AnonymousSeptember 12, 2015 at 1:38 PM Heavy Duty gas smell in Leucadia today. What the hell is it?This is a recurring summer phenomenon in North County, noticed again last month. We believe it's organic from the ocean, caused by the summer heat.
AnonymousSeptember 12, 2015 at 1:43 PM
We just smelled it too.
Saturday, September 12, 2015
Leucadians report return of summer gas smell
From the comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It smelled more like fuel oil than gasoline.
ReplyDeleteWith a hint of boiled cabbage.
ReplyDeleteSomeone ate too many beans.
ReplyDeleteWe smelled it too. Uck!
ReplyDeleteDecaying ocean matter...
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of a bad smell, what just happened to the new post where you labeled President Obama a leftist? That sure disappeared in a hurry. Are you afraid that wouldn't be well received by many of your readers here?
ReplyDeleteIf you think that the Economist now supports central planning and Obama is a leftist then it's not a leap to believe that you support property owners and by extension developers, wide latitude in what they do with their property. That would follow from a Libertarian perspective to which the prime example is the city of Huston which has no traditional zoning. That would be in conflict with many of your readers/commentators who decry developers at every turn.
Libertarianism is consistent with preserving zoning because zoning is part of the contract when you purchase a property. You know you're zoned R-10 and are not going to be able to put up an apartment building or a casino. You also know that your neighbor won't be able to put up a 3-story apartment building next door.
DeleteChanging zoning, on the other hand, is government taking away one person's property rights (e.g. neighbor's peace and quiet) to give new economic benefits to others (e.g. condo developers).
Zoning is an artificial restriction on property rights. It should be the free market, not artificial constraints, that determine the highest and best use. Development requirements such as height restrictions and setbacks also constrain what a property owner can do and thus impacts the value of the property.
DeleteAnd you of all people, with the strong support of Prop A, should be talking about "taking away one person's property rights" when Prop A did exactly that by taking away the right already granted to a property owner in certain areas the right to three stories if they met certain conditions. That is simple hypocrisy. It's okay if it benefits you.
11:48
Delete"It should be the free market, not artificial constraints, that determine the highest and best use. "
Free market has no regard for neighbors or a community and is exactly how Smell-A was ruined with congestion (among other places). Ideally, zoning restrictions are healthy and when they are not, they can be changed by a vote of the public. That's how Prop A passed and how that only all future worthy development exceeding 30' will be approved. If you want to live somewhere where you can do anything you want with your property, seek out somewhere else. Encinitans are too smart. to let developers decide what is "highest and best use". But ruining neighborhoods for the benefit of a few, over and over again gets old quick in this town. We've all seen what its done to many other places. You're probably used to bending zoning laws so much they seem artificial, but they're not fake here anymore.
11:48,
DeleteYou raise an excellent point about Prop A undoing the council's mass upzoning without a public vote of the 101 corridor.
It's a pity the opponents of Prop A failed to bring that up during the campaign, and refused to discuss the legitimate pros and cons but instead hid behind their campaign of lies.
We were begging them to have an open and honest debate. Your valid point was never presented by opponents.
"Changing zoning, on the other hand, is government taking away one person's property rights. . ."
DeleteOh really?
Then please explain how you are okay with the entire history of zoning changes over hundreds of years that allowed for your home to be built.
There wasn't zoning hundreds of years ago.
DeleteWithin the last hundred years, the county and then city created zoning rules. If any property owners at the time felt cheated, I haven't heard of it. Land was plentiful and cheap back then, so nobody was bitching that they couldn't build a 3-story apartment complex on their avocado field.
Please.
11:48
DeleteYou're advocating no zoning? Really? You want drive-thru burger joints and condo towers in neighborhoods of single-family homes? Really?
"There's Nothing Free About the Free Market"...
DeleteFYI, no discussion about zoning is complete without a discussion of zoning as an exclusionary measure.
Deletehttp://www.epi.org/publication/making-ferguson/
Sound familiar?
Deletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_zoning
9:12,
DeleteWow. So anything short of infinite density is "exclusionary." How convenient.
