By request.
There are a lot of interesting structural dynamics in the 2016 election. Here's how we see the players. We'll categorize them by the three local factions: Republicans, Barthists, and Prop A folks.
Kristin Gaspar (Republican): Already announced Supervisor run. Opponents are Escondido Mayor Sam Abed and incumbent Dave Roberts (or a Democratic replacement if Roberts doesn't recover from the hostile work environment and improper use of taxpayer funds scandals). Gaspar is thus likely out of Encinitas politics unless she fails to make the top two in the June Supervisor primary and then announces she'll seek re-election.
Catherine Blakespear (Barthist): Likely to run for Mayor from her safe council seat (as Tony Kranz did in 2014). May not face a serious challenger because most other candidates would find it easier to win a council seat.
Tony Kranz (Barthist): Will run for re-election unless he moves out of state. Likely to win due to large number of open seats (4 if Blakespear wins Mayor seat) and likely weak field.
Mark Muir (Republican): Likely to run for re-election, won't challenge Blakespear for Mayor because it would a lot riskier than running for council. Likely to win re-election.
Lisa Shaffer (Barthist): Has said she wouldn't run again, but don't count on it.
Paul Gaspar (Republican): Seems politically ambitious and could probably win a council seat given his name recognition and fundraising ability.
Sheila Cameron (Prop A): Won't run again.
Julie Graboi (Prop A): Seems inclined not to run, but would be among the stronger Prop A candidates due to name recognition and practice on the campaign trail. Remember, Tony Kranz got elected on his second try.
Al Lerchbacker (Republican): Hasn't been seen much since failed 2014 campaign, so it's unclear whether he's still interested. However, with party backing and an earlier start and easier field this time, could probably win a seat.
So at this point we'll pencil in Blakespear for Mayor, Kranz and Muir to keep their council seats, and two other seats up for grabs.
We can think of several other Barthists who might run: the "Engage Encinitas" women and a traffic commissioner or two. We're not aware of any other Prop A folks getting ready to run. What have you heard?
UPDATE: Welcome former Sierra Madre Smart Growther Councilman Joe Mosca to the race!
UPDATE 2: Apparently the rules are such that if Blakespear wins Mayor and thus vacates her council seat, the seat does not go to the fourth-place vote getter, but is appointed by the council. The vacancy wouldn't occur until the new mayor is seated, so presumably the new council is the one to make the appointment. If Mosca wins, the Barthists would have a 3-1 majority and make an appointment to give themselves a 4-1 supermajority (which could resurrect the Barth-Shaffer-Kranz sales tax increase). If Lerch or another Republican wins, we'd have a 2-2 stalemate which could lead to the appointment of an independent, non-partisan compromise candidate.
Once and for all, get all of the $tock$ puppets gone (this would be Muir and GASpar).
ReplyDeletePaul Gaspar may be able to raise funds (not hard to do) but as a politician, no thank you.
Whom ever wins we are assured of more bad decisions and poor leadership. What a bunch of maroons....
ReplyDeleteThen please throw your hat in the ring and show us how it's done. This constant whining from the peanut gallery is really getting old.
DeleteThe people who were championed here in past elections are now regularly trashed and the last election candidates strongly supported here were crushed. Blakespear received tepid support.
People here seem to hang on to Stocks losing his reelection which I'm sure they contributed but that wasn't the only factor.
With the track record here why would anyone believe you?
This city is headed in one direction and it is right down the sh*tter. How this place became the "perfect storm" of putrid corruption and extrajudicial justice is beyond comprehension. To say I am disgusted and appalled at the insanity of city employee's actions and decisions I have personally witnessed over the past 3 years is an understatement. I came home today and parked on my front curb, a city employee in a huge white SUV suddenly pulled up behind me and almost rammed right into my bumper. There was about 30 feet of empty curb behind me. When I called City Hall, I was told this was a code enforcement officer investigating a complaint about auto repair on my corner. The man who did auto repair from his home died over a year ago, his house has been sold and since completely remodeled. When I informed them of this, the response was "Well we can't control what complaints come in." When it comes to Encinitas, stupid is as stupid does. I used to love it here what a shame.
Delete"a city employee in a huge white SUV suddenly pulled up behind me and almost rammed right into my bumper."
DeleteAnother way to say it: a city employee did not run into you. Me too! Today a city employee did not run into me! What a coincidence.
Basically, you are slamming the city for lacking omniscience.
Good point.
3:47- the maroons in this city are the council members, the staff and the idiot voters that elect these rubes.
DeleteNever give a sucker an even break nor smarten up a chump.....In which category do you fall??
2:22 PM
DeleteSo who did you vote for or are you too smart to vote at all? Maybe you vote for perennial losers which would put you under the chump category. Like I said, if you know how to do it then run. Or are you chicken? I'm sure you can come up with any number of excuses why you can't but at the end of the day they are just that, excuses.
Now would the morons in this city know how to spell moron or are you referring to marooning them to a deserted island. Tough to tell. Also, if you never give a sucker an even break why would you want to smarten them up. Chumps can be suckers so why the dichotomy? Why am I suppose to chose?
