Geez, ya know, EU is usually fairly rational, but he's really stretched, sensationalized and speculated wildly on this one.Let's take these items one by one.
Because hack Thomas K. Arnold asked idly in that worthless rag, the Seaside Courier, if it's time to bring Stocks back doesn't equal being "touted in the local press."
EU picked up that nonsense and put it under a cute, provocative headline on his blog. That doesn't legitimize Arnold's wackiness, but it pulls eyeballs to the blog.
Then, to go from bad to worse, EU speculates that if the totally self-interested, arrogant, egomaniacal, [personal allegation deleted] Stocks had ridden in on a white horse and convinced himself and other council members to vote against the pension increase, it would have been defeated and the city would be on a financial cloud nine.
Has Stocks ever done anything that remotely resembled being heroic?
EU, if you want to be a good reporter, go into the records and find out how the pension increase got on the agenda, if there was a staff report, what the council discussion was, what citizens said and who made the motion to approve.
That would be responsible. What you've done up to this point is irresponsible and downright silly.
Because hack Thomas K. Arnold asked idly in that worthless rag, the Seaside Courier, if it's time to bring Stocks back doesn't equal being "touted in the local press."The publisher and editor of the Seaside Courier spend a lot of time and money on the paper, and, by all appearances, hope for it to be not only a profit-making enterprise but a serious local influence on public opinion. You found the idea of a Stocks comeback far-fetched, as did we, and we had a little fun with it. If you have a complaint, it should be with the Seaside Courier, not EU.
EU picked up that nonsense and put it under a cute, provocative headline on his blog. That doesn't legitimize Arnold's wackiness, but it pulls eyeballs to the blog.
Then, to go from bad to worse, EU speculates that if the totally self-interested, arrogant, egomaniacal, [personal allegation deleted] Stocks had ridden in on a white horse and convinced himself and other council members to vote against the pension increase, it would have been defeated and the city would be on a financial cloud nine.Irrelevant. The point is, as another commenter pointed out, that Stocks was the dominant personality on the council and had a lot of influence. And even if he might not have changed the outcome by persuading another council member, he is still responsible for his own vote. Whether he would ever do the right thing is beside the point. We're saying he could have and should have opposed the pension increase. How is that objectionable?
Has Stocks ever done anything that remotely resembled being heroic?
EU, if you want to be a good reporter, go into the records and find out how the pension increase got on the agenda, if there was a staff report, what the council discussion was, what citizens said and who made the motion to approve.We've discussed the 2005 4-1 vote (Stocks, Houlihan, Guerin, Dalager Yes; Bond No) many times before on this blog. The agenda item from 2005 is right here on the city web site, but we don't expect it will be all that enlightening. Without even reading it, we can tell you that city management likely maintained a neutral tone in the report in order to not appear self-serving, but vastly understated the long-term costs of the pension increase. The actual costs of the increase tunred out to be millions of dollars per year, plus more than ten million dollars in unfunded liabilities. That's more money than it would cost to start maintaining the roads properly.
That would be responsible. What you've done up to this point is irresponsible and downright silly.
Beyond what's written in the staff report, we can assure you that the council was being told:
1) We have to attract and retain quality employees
2) Other cities are doing it
3) CalPERS says everything is fine
4) Encinitas is in great financial shape
Did we get that about right?
Downright silly? Often. Irresponsible? We don't see it that way.
For what it's worth, I thought the post was some cheap red meat.
ReplyDeleteBut often when this kind of trial balloon floats, it can be evidence that gears are actually turning on a possible campaign.
If nothing else, we should all be aware of it, and on watch for other subtle signals (e.g. Stocks elevating his profile--showing up at more public events with good PR potential, etc.)
--FP.
Look, I think that EU is our own local tongue in cheek news source the way that Jon Stewart's show reported current events in an entertaining way.
ReplyDeleteOur arrogant politicians hate nothing worse than to be made fun of and to be exposed.
Keep it up Encinitas Undercover!!
Yes - keep up the good work and valued counterpoint to the party line.
ReplyDeleteThere are two or more new voices on the blog that seek to discredit EU. I take them as a sign that the dark side is feeling very threatened.
Too bad, dark side: EU and a growing number of residents paying attention will make your seats increasingly warm.
No accident that voices trashing EU's integrity and credibility coincide with Meyer/Harwood/Andreen lately making appearances.
When it gets to the others, you know EU is doing a good job!
ReplyDelete"Has Stocks ever done anything that remotely resembled being heroic?"
ReplyDeleteYes. He voted AGAINST Redevelopment. If you don't think that was huge of him, you're wrong.
There was overwhelming opposition to a redevelopment district in Leucadia. It was hard to justify redeveloping an area with million dollar homes. Stocks realized he couldn't get it approved and voted against it. He did the same thing in opposing the city using eminent domain. Stocks knew he didn't have a majority to get what he wanted.
DeleteI wouldn't call either vote "heroic." At best one could call it opportunistic.
In 2004 there was a workshop in council chambers to discuss forming a RDA (Redevelopment District). It was obvious that no one on the council REALLY had any clue as to what an RDA was. I don't remember anyone voting on anything concerning this. I do know Christy Guerin was the one person to voice concerns about the oversight and management of this proposal.One thing to remember is, had an RDA been formed, all the people on the agency would be making $100k plus. In many cases, that is the entire city council and a few additional hired consultants who profit from this "plan". And even thought Stocks said he would see to it that "eminent domain" was taken out of the RDA system, it wasn't as easy as that, and that was something Stocks seemed ignorant of at the 2004 RDA workshop. This was also the SECOND time our city tried to do this in Encinitas. (first time was 1991). And what was the buzz word even then?..."AFFORDABLE HOUSING!!"
