Thursday, March 31, 2016

Everett Delano on density bonus

Desert Rose attorney Everett Delano writing in Voice of San Diego:
State Law to Boost Affordable Housing Is Good in Theory, Not So Much in Execution

It should come as no surprise that many people in Encinitas have expressed concern about projects that appear to be more about lining developer’s pockets than improving people’s lives.

Reading Voice of San Diego’s recent article on housing in Encinitas, one is left with the distinct impression that local developers are doing their best to push through affordable housing, but Encinitas City Council members and residents are fighting every step of the way.

Quoting a representative of a local housing advocacy group about the importance of the density bonus law, the article claims that both City Council members and residents want to make the law impossible to use in Encinitas.

But the reality is not nearly so stark.

It is, of course, hard to quarrel with the premise of affordable housing. In a state and a county where housing costs consume a substantial portion of a household’s income, affordability is an important factor. But blaming the high cost of housing on residents who advocate for protections of their community and the environment is like blaming the customers who insist on a clean supermarket for the high cost of food – sure, there’s a relationship, but there are several other economic factors at play.

The state’s density bonus law allows private developers to build more homes on a property than city restrictions allow if they agree to build some low-income units. But the sad truth about the law is that it’s not really a vehicle that ensures what most of us would consider to be affordable housing. For one thing, the calculation of affordability is based on the median income in the immediate area, so when a project is proposed in a wealthy area, the affordable unit is suddenly not affordable the way most of us would think.

And to make matters worse, the law does not require leaving existing affordable units on the project site, so a project can be built that actually ends up reducing the amount of affordable housing.

The hard-fought battle over the high-density Desert Rose project in Encinitas proved that point. The project site is located in rural Olivenhain, accessed by a winding series of roads, and is bordered on two sides by open space with a creek running through it. The developer used the density-bonus law to double density by agreeing to build just one affordable unit, but since the site is located adjacent to Rancho Santa Fe, the so-called affordability of that one unit will not be something most lower-income earners can afford. Plus, the project will remove the existing affordable units on site that are associated with existing on-site horse stables.

It should therefore come as no surprise that so many people in Encinitas have expressed concern about this and other proposed projects that appear to be more about lining developers’ pockets than improving people’s lives.

Our society can and should do more to ensure adequate housing for all income levels. And while the density-bonus law may have a good premise, its execution leaves much to be desired – it’s like telling someone they can drive twice the speed limit as long as they transport one lower-income rider. Sure, we want to ensure all income levels have adequate opportunities, but there are better ways to achieve these goals.

31 comments:

  1. This is a good article. The family who has lived on the Desert Rose horse property for years is an actual low-income family, and they will lose their homes. This is an example of the loss of diversity in in affluent area.

    Exactly what benefit does this project bring to the Encinitas community?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't ask Everett about benefit, he is only interested in profit, like the $400 K he got by holding up La Costa/C'Bad and sending Home Depot Jr. to Encinitas rather than C'Bad. Check out his p.a.c.'s year-end report to the IRS. That's the true story.

      Delete
    2. Thanks Mikey, gosh there's not a job you won't take, is there?

      Anyone who knows Everett, even those on the opposite side, do not doubt his integrity.

      The ilk you represent just don't like their greed interfered with and that's why they unleash the crazy talk.

      In the absence of real arguments, they resort to you. Trouble is you don't make sense, your handlers don't have a defensible position, and ultimately, no one is interested in your half-formed rants.

      Delete
  2. More property tax revenue. Secure retirement for City Staff. Traffic congestion for the residents.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Fire Manjeet and most of the other senior planners now! They collude behind the doors with developers to promote max density at every opportunity and are traitors to this community's future and present well being.

    Even when a project seeks to work within current zoning, they are known to try to convince property owners to go for max density and that ain't no bonus for our town. Their behavior is unconscionable.

    It is well past time for him and his operatives to hit the road jack. Good bloody riddance. They have lied too many times and misrepresented the truth in their pursuit of infill.