"Currently, exclusionary zoning ordinances are standard in almost all communities. A recent comprehensive survey found that over 80% of United States jurisdictions imposed minimum lot size requirements of some kind on their inhabitants"
I found a non-exclusionary neighborhood by your definition:
Image
6:04 PM (9/13):
Delete"You raise an excellent point about Prop A undoing the council's mass upzoning without a public vote of the 101 corridor."
Yes, it is an excellent point. As the General Plan allows:
"Land Use Policy 7.10: Both residential and non- residential development shall be limited to a maximum height of two stories and 30 feet. Limited exceptions for non- residential development may be allowed, but only for designated specific sites as developed and adopted through area specific plans. Exceptions may also be made for Medical Complex development projects at the discretion of the City pursuant to conditional use permit applications as provided by the Zoning Code, to allow building heights up to a maximum height. of three stories. An exception is also authorized for a public high school with a minimum 10 acre site."
Both the Downtown and North 101 Specific Plans provided for limited 3 story development under certain conditions as authorized by the General Plan. Both the Pacific Station and development next to Fred are 3 stories. You can argue about whether those developments were done well but not that they were contrary to the General Plan.
So anyone who owned property in those Specific Plan areas when Prop A was passed had their property value diminished. There was at least one development that had to be redesigned because of Prop A. My point is not whether it's better to limit properties to 2 stories versus 3. My point is that voters changed what was in the General Plan with Prop A and that had an impact on property owners.
The General Plan is the highest level of authority so when there is a conflict with the zoning, the General Plan wins. So when you state in 11:10 AM (9/13) that "... zoning is part of the contract when you purchase a property", Prop A broke that contract.
Great term, EU. I can see a painting by Mary Fleener "Our Lady of Infinite Density". Guess who you'd see at that church?
Delete10:23 AM is setting the stage for the planning department's introduction of form based codes or zoning. One of the hired consultants is preparing a new municipal code that is based on anything "goes" planning.
Delete!0:23 AM is incorrect on the 101 specific plan because the General Plan was changed by the planning commission and the Council to increase the density along 101 from 2 stories to 3 stories.
2:56 PM
DeleteNo, the original General Plan allowed that flexibility for Specific Plans. When the Downtown and North 101 Specific Plans were adopted there was no need to change the General Plan.
I agree with posters above that our General Plan is the highest level of authority.
DeleteSorry Council, and Vina--the Strategic Plan is nothing but a citizen-paid exercise so that Gus could try to learn how to do his job. As it turned out, it was a complete waste of time.
11:48am. Total bs. Every property owner buys into current zoning for their particular property. If they want to somehow get by current zoning, they should have bought elsewhere or do as the Meyer types who have no respect for the community and try to stack and pack every chance they get.
ReplyDeleteWe have become a magnet for in and out of town developers [Melia Homes, Irvine, City [stain] Mark and others who have had the inside track by manipulating our city staff and council members into selling out this communities character that some of us are trying to preserve.
Staff [Murphy and crew] have never made any attempts to defend this community and are all too cozy with these scoundrels in our midst.
Hopefully Karen can make a difference and will defend us against these, profit at all cost, developers and real estate interests.
As we have earned the hard way, even if a past council member has been eliminated, his effect of stacking all the departments with like minded trolls, will not change a thing until they are shown the way onto other venues. If some of these can learn to stand for us and defned this community as they should, maybe they can remain.
Some are beyond redemption and will require new blood down there and thank you Karen for starting off on the ground running. You have the hopes of this towns future on your shoulders.
News flashes for 12:17—
DeleteThe council hires the city manager. The city manager goes on to serve at the pleasure of the council.
A previous council hired Vina, and he maintained enough support to keep the job. Then he screwed up seriously and serially. The composition of the council changed. The present council canned Vina, although they declined to say that.
The same council that canned Vina hired Brust. She is not a savior. She will serve at the pleasure of whatever council is in place when she is. She's been on the job for about two weeks and has barely gotten her feet wet, let alone canned Murphy.
I seriously doubt she reads the comments on this blog. If she does, she's smart enough to disregard about 95% of them. This one is in the other 5%.
8:07 you couldn't be more wrong, a true 95%er after all. She will take credit for something that is liked and broadly supported by the community, this planner needed canning. It happened while she is on the job so score one for Brust.
