate the Circulation Element with the Housing Element Update, and the extensive data that was before compiled re the Circulation/Traffic update should be coordinated into the HEU, on which we'll be voting in November of 2016.

      There never was any gifting of public funds to Russell and me; the "gifting" in our case, was for the ludicrous costs and fees charged by Sabine and Morrison through a series of improperly notice, one-sided ex parte communications.

      Might doesn't make right. We have done everything we can to comply with the specific terms of the settlement agreement. It is the City and its private no-bid contractor, Esgil, that is holding up the process, not we homeowners.

      Delete
  23. Someone has a vendetta against the homeowners.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. everyone should, with good reason

      Delete
    2. You are blinded by your hate, 4:23. Hate is a mask that fear wears. What are you afraid of? You speak only for yourself, saying the same bitter things over and over. You convince no one of anything except that you are a troll, getting pleasure out of the pain you imagine you can inflict. You're a sociopath.

      Delete
  24. Tied in with density bonus, AB 744, and the housing element is the shuttle transportation for seniors and disabled persons.
    From their website information - Facilitating Access to Coordinated Transportation serves disabled and elderly people with affordable rides to medical offices, grocery stores or anywhere else. RideFACT operates throughout San Diego County and is open to anyone 60 or older.
    The agency's press release yesterday touted the number of riders, but didn't provide the rules and regulations to ride large van which apparently had different rules than regular bus service.
    Riders, the seniors and disabled, will be required to sign a notice of the rules and regulations. If they don't sign they will not be allowed to ride the public van.
    Does anyone know if bus riders are required to sign such a paper? Or the Coaster? Or the Breeze?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Let's not forget when a debt such as this is forgiven, the IRS considers it income. Taxes are due......

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The debt was bogus to begin with, and was not in accordance with state law or the rules of court. The City bought and paid for a prosecution against citizens without giving them their rightful day in court, or before that, a public hearing so the facts could be openly discussed before there were closed session discussions.

      There are no taxes due on a void judgment, which has no legal effect. There was a tremendous failure by former Council and a couple of corrupt judges to give us due process of law. The abstract of judgment is not the same as a lien for sale or possession of property. A contractual settlement agreement is not in any way a "gifting" of public funds. You are the one whose theories are completely off base, but that's your method of hateful operation, isn't it?

      Delete
  26. The BIA is listed as an nonprofit organization, yet they served the purpose of a private attorney for profit for the six developers with developments in the pipeline.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Headline - Earth heading for 'mini ice age' in just 15 years, scientists say

    ReplyDelete
  28. 6:15, Bring it.

    ReplyDelete
  29. 7:16 PM dyslexic?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Code Enforcement --- go do your job on those that are not living up to an agreement. You know who I mean. Sock it to them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sure, that's the right and decent thing to do. Kick them when they're down, and grind them into the dirt. Be vindictive. Punish them. They deserve the worst you can personally dish out.

      Delete
    2. 1111 The sympathy card is getting old.

      Delete
    3. Your mean dog will bite you.

      Delete
  31. 2:16, I know I am, but what are you?

    ReplyDelete
  32. The California legislators are waging war against seniors 62 years and over who own cars. How many seniors who would live in an affordable senior development would give up their cars to walk 1/2 mile to a bus stop for transportation?

    The special needs or disabled affordable housing would be built with even less parking spaces if AB 744 becomes law. Clearly discriminatory by the legislators to put the monetary interest of the developers before the needs of the disable in their choice of transportation. The disabled will also be relegated to the bus.

    Developers are telling Assemblymembers and State Senators that most seniors 62 and older or the disabled don't drive cars and the lawmakers believe it.

    Assembly bill AB 744- density bonus by Assemblymembers Ed Chau of the 49th district, Quirk of the 20th district, Gonzales of the 80th district, and Senator Beall of the 15th district are pushing hard for AB 744 to pass and be signed into law. AB 744 has received yes votes in committees and the assembly floor. This Wednesday it will go to the Senate Governance and Finance committee for their yes vote. AB 744 would let the developer reduce the number of parking spaces required for new affordable senior or disabled density bonus developments.

    The developer makes more money by eliminating parking spaces, but the poor seniors and the disabled aren't consider. Where is the common sense of our elected officials.

    If AB 744 passes seniors or the disabled who need affordable housing may have to choose between giving up their car because the apartment has no parking space or giving up the affordable housing.

    Pass the word along on this bill AB 744 that is for the monetary benefit of developers with their thoughts that seniors or the disabled don't need cars.

    If you oppose AB 744 contact your Assemblymember, and others, and California Senators, your local city council and the Senate Governance and Finance committee before the July 15, 2015 Wednesday hearing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Our family is trying to talk the car keys out of my dad's hands. He's hitting the point where his skills are deteriorating, like we all will. At the same time, he and my mom are looking at retirement communities. If this was one more reason for him to stop driving, it would be great, especially of the community offers a shuttle like many do.

      Shuttles, public transportation, taxis. Hell, even teach them how to use Uber.

      There are valid reasons to oppose AB 744. But this isn't one of them. In fact, I think if it takes elderly drivers off the road, that's a selling point for most citizen/driver/voters.

      Delete
  33. 9:10-

    Ohhh booo hooo hoooo…you mean the poor seniors who didn't save shit can't live on Neptune and watch the white water views every day.

    Well maybe they should have thought of that before they became poor seniors.

    Poor planning and decisions should land you in the poor house with no parking in El Cajon not Encinitas.

    ReplyDelete
  34. 10:36 May karma come back and you lose all your money. By the way, you can't take it with you.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Didn't intend to… why don't you go out today and get a job and save 2-10% of what you earn. Now thats a concept!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm part of CalPers, the COE pays 97% of my pension, I don't save a dime. But YOU better keep paying those taxes and fees....

      Delete
    2. 6:04 Who needs a job when they have planned ahead? You poor thing still trying to make it.

      Delete
    3. 10:42, Alpo has more of a tuna per noodle ratio than regular casserole.

      Delete