    Fire him now. Don't wait for the HEU to fail, as it surely will, and now, as of last night, they got the go ahead to spend and waste more of OUR money hiring expensive outside consultants to try to sell this turd of a plan. No amount of tricksterism is going to make this plan look acceptable. Stop the waste now!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 6:38 PM

      At it again I see. A one trick pony. It's all staff's doing. They are the ones who must be pushing density bonus. It just couldn't be the property owners who sell at a higher price because a developer can use density bonus to build more units. Forget that it's state law which purposely trumps local ordinances.

      No, to you it has to be the evil staff.

      Delete
    2. Property owners have reported staff pushing density bonus. These reports come from unrelated individuals not involved in city activism, so it's doubtful they've got some kind of collective conscience and are lying.

      Given staff's track record of withholding information, "misplacing" records, and (under Vina's directive) putting as little as possible in writing, it's logical to believe individual property owner reports of staff wrongdoing.

      Delete
  4. Everett should stop attending Encinitas Planning Commission meetings and portraying himself as a 'friend' or 'neighbor' when testifying before the Commission and if his article in the VOICE has any less honesty in it as his other political leveraging in North County he and his 'partner' Sluggo have been caught up by a string of bad luck of late and financial reverses; so now its time to turn back to their mother's-milk; leveraging the residents of Encinitas again. Bad luck to them both.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Aw at it again, aren't you?

      Here's a novel idea: why don't you debate what Everett actually said? Tell us what you find inaccurate about his comments?

      Wait, let me guess: you're not paid to do that.

      Delete
  5. Everett makes a strong moral argument, but no legal one.

    Everything he says in the article is true, but logical conclusion is to change the state law, not to fight feckless and unsuccessful legal battles at the local level. He uses Desert Rose as the poster child, which he lost, and people who contributed money and time to the cause also lost. How much more time and money will be spent fighting gravity?

    When the deck is stacked against you, why are you still playing cards?

    Collectively, across the state, money and time spent fighting loosing battles against individual density bonus projects should be redirected to an organized campaign to amend DB in Sacramento or through a state-wide voter initiative. But Everett doesn't quite get to that conclusion, because in the end, he's in the windmill tilting business, and business is good.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Encinitas does not do enough to lobby in Sacramento or Washington DC. Solana Beach got their trench paid for by putting in years of lobbying in DC.

      Delete
    2. Agree there is a moral issue, which tells me there needs to be a legal remedy. Some developers, backed by the BIA, will fight tooth and nail against morality becoming law. The more of us who speak for reform, the more likely it is to happen.

      In the meantime, I and others will continue to play cards. Every once in awhile we win and it's worth it.

      Delete
  6. Desert Rose is not over. When the environmental and safety impacts that neighbors presented come to pass, the City will be on the hook for another round of lawsuits. They have approved the project, so just give it time and the problems that were foretold will surface.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe Glenn Sabine will get to charge us another $40,000 when the lawsuits come through like he collected on the Desert Rose case. Win or lose, he always gets paid!

      Delete
    2. 1:30,

      To what end?

      Will the remedy be to remove the new construction and resurrect the previous buildings and equine use?

      Or will the lawsuit be for the purposes of poking the city in the eye, and costing all of us taxpayers money no matter the outcome of court cases?

      No need to answer. We both already know the answer.

      Delete
  7. 3:24 clearly blames residents and not a predatory developer + Marco for "costing all us taxpayers money."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1:30 threatens lawsuits for events that haven't happened yet. Yes, I think that indicates a sore loser who intends to abuse the legal system.

      Delete
    2. In case you're confused at to where you live, we all have a right to pursue what we think is right.

      Even creepy developers and their puppets.

      Delete
    3. The city has approved a dangerous project. When people get hurt as a result of substandard roads, proximity to fire danger and other issues presented by neighbors and recognized by Judge Hays, who will be responsible?

      Delete
  8. Gee thanks Marco. Yea. Right. We have all seen your black hat persona threaten council, staff, and this entire community of caring citizens to stop fighting against your clients every whim.

    Talk about abusing the legal system, that's rich. Rich for you anyway.