DeleteThey didn't can Vina, he left. Whether they were happy with his performance is another matter.
DeleteDevelopers develop, that's what they do, and they're not going away until this town is built out. We're getting close, but we're not there yet.
It's always been about trying to preserve neighborhoods while bringing in new, appropriate development. Just remember, for a every developer putting in new houses, there's someone selling them that property.
Don't look for staff to make any big moves to restrict development, it's a little late in the game for that. More properties = more property taxes.
-MGJ
True about the more properties developed = more tax revenues (and development fees).
DeleteIt doesn't help that sellers are encouraged by the city to consider the "options" - read "killer profits" - available to them when they go for upzones. It doesn't help when mayor Gaspar partners with Mike Andreen to further drive the message home. Those was the wrong-footed starts to the Housing Element Update, neither of which you'll find on the Update's timeline. Funny, that.
The Planning Department, despite supposed direction from Council not to do so, persists in recommending property owners go for density bonuses.
All I'm saying is, property owners get a big push from our city to density to the max for fun and profit.
"Those WERE," not "was." Apologies!
DeleteAfter his many offenses, the council told Vina to start looking for a new job because they were going to can him. He did, they did.
DeleteVina was Murphy's patron. When he was canned, Murphy started looking for a new job. His finding one and announcing his departure happened to coincide with Brust's starting. She had nothing to do with Murphy's leaving.
Reserve assessment of Brust till she's been on the job for about a year.
It's fun to occasionally come here and escape from reality. Highly active imaginations. Ignorant but entertaining.
Delete8:27 must have scored super low in reading comprehension. 8:07 said nothing about whether or not Murphy needed canning. Of course he did, but it wasn't Brust's doing, and she's not taking credit for it.
Delete8:07 is among the 95%. They are uninformed people who comment to display their ignorance.
Somalia disproves libertarianism and everything Ayn Rand ever wrote.
ReplyDelete(mic drop)
7:09; 9:55; 10:08 - and whomever else smelt it. Let's do an informal poll. Not very scientific, but hey, where else but EU can this be done at no cost? Just respond with whatever street you were on when you smelled it and maybe we can plot the perimeter of this latest foul odor. Last time I heard of a grievous gas happening it occurred further south a week or more ago. I'll add my location last so I'm not blamed for the smell.
ReplyDeleteI smelled it off and on in the last two days all the way up at Oceanview.
ReplyDeleteRegarding what Prop A "did exactly" was RESTORE our General Plan's requirement that increases in zoning density/intensity of use/max height go to a citywide vote. Period.
What it "did exactly" was reverse a sly amendment to our GP, passed by the then Council out of public view. This amendment said a 4/5 supermajority Council vote could bypass a public vote if the upzone was deemed to be in the "public's best interest." Period.
So does the smell dissipate when the weather cools?
The 4/5 supermajority amendment came after the General Plan was adopted. I don't seem to be able to recall voting for the original General Plan. In fact the 4/5 amendment was on a motion by Pam Slater-Price, who has since recanted, but I haven't seen anyone point to where that was abused by council.
DeleteSo Prop A didn't restore anything. It took away what the original General Plan allowed. That is, limited three story developments under certain conditions if allowed by a Specific Plan. The Downtown and North 101 Specific Plans did allow that situation. Prop A took it away. You may feel it justified for the overall good but Prop A negatively impacted the value of those properties where the Specific Plans allowed them the option.
If I was one of those property owners, I'd say it smells in any weather.
The public good and its will supersede individual property owners' rights.
DeleteIf politicians truly represented the majority of the public, and if the public could trust politicians, there would have been no three-story provisions in the specific plans, and there would have been no need for Prop A.
The 2012 City Council came out unanimously against Prop A. After a $100K campaign of lies by opponents, improperly including the 101 Main Street Association, Prop A passed in a June election. That expressed the public will and the result served the public good.
If it were possible to locally override the density bonus law, that would also express the public will and serve the public good.
While there are a few examples spread around the city of three story buildings, there are only a few that are prominent. Pacific Station is one and the apartments at Via Cantebria and Garden View another. There are several more along 101. Others are hardly noticeable.