We sure don't want to forget how "shady" Paul Gaspar is. I would not want him representing me in Encinitas. What a sneak!
ReplyDeletehttp://encinitasundercover.blogspot.com/2012/11/paul-gaspar-fingered-as-man-behind-sham.html
Without another strong Dem stepping up, there will be pressure on Lisa to run again to maintain the majority.
ReplyDeleteBarth found, convinced, mentored and promoted Blakespear so she could move on without hurting her allies. Look for Lisa to do the same. The longer we go without Lisa finding and endorsing a new candidate, the more likely she is to run again.
Please God, No! Anything but that!!! Don't forget when she used her husband's disabled sticker to park in front of Trader Joes!
DeleteIt will be interesting to hear shaffer explain what "reconsider" means this time when she explains with waves of her hands how she "reconsidered" and decided to run for a second term after saying she would not.
Delete11:43 PM
Delete'It will be interesting to hear shaffer explain what "reconsider" means'
This is what I love about this site. People projecting what someone will do without any substantiation and then slamming them for it. Whether or not Shaffer changes her mind, only a few weeks ago she pretty firmly said she wouldn't run for reelection.
Shaffer is always good for some "reconsideration", as she did with the idea for Barth and Gaspar to split the mayor post.
Delete2:26 PM
DeleteI see, deciding to commit to running a reelection campaign and serve four more years is just like reconsidering splitting the mayor post. Got it.
You forgot Alex's catagory.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of Muir, his time would be bettered served sitting in his son's classroom and following him around to make sure he doesn't do drugs. He would be a horrible mayor. It would require things to do and frankly he can't handle much work.
ReplyDeleteCorrection: "bettER SERVED"
ReplyDeleteButter served....
DeleteSo at this point are we stuck with the same old hacks? Council is supposed to be a part time position. Is there any hope of a regular 9-5 person winning council election in this city? It seems like one of the primary problems is our council having too much idle time to devote to pet projects like homeless apple trees and $10M abandoned schools to refurbish. Seems like a regular person would better represent the average Encinitan's issues.
ReplyDeleteA tegular person with common sense would be awesome. No to more:
DeleteSustainability agendas
Developer shills
Forced agreement/united fronts
Unquestioning acceptance of "staff" opinion
How refreshing would that be?
Make that "Regular!"
DeleteI didn't know that "homeless apple trees" were a problem here in Encinitas.
Delete12:44,
DeleteNeither were puppy mills or assault rifles, but that never stopped our council before...
1:12 PM
DeleteThe puppy mills issue was generated by the public even though there was no evidence of it occurring in Encinitas. So when the council doesn't react to public concerns they get hammered but when they do react they still get hammered. Nice having both ways.
I like how "the public" doesn't refer to a plurality, it refers to a handful of people that made a stink about them at a City Council meeting.
DeleteHow refreshing it would be to have candidates who possess common sense and:
ReplyDelete- Are not developer shills
- Do not have hidden "sustainability" agendas
- Don't feel the need to be in agreement on every vote
- Don't take "staff" opinion as the only valid one.
I would like to see Julie Graboi, Donna Westbrook and Dennis Holtz run. Those three are great candidates and could help our community. I think Dennis was one of the finest council members we have ever had. I hope they consider running.
ReplyDeleteGraboi only got 20% of the vote last time in a non presidential election. Doesn't sound viable to me.
DeleteThat was her first try and you know she could get in on her next try.
DeleteYour tone sounds like you would not enjoy her presence on the dais, though. Honest people asking hard questions can be so annoying, can't they.
And there was only one seat open last time... looks like there will be 4 open this time. Much better odds for every contender.
Delete12:48 Optimistic people never give up.
DeleteLOL, true. That voice of hope sounds much like the one touting the "needed" hotel complex at the golf course. Hehe.
DeleteYes, more open seats does increase the odds as it's, in effect, a sliding scale. The top three candidates no matter what their total votes get elected. Since the mayor is a separate election I view it as three open seats as I don't think Graboi will run for mayor.
Delete1:06 PM Not sure how my tone sounds like I "would not enjoy her presence on the dais". Non presidential elections traditionally have lower turnouts and therefore offer a better chance for groundswell candidates and issues. My point was there wasn't much support for Graboi in 2014 and 2016 is a presidential election (primaries & general). You're right that she could improve her support the next time around having the experience of 2014. I have no idea if she is planning to run.
Yes, but if Blakespear wins for mayor, which I expect she'll do,
DeleteI think the top 4 get in... or would there be an appointment? Not sure if they've clarified that yet.
11:51 AM
DeleteThat's a good question. Thinking out loud, I think it's a question of what's on the ballot. The Registrar has to know what to put on the ballot and how it's worded. The last ballot was the first for an elected mayor and two council members ran. However, the elected mayor eliminated a council spot so that spot would come from whoever won. My guess is if Blakespear were to run she would either have to resign prior to running (which I doubt) or her seat would not become open until she was sworn in as mayor (first resigning her council seat). Then the council would either appoint someone to fill her spot or hold a special election.