    The manipulating of this DB law to suit your clients attempts to skirt our current zoning and degrading this community while not being required to actually build these so-called low income units on site is a lie. In lieu fees are a part of this lie. The fee nowhere comes close to the value of a single family home. Another giveaway.

    Another giveaway, none of these low income units are true low income units. Another lie.

    Another lie, SANDAG's future population numbers are a lie. They, SANDAG, are just another corrupted, in the pocket of developers and their stooge in the BIA McSweeney, group of advocates who know how to work the system and the poorly and intentionally written DB law to maximize their own profit margins.

    Community character be damned. Money, money, money. Follow the money.

    Yes, we are sore losers at times when justice is denied. The fix is in for the time being and you, Marco, laugh all the to the bank while the community you chose to live in suffers.

    How can you tell a lawyer is lying? His lips are moving. That you feel you can criticize Everett for defending this community while you do all you can to degrade our town, is the epitome of hubris. Everett has given back more than you ever will.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Marco revels in his black hat, well paid role, as evidenced by his appearance last year dressed in black from head to toe, baseball cap on backwards, earrings, while at the podium threatening council, staff, and everyone within listening distance, to stop fighting whatever his and other developers want. That was about the most disrespect to a council meeting I have witnessed.

    He must have come in from his neighbors bar [Union] drinking free, with the attitude that he exhibited that night. It came off as a disgusting, juvenile performance by someone who should have shown some maturity by now. There was none of that expected maturity on evidence.

    It is good to hear that all is not lost with Desert Rose. Keep fighting the good fight. Those judges were compromised from the start to ignore every one of the environmental considerations that they did. If we here make it a trial for these degraders every time they try to squeeze in more than our current zoning allows, they will see the added costs of a protracted process. $$$$$$$

    Even an individual loss is not a complete loss. Everyone of these battles brings more and more of us together. United we stand. Division is their tactic, Unison is ours.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Rubio is spending the booty from the fireworks settlement. Maggots like this undermine society at large by nuancing absurdities.

    ReplyDelete
  11. 9:01am. I have to believe you meant Marco Gonzalez and not Rubio, the former pres. candidate who was not ready for primetime. Never the less, your point is spot on about those who take advantage of a poorly written law to degrade our community while raking in profits at our expense.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Marco and his firm Coast Law Group are not to be trusted. They have all sold out and it is painful to see, at least for me. I used to have respect for some of the attorneys at that firm, but have recently learned more than I can share without them filing a lawsuit against me. If you care to trust an anonymous voice, and I wouldn't blame you if you didn't, then never do business with them. Once I file my suit against them, I will happily report that with my name.

    ReplyDelete
  13. 2:51pm. You give us hope for a little karmic justice. May all the winds blow in your favor as you pursue your case. You will have a community of supporters wishing you well. It is about time he is put to the fire. May redemption be yours.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "May all the winds blow in your favor. . ."

      "May redemption be yours."

      HUGE eyeroll.

      Delete
    2. 6:24- Not sure if that was meant to be sarcastic with the huge eyeroll. Or, it could be Marco for all I know. Nevertheless, when the "shit hits the fan" don't say you weren't warned, and not on Encinitas Undercover. You know exactly what I mean if it is you, or one of your other attorneys or worker bees. Karma my friend can be a real bitch.

      Delete
    3. 6:58,

      I'm not Marco. have no idea what you are talking about, and I don't care.

      Just poking fun at the over-the-top breathless drama language.

      Reminds me of the Three Amigos:

      http://youtu.be/OCEN-NzoYSY

      Delete
  14. Should have stayed in San Marcos ... or Vista... doesn't deserve Encinitas.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The sentiment toward Marco is justified. He is like a dog who would rather crap in other peoples yards than his own, except that, he, Marco happily craps here in his own town, for the time being. What a guy. He leaves his stench behind for the rest of us to deal with. What a guy. He fits right in with all his downtown bar buddies who have degraded our downtown with their endless bad behaviour. What a guy.

    ReplyDelete