DeleteFor the original General Plan to allow Specific Plans to make certain exceptions and then criticize the council for doing just that is disingenuous. Prop A was not about past abuses but about the fear of the council upzoning some parcels to qualify the housing element update for HCD certification. Prop A was not about the past because there were few past zoning changes let alone ones that abused the 4/5 option.
Prop A was all about stopping affordable housing accommodations. An initiative that flat out prevented affordable housing would be unconstitutional on its face so the alternative was to put it to a vote where the cost and very good chance of defeat would be a strong deterrent to even trying.
Anyway it sounds like you disagree with EU "Libertarianism is consistent with preserving zoning because zoning is part of the contract when you purchase a property" because you say "The public good and its will supersede individual property owners' rights."
Finally, "If it were possible to locally override the density bonus law, that would also express the public will and serve the public good." Whose public good? Sounds like you're in the property owners corner here. Certainly not those people who work in Encinitas but can't afford to live here.
Prop A was about stopping Encinitas from becoming a three-and-more story city.
DeleteThe majority public's will and good.
Is it government's mandate to make my living on the bluff affordable?
There are locations across the country where many thousands of people work but can't afford to live. That's how economics works in our society.
12:51 PM
DeleteTell that to the state legislature. Affordable housing on the bluff is just a red herring. So you would rather have the employees of Target, Walmart, etc. have a long commute or would you rather pay them a higher wage? Screw their public will I guess. We got ours and nobody is going to change anything to make a few accommodations.
Creating a few potential affordable sites is just too much to ask. Those won't accommodate everyone but maybe a few. And you wonder why the legislature gets behind laws like density bonus.
3:04 PM
DeleteWhat a bunch of BS. Have you taken a survey of all the those using subsidized housing to learn how many actually work in Encinitas? Come back when you have the data.
There's no wondering why legislature passes density bonus laws.
Political contributions and the old "if you vote for my bill, I'll vote for yours" quid pro quo. You don't see the legislators offering their houses for high density.
3:04 is either insincere or sincere with a twisted brain. His/her arguments are specious. They're illogical, off the point and designed to confuse rather than clarify.
DeleteThere is no such thing as "affordable housing" in Encinitas without subsidies, and there effectively are no subsidies available.
Density bonus and its amendments were bought by the BIA and the like. They're about maximizing developers' profits, not about creating housing for low-income people.
4:52 PM
DeleteI see. If you can't be perfect then don't try at all. I'm well aware of the shortcomings but you don't even want to try.
Politicians react to money and potential votes, hardly a revelation.
Oh sure, 6:17, you're a good person after all.
DeleteFor the sake of providing a few affordable units that aren't actually affordable, you want to ruin neighborhoods by cramming way too many houses on every available lot.
Shame on you.
9:25, Prop A didn't just take away 3 story buildings, but 5 storie buildings "in certain places" that were on the city's radar (ERAC). But it didn't really take them away either. If they're worthy, they'll be approved by the people. Now go design something worthy.
Delete8:48 PM
Delete"... you want to ruin neighborhoods by cramming way too many houses on every available lot"
More red herrings. Encinitas will soon become Little Italy. Why stop at three stories or even five when those out-of-town developers will soon be building 25 and 30 story buildings.
Yes the ERAC did suggest certain locations might be suitable for a four or five story building. Big deal. They were an ad hoc committee which doesn't exist anymore and none of their recommendations, save for the map exercise, made much of an impression with council.
But the bottom line is unless you can convince the state legislature to change the requirements for the housing element and repeal or greatly weaken the density bonus law, Encinitas is going to see some parcels upzoned, either by right or as an overlay. It will be done either by you the voters or under the oversight of a judge. It's your decision but the vote route is the cheapest.
Oh and by the way, AB 744 which requires the reduction of parking requirements for a density bonus project close to transit has just been sent to the Governor for his signature. He may veto it but it's another sign that despite the city's strong objection, it was passed by the legislature which isn't a good sign that the legislature would be receptive to weakening affordable housing requirements.
So all your whining is for naught.
There's the answer: sincere with a twisted brain!
Delete10:39 AM
DeleteReality. What a concept. You ought to try it some time.
I mean that sincerely.
More BS, 11:14.
