San Diego Registrar:
While the U-T is saying
"defeated in unofficial returns", this is really still a tossup. There are 7100 absentee and provisional ballots to be counted and a difference of only 186 votes, and absentee and provisional ballots are often significantly skewed in the way they vote compared to the overall vote. The
2012 SDUSD tax increase, for example, trailed on election night but ended up passing by more than 1%.
The vote is of interest to Encinitans for two reasons: 1) I-5 traffic generated by the mall would certainly cause congestion at times through Encinitas, and 2) the vote is an indication of area voters' attitude toward large-scale development, which could be an indication of how Encinitas voters will respond to the city council's high-density development plans this November.
The proponents of Measure A spent 100X more than the opponents and stand to lose. This is great news and goes against the standard axiom that money always buys election results. The over development of sensitive open space needs to stop and a more rational long term plan implemented for a region with over-loaded infrastructure. Ecke is probably throwing a fit! The developer plans to submit the construction proposal regardless of the outcome, which should be very interesting . Maybe Carlsbad needs a recall election, should the City Council go against the will of the electorate.
ReplyDeleteThey almost bought the election, and using 100% deceptive tactics. Saying it was about open space instead of building a mall, targeting seniors, printing up faux handmade signs to make the whole thing appear grassroots.
DeleteSo long Caruso, don't let the door hit you in the ass...
Nice attack on Ecke for no apparent reason. He had nothing to do with Prop A in Carlsbad. Doesn't develop in Enc anymore either. But that won't stop you from attacking for no reason. And no I'm not related to Ecke nor do I know the man. I've only met him twice at the Artwalk in Leucadia years ago.
DeleteIf you want to recall elected officials you don't have to look any father than your own city council. Encinitas...Idiot voters, idiot staff, idiot council. But hey they're your idiots so I guess that makes them okay.
Agree, 1:48. Inappropriate attack, even for our ragtag bunch.
DeleteIf A goes down, the developer will have to go through CEQA, but that does not mean that he can not build, or ultimately does not build something worse. This is such a nice piece of land, why can't the city or the state use eminent domain to buy it? I realize that it will cost $$$, but there are Federal and State funds for saving delicate valuable lands and rich people who give money to have parks named for them. If this does not happen the land owner will eventually develop this land within current zoning standards.
ReplyDeleteThe Feds have blown trillions on useless wars and the State wants to build a high-speed rail to nowhere. Had the priorities been right, this precious asset might have been converted into a public use park. The odds of that? Probably nil. Somebody find an endangered species on it - quick!
DeleteJust found out that SDG&E owns the land, and Caruso Affiliated is under contract to purchase it. Not a fan of SDG&E after the whole San Onofre fiasco.
DeleteDoes anyone know how it is zoned now ? If Caruso loses and if it's zoned agriculture what would happen then? Why didn't Caruso want to do a CEQA?
ReplyDeleteThe plan would increase the amount of open space on the property by 21.6 acres compared to current zoning and land use designations, and reduce the acreage by the same amount where "visitor-serving commercial" uses are allowed. http://www.carlsbadca.gov/cityhall/clerk/propd/default.asp
DeleteCaruso spent $300 million for its YES campaign. A CEQA would have been 10 million. Why didn't they just do it right to begin with?
ReplyDeleteChannel 8 reported that Caruso spent $10 million on the election.
DeleteThe premise that, " an indication of how Encinitas voters will respond to the city council's high-density development plans this November.", is not a realistic view of the housing element vote.
ReplyDeleteIt is Not a "high density development plan".
It just is not.
It sure as hell isn't low density. It just is not.
DeleteNew zoning of R30 as a proxy for "affordable" housing is high density zoning. It just is.
DeleteThere is no state law mandating a certain amount of shopping malls.
DeleteThere also isn't a crisis driving companies and jobs out of state for lack of shopping malls.
We aren't the last city in the county to have an approved shopping mall plan.
Different.
3:18pm All of us that having been paying close attention to staff trying the sell this turd of a plan can only laugh at your assessment of the HEU not being a high density development plan and it ain't funny one bit. Neither are you.
ReplyDeleteThis sounds like the same lies we heard every time this was brought before the public at those hard sell to the uninformed attendees by the planning staff. They all had their marching orders so the blame shouldn't rest solely on these planners that were only following orders from Manjeet, by way of Jeff Murphy, by way of Gus Vina, by way of a lax oversight by city council.
Vina is gone. Murphy, both of them thankfully, are gone. Why is Manjeet still here? Why is Masih the community destroyer still here?
Now Manjeet has just spent another $70,000 hiring Greenplay to manage the Park and Rec effort to present a master plan for our parks and beaches. Why do we have staff acting as a middle man, when this is their very well paid job to do? Can no one do the jobs they are hired for down there without hiring expensive outside consultants that don't give crap about our community and are only in it for the dough?
Forensic audit. Bring it on. The waste that is allowed is shameful. One of these
days.................
Here is a bet that no one should take, even Planning. $70,000 gets Greenplay in the door. Does anyone really believe that won't be escalated before much longer?
ReplyDeleteThe expenditures without direct council approval have to be under $100,000. That amount should revert back to the $10,000 it was before Vina trashed our staffs spending limits. Even $25,000 would be acceptable without direct council approval, but $100,000? That needs to be thrown out now with Vina, Murphy and Murphy, and Manjeet and Masih following each other to greener pastures anywhere but here.
There was a fine source for funding to lower the tracks presented by a much appreciated community member this past week. Green Bonds could just be the solution, since our reps have failed miserably to come up with anything to address the elephant in the room. Bring it on and thanks to the no on the rail trail folks for finding this funding alternative to lowering the tracks.
ReplyDeleteWhere have our reps been? [Tony ?] on this funding source? Out to lunch more than likely and more than likely at one of our too many bars that have been allowed to flourish.
There has to be a limit on how many alcohol permits can be granted within such a small area as our downtown and now they are swallowing up as many possibilities along the Leucadia corridor too. Enough already!
Are there not other non-alcohol related businesses that we can encourage to join our community? Every new business I hear about is bar related unless I am missing something. If so, I welcome the good news of any non bar business coming in.