I'm not sure a ballot can say vote for three or four if X gets elected mayor.
1:41,
DeleteNo, it's exactly like last time. There's a separate vote for mayor, and another vote for all the council seats.
Kranz ran from a safe council seat, and would have been bumped up to mayor if he won.
Only question is whether the next runner-up in the vote gets the newly vacant council seat, or whether the council appoints the replacement.
1:45 PM
DeleteMy point is that after the first (previous) election there would be one less council seat as that was taken by the elected mayor. If Krans won that could be his seat. If Gaspar won that would be her seat. Blakespear was filling Barth's seat although it was technically just an open seat. I can't remember if Gaspar had to decide whether to run for reelection or for mayor. I think her term was up so even if she ran for reelection there would still be only one council seat open.
So if Blakespear does run and got elected her council seat wouldn't become available until the start of her mayoral term in which case the process to fill that council seat starts anew. The council could decide to appoint the next runner-up but that is their discretion. I would not automatically be filled from the next runner-up.
2:53 PM
DeleteI agree. Something is being lost in translation. My bottom line is if Blakespear ran for mayor as a sitting council person and won, there would be either an appointment or a special election. My bet would be an appointment. The council in that case could choose to appoint the person who came in fourth in the election but they wouldn't have to. I don't think the election laws, although I'm no expert, would allow wording along the lines of voting for three unless X win election for mayor then you're voting for four. It would be too confusing.
Gaspar wasn't running from a safe seat as Kranz was. If she lost the mayor race, she would be out, period.
DeleteYou may be right that they would appoint, but they did change a bunch of the rules about the council election procedures after the elected mayor came in. One of the quirks is that one seat coming open will be only 2 years this time, which I think they give to the lowest-vote-getting winner. They may also have decided that next runner-up gets the seat being vacated if a sitting council person is elected mayor. That would be the sensible thing to do, but they may prefer to keep discretionary power instead.
If we consult our new municipal code website we see:
Delete"2.20.011 Temporarily Designating One Council Seat to a Two-Year Term to Evenly Stagger the Election of Council Members Due to the Establishment of an Elected Mayor.
"For the 2016 general municipal election only, the candidate elected who received the least votes shall serve a two-year term, and in the event of a tie for second place, the two-year term seat shall be decided by lot. (Ord. 2014-05)"
I found no such language that the "next runner-up gets the seat being vacated if a sitting council person is elected mayor."
However I did see:
"C. In the case of a vacancy on the City Council, for any reason, the Council shall fill the vacancy by appointment. If the Council fails to fill the vacancy within 60 days, it shall call an election to be held not less than 114 days thereafter. A person appointed or elected to fill a vacancy shall hold office for the unexpired term of the former incumbent. (Ord. 2014-05)"
One thing I expected to see but didn't is the restriction that someone can be a candidate for council or mayor but not both. Maybe I didn't look in the right place but I'm sure they didn't want that situation.
I asked the City Clerk, and she told me, a candidate cannot run for both mayor and council member.
DeleteI think that Council could vote on a policy to appoint the next runner up to take the new council seat, should one open up by that council member being elected to the office of mayor.
That would legitimize the process, and would assure that the appointee was supported by the public.
EUSD didn't do the right thing when Mo Muir was voted in as a SDHS Trustee. Baird and his compliant Board of Trustees appointed another "yes-woman," rather than the well informed, well qualified candidate who worked to also inform the public, and who got a significant number of votes, despite the huge power of the incumbency.
I can't see Julie Running Again, but who knows. There will obviously be some other entrants on the pro-development side like Lerch. Tony and Blakespeare are in, assuming Lisa is out.
ReplyDeleteLook for some familiar faces to jump in.
-MGJ
Blakespear's term ends in 2018 so I guess you're safe in saying she's in.
DeletePeople who wont' run (hoping people who have already served or have shown 0 inclination to run won't make it happen):
ReplyDeleteDennis Holz, Jerome Stocks, Jim Bond, Sheila Cameron, Donna Westbrook, Lynn Marr, Lou Aspell, Bobo the Wonder Monkey and the Leucadia Strange Thing.
I hope you can add Alice Jacobson to the above list!
DeleteI already said Strange Thing. I'm here all week!
Delete"UPDATE: Welcome former Sierra Madre Smart Growther Councilman Joe Mosca to the race! "
ReplyDeleteWhy do you worry about potential things way off into the future? I suspect it's to keep the pot stirred but don't we have enough to worry about with speculating whether Shaffer will or won't run for reelection?
The best thing about EU's post is the term "Barthist."
ReplyDeleteGaspar's camp is probably ecstatic about the county paying over $300K to settle the Dave Robert's discrimination/harassment lawsuits, lending credibility to their validity. The county cites Robert's for "poor judgment", which is also another confirmation of his guilt. This guy should be finished, as there is nothing like a good scandal to take a candidacy down. Barbie may have a shot at this office after all!
ReplyDeleteShe is probably bored playing mom and will fit in nicely with the other money hungry supervisors. She may as well kiss her children goodbye now. Those are the ones who will suffer.
Delete