DeleteYou're not fooling anyone but yourself.
The people on that ad-hoc committee (ERAC) were the most influential developers in town (and RSF) and they unanimously voted for the council to approve 5 story buildings here in Encinitas. What good is a hand-picked city committee like that without unanimous recommendations? It was all part of the BIA plan to grease us for their intrusions and we said no thanks. Meanwhile, council members claimed no such plan was on the city's radar. Hardly.
Delete12:31 PM
DeleteWhy would I want to fool anyone? Are you claiming that the people who read this blog can't handle straight facts and arguments?
So what do you expect to happen next?
But let's see where we stand.
Encinitas doesn't have a certified housing element for many years and gets sued for it and density bonus. City agrees to adopt a certifiable housing element which requires at least some properties to be rezoned higher than R-25. Most likely R-30 either by right or an overlay. No R-30, no certification, back to court and lawyers make more money from taxpayers.
By now it's clear accessory units won't come anywhere close to making up the difference for RHNA numbers.
Now let's see what ERAC recommended to council. In their February 27, 2013 report to council one of their recommendations was:
"5) Strategy/Policy recommendation: Selectively consider 4 to 5 stories in certain locations Planning Staff would identify specific sites where high density could be accomplished in a context sensitive manner( e.g.; views and surrounding land use zoning).
"Reason: There may be parcels that lend themselves to higher density/more stories without impact to surrounding areas and would utilize less horizontal land and require fewer locations to accomplish the needed units.
"Minority Report: None."
Doesn't sound like they want to turn Encinitas into Little Italy although I'm sure many of you think the Planning Department is in bed with them and will run wild. So far I've seen no hint that any of the council members agree with this recommendation.
Whether or not ERAC was an attempt to promote more development, it no longer exists, only one council member remains who was there at ERAC's creation, and the recommendation sited above went nowhere.
1:47
DeleteIt went nowhere because a citizen video'd and shared the motion. Then Prop A nipped it in the bud. I have nothing against appropriate 5 story buildings in the right place. But historically our Planning Commission is out of sync with neighbors of large projects - not to mention out of their mind lowering parking requirements IF a project adopts density bonus.
Of course, anybody who's fooling himself wouldn't realize it.
Delete7:13 PM as a prime example.
Delete5:22 PM
DeleteMy quote came from the ERAC report to council. The video had nothing to do with it. So what would it take for you to support 4-5 stories in the right place? Remember, the idea is to identify the right place first and then see if anyone want to build it.
11:41, Oh come on. The idea was to get their foot in the door to turn Encinitas' coastline into Oahu - or at least the newer lofty parts of Oceanside - where 5 story condos are built so close to the sidewalk they bend the palm trees. The video had a lot to do with Prop A succeeding and exposing the fact that 5 stories for Encinitas WERE on the radar. The blip wasn't that loud because it was behind closed doors. I too took offense to the multi-story sketches on flyers thinking they were exaggerating and their "Right To Vote" slogan sounded like trickery. But it was pretty accurate. "Give them an inch and they take a mile" comes to mind and ya can't blame developers for doing what they were born to do, so ya gotta have limits if a community wants to keep things human scale. And sorry Wal Mart. We didn't want Quail Gardens Drive becoming a new commercial corridor so it got voted out when the current location of the library was decided by the people with Prop H. The new library on QGD would have been a foot in the door for big zoning changes there.
DeleteWhat would it take for me to support 4-5 stories in the right place? #1. that there would be PLENTY of parking for the place. #2. a unique design that would fit Encinitas instead of what president Trump might build here #3. reasonably close or even built over the freeway (wasted space) #4 a hospital #5. a school #6. an innovative solar farm #7 a cell tower the list goes on and on. Just kidding about the cell tower.
1:38 PM
DeleteSo on the one hand it's a foot in the door but on the other hand you'd be for it with the right criteria. "Give them an inch and they take a mile" Do you mean Pacific Station of some of the other developments along 101? Or are you referring to the density bonus projects that the city has little power in thanks to the state law?
Large condo developments along the coast aren't going to happen. That's a red herring.
1:49 and previous posts by 1:49 are a red herring. Pay no attention.