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete12:44 Please site specifics and where we can read them. Redevelopment of what???
ReplyDelete2:36,
DeleteIt was the Redevelopment of the 101 corridor through Encinitas and Leucadia. Around 1990, was the first round. The state would loan $450 million to Encinitas to redevelop 101 with a mere council majority YES vote. With interest in 40 years, that would make it $750 million. The theory was that because a city would be more prosperous with a Redevelopment District, the loan could be paid back in a timely fashion. But we learned that since 1952, only 4% of all cities adopting an RDA were ever able to pay off what they borrowed (and San Diego is a prime example, still owing over $250 million and Donna Frye being the only council member voting to pay it back!) Locally, RDA promoters were dangling a golden carrot in front of Encinitas councils both in 1990 and ten years later when everyone FORGOT about the first time an RDA tried to pry us open. (And THEY of course were from Orange County). They wanted to condemn "postage stamp size lots" (excuuussseeee me!) and cluster them together to "build something big and nice". Their big an nice vision also included TAKING all 12 acres of SRF (through "fair market value" of course) and making it a resort hotel. In the late 90's early 00's, along came a new city manager. Prez of LMA at the time, I took him to the Roxy for lunch to help him understand better what Leucadians liked and didn't like. I added "And we hate Redevelopment!" Naively, I explained to him what an RDA does and he merely replied "That's what Redeveloment Agencies do." Little did I know then, he was key in the adoption of an RDA in So Lake Tahoe - relocating over 100 mom and pop shops only to build a resort that went bankrupt. But lo and behold, here came "R" again knocking on City Hall's front door with a red welcome mat in front laid by the new CM. As soon as it was voted down, the CM left for greener pastures - and guess what was the first thing on the agenda of his next city? And on a side note, another person who had taken him to lunch heard him say "I remember the first time driving through Leucadia and thinking "What a GREAT place for Redevelopment!" Consequently, 101's infrastructure has vastly improved privately and with Streetscapes that have neither borrowed a dime with an RDA nor "relocated" residents, churches and businesses robbing their property through through eminent domain and building who knows what. A lot of changes happen in 10 years. People leave, new ones arrive and RDAs seemed to wait it out until new councils were completely oblivious to their schemes. Fortunately, Gov Brown got rid of RDAs in CA seeing the corruption and debt they cause. And kudos to so many locals (you know who you are) who spent a lot of their time and money fighting the RDA slithering into town, twice. And sure, I didn't agree with Jerome on a lot, but he voted the right way the night an RDA for Encinitas was circular filed and I think it was one of the top issues ever before council. So there.
No doubt this is Stocks... On the bottle.
DeleteI don't write as well as Stocks, on or off a bottle.
Delete2:36- If you have been paying ANY attention to what goes on with the City you would already know what "Redevelopment" was. No wonder we have who we have at City Hall. Pay attention people, or quit bitching. Do your own homework 2:36. Or maybe some nice person will post it for you. I won't.
ReplyDelete4:42 Can't produce the evidence can you? If you voted, you are part of the problem. Own it!
DeleteSounds like Stocks on the sauce...ignore it.
Delete6:33- You're right. That or Andreen, or perhaps one in the same? Never voted for Stocks I will say that.
DeleteStaff just got another raise, retroactive to this past July. The raise is small and incremental, so that it compounds itself, 1% for a year (or two?), then 2% for a couple of years. The total will be more than a 5% raise.
ReplyDeleteThis has always been accomplished without a cost benefit analysis, as should be done. Same thing with the recent raising of all the permitting fees. That was done with Director of Planning Jeff Murphy stating that efficiencies in administration, including technology, such as the internet, would not result in any savings. But all the fees will be raised based on what a consultant, hired through staff, so not objective on the subject of how much processing is required per permit.
When the City Manager or the Director of Human Resources serves as the City negotiator in labor negotiations, then there is also no true incentive to be objective, or to hold back on benefit increases, including raises not based on merit. That is because, although the matter was officially "bifurcated" the non-represented employees always have gotten exactly the same raise as union employees. That includes management. They all recently got the same raise, regardless of what their base pay was, and regardless of whether or not they were part of the public employees union.
Consultants are hired to justify increases in permitting fees. According to state law, permitting fees are not supposed to be taxes, but fees for a specific service, for processing a permit, including inspection. The consultant's fees for justifying raise after raise in costs to repair a roof or put in a new hot water heater, even to erect a tent in a public place, are all factored in to the inevitable and irreversible increase in costs of living for residents.
Also, not having a realistic cost benefit analysis, an efficiency study relating to raising fees or giving raises in salaries leads to more and more staff and contractors being hired, because of the allegedly increasing "workload."
I think everyone enjoys a nice bump in pay from time to time. Things keep going up, but the paychecks. I have no problem with this.
ReplyDeleteYou might consider the pre-raise level of pay and pensions before you decide that incremental increases are fine.
DeleteAnd every pay increase means a direct increase in Encinitas' already skyrocketing pension costs.
I agree with 8:48.
ReplyDelete1% per year is the current rate of inflation.
Anything less is actually a reduction.
Public sector retirement needs to shift to defined benefit plans like the rest of us moved to 20 years ago. But I have no problem with current year pay adjusting with inflation.
Many people who work in San Diego have not seen a pay raise for many years.
DeleteHow long was the Minimum Wage stuck at the same level? 20 years?
Should read defined contribution, not defined benefit.
DeleteI also have no problem with a pay increase. HOWEVER, I would also like someone to do a productivity study to see if we actually need as many employees as we have.
ReplyDelete