Delete1:49, There's no duplicity here. Big difference between someone you don't want in your home putting their foot in your door, and a welcomed neighbor knocking.
DeleteNo I'm not referring to any place in particular.
I like Pacific Station and probably would have voted for it. Doesn't mean a majority would have. The builder went the extra mile with all the subterranean parking; emulated the old E St Cafe feeling well with the newer building housing Solace restaurant; got rid of the Coast Disgrace tin barn; created a lot of synergy downtown between businesses; brought back a bustling grocery store with great food; a coastal unit for Wells Fargo Bank; and the existing businesses on the corner weren't torn down but enhanced. BUT, like ONE Planning Commissioner said once "Is this what we want to see on every lot on 101?" (when he referred to the condos on 101 at Phoebe St) and as one deceased singer said "I say uh no, no, no.".
You can thank the state law all day for density bonus, but the city still has plenty of power with Prop A.
"Large condo developments along the coast aren't going to happen. That's a red herring."
Tell that to the ambitious BIA which sees North County as a fresh canvas for their paint.
Pacific Station is in tight competition with the buildings on the north corner of Phoebe and 101 to be named the ugliest, most godawful buildings in Encinitas.
DeleteGiven a loose rein, the city and developers would put comparable crap on every available lot in the city.
Thank goodness for Prop A! It should have happened years earlier.
1:49 PM here.
Delete2:40 PM Do you even know what a red herring means?
7:22 PM I appreciate your answer but my point was you can't have both ways. Either your position is that letting something be built once means it going to happen all over or allowing certain types of development with tight restrictions and locations doesn't mean it's going to happen everywhere and can result in some good projects. It sounds like you want to be in the latter group which I applaud. Many of the commenters here are in the former group. They think Pacific Stations are going to pop up on every street corner. That's not going to happen.
9:42 PM There are plenty of houses and buildings in Encinitas whose design I don't care for. That doesn't mean they haven't met the city's development criteria. It often boils down to a matter of taste unless you want all buildings in Encinitas to look the same.
red her·ring
Deletenoun
1. a dried smoked herring, which is turned red by the smoke.
2. something, especially a clue, that is or is intended to be misleading or distracting.
10:15, like many slimy PR pros, is trying to manipulate readers to have them think he has a legitimate argument when no such argument exists.
Once he suckers people into a debate, he goes for the kill: It's OK to put three, four and five story buildings at certain places in Encinitas, and nobody will really notice. They'll fit right into the landscape and be unobtrusive, so it's OK to build them. Once that precedent is set, then the argument will be, well, we have some here and there, so why not more in this, that and the other place?
Prop A limits height to 30 feet or two stories. Anything above those heights has to go to a public vote on a ballot. Since the great majority of voters do not want Encinitas to become a three-, four- or five-story city — even partly — it's highly doubtful that anything proposed for three or more stories would pass.
And we have godawful, ugly examples to ensure no proposed three-or-more-story building would be approved by voters. Those would be Pacific Station and the garbage at Phoebe and 101.
So please, 10:15, save your PR crap for Oral Communications at City Council meetings, where you'll have five other sell-outs eagerly listening. Few people reading this blog are buying it.
12:21 PM
DeleteNice to see you know how to use Google. Unfortunately, just because you can look things up doesn't mean you understand it.
I'm in a quandary. Are you calling me a "slimy PR pro" or are you just saying I act like one. In either case you're calling me slimy which Google defines as (informal) disgustingly immoral, dishonest, or obsequious. See, I can use Google too.
But thanks. I see you're a pillar of the community. I wilt under your considerable debate skills "... has a legitimate argument when no such argument exists".
Maybe the people who are suckers here are the ones who don't debate but swallow it whole. You know, the ones who call people names. How infantile.
So you acknowledge that Prop A's main purpose is not to give voters a say but that enough voters will reliably vote no so there will be no changes, ever.
As you have proved quite clearly, it doesn't have to be PR to be crap.
1:24
DeleteWell, no, but you've admitted what you've posted is PR crap.
Prop A puts three or more stories to a vote. That makes it inherently fair. It just happens that here in Encinitas, more people don't want three or more stories than do.
You can't change facts by lying about them. You tried that before the Prop A vote. People saw through the lies, just as they're seeing through your lies now.
By the way, there's no difference between a slimy PR pro and somebody who acts like one.
Go sell your crap somewhere else. You've failed here.
September 15, 2015 at 4:52 PM got your number four days back: "What a bunch of BS."
4:50 PM
Delete"... but you've admitted what you've posted is PR crap" You need to bone up on reading comprehension. I admitted no such thing. If offering a counter argument is "PR crap" then you have even more serious problems but that is par for the course here.
Do the majority of the nearly 40,000 Encinitas registered voters not want three stories anywhere, under any circumstance? Hard to say but I know the majority of commenters here don't. Requiring an election for any change, no matter how minor means few can afford to do it. But that was the real intent of Prop A. Make it too expensive to even try whether it makes sense or not.
Let's see what happens next November when the zoning changes that will be required to get a certified housing element goes before voters. If it's defeated that just means more lawyer fees get collected as the city will have failed to adopt the housing element as required by the BIA settlement and state law.
So I see you've continued your juvenile rant, again calling me slimy. Pity. Are we throwing a temper tantrum now? Please don't delude yourself that calling me names has any effect.
Now go hold your breath until I stop.
That's about 2 miles southeast from me! Thanks. Pretty damn thick layer of something. I didn't smell it today at all.
ReplyDeleteIt's the stench of the homeless in Leucadia as they have chosen to use the park as their personal toilet...thank you city council.
ReplyDeleteRoadside Park Bum is posting his constant crap complaints, again. Blame everything on the homeless, RSPB.
DeleteThe sad part about this rain, it's watering the flowers in the center medians. Leucadia, keep it crappy.
DeleteHow is the homeless problem in Encinitas soley their fault. You can thank a lot of different events, decisions and government entities for that problem. Hint: High rents and real estate costs are one cause.
ReplyDelete10:24 I suggest you move to another city if you are not happy here. There are plenty of cheap houses and rentals east of the state of CA.
DeleteI'm happy here, I was merely trying to comment on the so called "homeless crisis". Man, there are some serious whack jobs on here right now. Hope you can find some joy in your life...
ReplyDelete10:41 loves the homeless but won't house them nor allow them near their children. But thinks it's great for them to piss in the park.
Delete11:07 Whack job? Either write plain so people know what you mean or don't bother to write at all. Joy surrounds me always. You don't have to worry about me.
DeleteChill!
1:22, hey I was just trying to talk about the homeless situation and you jumped all over me telling me to move. I don't come on here to vent, I come on on to talk about local issues. Homelessness is a local issue and high rents are one potential cause, as is mental illness and substance abuse.
DeleteThat was the extent of what I had to say, except to add that demonizing the homeless doesn't solve the problem, and that's a general statement, not directed at anyone.
-Chilling in Leucadia.
I think the rents are too high in Malibu and Montecito.
DeleteShould I go there anyway and be homeless, or should I live here where I can afford it?
Homeless are often most often thieves, drug users, mental, and vile creatures. They are bad for quality of life and property values.
DeleteI support housing them in your neighborhood, but they are not welcome in mine.
Its called NIMBY and thats just the way it is.
You can also thank the lack of public restrooms for people pissing and shitting wherever and whenever they have to. We're all human and when ya gotta go.... Not a very good follow up story, but one day I was on a date with a hippie chick back in the 70's at the Roxy getting ice cream. A woman ran inside and frantically yelled "There's a man outside PISSING on my car!!!" Suzie turned to her and in her soothing voice said "It will probably evaporate". I doubt her father, a senator, would have said the same thing.
ReplyDeleteSounds like a hippie chick all right....
Delete"... I was on a date with a hippie chick back in the 70's ..." why the need to identify her as a hippie chick? So we can assume you didn't consider yourself a hippie? Trolling for a little free love action?
DeleteSorry, but your story doesn't put you in a good light.
"You can also thank the lack of public restrooms for people pissing and shitting wherever and whenever they have to."
DeleteUm. No. Sorry.
Maybe 50 people or 0.1% of our local population have a problem with normal standards of decency and hygiene (and the law). That manes that 99.9% of us DO NOT piss and shit publicly wherever and whenever. If there were a real lack of public restrooms, wouldn't it affect more of the rest of us.
Personally, I am in my 44th year of an undefeated streak of not shitting on a bush in a public park or alley, even during my Taco Bell years. Should I expect to go into the Bowel Control Hall of Fame? Hardly. Because literally everyone who gives a shit about out community (pun intended) has an equally impressive streak going.
For the homeless, there are public restrooms at the major parks and beaches. There are public restrooms in shopping centers, fast food joints, and grocery stores. Even better, there are shelters and organizations offering assistance with housing to get them back on their feet.
If they choose to get loaded and go wherever, it is a conscious choice they have made to reject these options and give the proverbial finger to the rest of us.
It's an act of aggression, directly, against you and me.
3:48 - I guess my only caveat here would be the mentally ill. There's a lot of them on the street and at times it's difficult to discern a "conscious choice".
Delete- The Sculpin
I could name you 5 regulars in Leucadia that are mentally ill, and there are probably more.
Delete-MGJ
Agreed. But more public restrooms doesn't solve a shameful mental health system.
DeleteThank Ronald Reagan.
Ronald Reagan has reincarnated as Donald Dumb Trump - America can't sink much lower than this! Maybe this is the Bizarro world after all!
DeleteOn the radio the other day, they played a clip of a Trump rally. The audience loudly shouted "USA! USA! USA!". The announcer said Jokingly, the show's host asked: "Was that a Trump rally or a Hillary rally?" Hillarious. Hillary supporters would be too afraid of offending someone with such an outburst. TRUMP in 2016. .
Delete2:41, That's right, she was definitely a Hippie Chick and that's not putting her down. Her hair was parted in the middle, she wore bell-bottoms and drove a psychedelic VW bus. And no, I'm not changing it to HC Person.
DeleteShe had rings on her fingers and bells on her shoes.
DeleteAnd I knew without askin' she was into the blues.
She wore scarlet begonias tucked into her curls,
I knew right away she was not like other girls, other girls.
- The Sculpin
Saw a crazy sitting at a table outside of Starbucks, talking to the plants. Then another pushing a bike and screaming at someone or something at the top of his lungs. Maybe they sniffed the lethal gas?
ReplyDeleteI think the stench is Gaspar's Supervisorial campaign over ripening.
ReplyDeletePlease don't label people crazy. You never know what one person has gone through in their life.
ReplyDeleteCrazy, crazy, crazy, crazy, crazy, crazy, crazy, crazy, crazy, CRAZYYYYYYYYYYYYYY.
Delete11:14 How immature! Hope Karma bites you in your ass.
Deletekarma, karma, karma, karma,karma,karma, karma....
DeleteHomeless are often most often thieves, drug users, mental, and vile creatures. They are bad for quality of life and property values.
DeleteI support housing them in your neighborhood, but they are not welcome in mine.
Its called NIMBY and thats just the way it is.
The government should house the crazy - in Mad Max Village in the outskirts of civilization. Also called Burning Man - The Dark Version.
Delete6:20 Maybe one day you'll turn out to be one of them. You are well on your way.
Delete6:20 am You better dig a little further into educating yourself about the homeless. Everything you stated could not be further from the truth. Before you spout off, I suggest you learn more.
DeleteIgnorance is bliss.
10:36 AM PC Police. Remember the ditty about sticks and stones?
ReplyDeleteCrazy = mentally revised, it hasn't made me stronger, dimensionally challenged, statically over-dosed, personality do-over, simulating the Christmas fruit-cake, currently non-communicative on the standard channels, and so forth.....
Atta boy city of Encinitas, way to let the Park in Leucadia flood. Way to let the alley behind Pandora flood, way to disrupt lives.
ReplyDeleteKeep it crappy.
And this is only the prelude.....
DeleteNo wonder we can't get any good candidates to run for council. We don't have any living in this town.
DeletePray tell - what would make Leucadia "uncrappy"?
DeleteMore roundabouts! Especially at three-way intersections!
DeleteYou get a roundabout, and you get a roundabout, and--roundabouts for everyone!
More stop signs and lights! Especially like Del Mar!
ReplyDeleteYou get to stop, and you get to stop, and stop stop stop for everyone!