Friday, April 22, 2016

Locals set VOSD straight on density bonus

Encinitas locals C.J. Minster, Jerry Sodomka, and Susan Turney writing in the Voice of San Diego:
We are writing in response to the VOSD article, “Years of Defying State Affordable Housing Law Gets Encinitas Sued, Again.” As longtime residents of Encinitas, we have firsthand experience with the challenges of meeting affordable housing needs in Encinitas. In this op-ed, we will draw on our experience to supply missing background information, correct factual errors and provide a more precise context for some of the assertions made in the VOSD article.

The Housing and Community Development Department mandates that city governments institute a plan to meet their existing and projected housing needs and increase housing supply and affordability levels by updating the housing and land use elements of their general plans.

Encinitas is in the process of updating its housing and land use element. In its draft plan, submitted to HCD in September 2015, Encinitas incorporated high-density R-30 zoning (30 units per acre), which HCD sanctions as a stand-in, or “proxy” for affordable housing.

The eye-opener here is that HCD allows this zoning to count as affordable housing, even if such housing is NEVER built or the units that are built sell at market rate. HCD Assistant Deputy Director of Housing Policy, Glen Campora, confirmed in an Encinitas forum that there is NO guarantee affordable units will be built. In fact, the “Affordable Housing” projects can – and usually do – end up consisting mostly of luxury condo units.



As shown in SANDAG’s chart below, the actual affordable housing produced vs. goals is abysmal.


Over a four-year period, the county Regional Housing Needs Assessment numbers produced just 4-8 percent of the required affordable housing units. The remaining units produced were market rate, doing nothing to satisfy affordable housing demand. The increased density brings with it a variety of urban ills, including: CO2 emissions, increased traffic congestion, pollution, additional water demands, parking shortages, reduced emergency vehicle response time and overburdened sewer systems. There is no corresponding investment in infrastructure to offset these burdens.

The state’s density-bonus law supports HCD’s goal of promoting affordability by giving developers of residential units a “density bonus” when a portion of the units are rented or sold at affordable rates. However, as implemented, it instead creates market-rate housing and virtually no affordable housing. All of the BONUS housing in the density-bonus law is market rate. The developer commits to building a small number of affordable units, usually in the range of one to three units, to get a maximum increase of 35 percent in the number of market-rate units over the normal zoning. The developer profit from market-rate units is extraordinary. The impacts on infrastructure and traffic come from the total number of units built, not just the affordable units.

The truth is that in high-priced land areas like Encinitas, a significant number of affordable units will never be built without public subsidies, which were cut off by the state a few years ago and are no longer available. The only subsidies density-bonus projects provide are profits for the developer from additional market-rate units.

Assemblyman Ed Chau introduced AB 744 in part to clarify ambiguous language and modify the density-bonus law with changes on how to round base density calculations. (This contradicts the assertion in the VOSD article that the law’s language is “unequivocal.”) Even Meea Kang, an affordable housing advocate and former president of the California Infill Builders Association, admitted the ambiguity. About one-third of cities and counties in California round down on base density, and rounding down has been in Encinitas’ Municipal Code since incorporation in 1986. The clarifying language was removed from AB 744 because of existing litigation.

Since 2009, Encinitas has been sued three times for its interpretation of the law, twice by the same developer and once by the Building Industry Association. It’s important to note that these lawsuits are over practices that are standard in other cities.

The shortage of affordable housing has not been solved over the past 30 years. Instead, the scarcity has grown and reached what can be described as a crisis in many of the state’s localities. For example, the city of Los Angeles has an affordable housing shortage of 100,000 units. Encinitas is hardly alone in finding it nearly impossible to produce truly affordable housing.

One local developer called Encinitas “a density bonus magnet,” not because of the opportunity to build affordable housing, but for the profit potential from market-rate bonus units. The map below indicates some of the density bonus projects that already exist in Encinitas:



Encinitas is struggling to update its housing element, not because Encinitans are “defiant,” but because we know that true affordability won’t come with the housing element update. Encinitas is not an isolated example, but rather part of a growing awareness statewide of the need for reform.

109 comments:

  1. This clearly states why the current state mandates will not result in affordable housing. While agreeing with that, which is the main point, I do disagree with the final paragraph. They seem to contend that if the HEU led to affordable housing, people would embrace it. Encinitas is having trouble with the HEU because people do not want increased density, and a change in the character of their neighborhoods. If somehow this increased density would lead to affordable housing, it would be even more difficult since you'd have increased density, change in character, and less affluent neighbors.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I disagree. What passed for "middle class" 30 years ago, is now considered "affordable", so you would probably be attracting the SAME type of people who moved here in the 80s. I would rather be living next to "less affluent" neighbors than the entitled assholes we are now tolerating, and if you don't know what I mean, then you don't live here, or you are living under a rock.

      Delete
    2. 6:09 Maybe you should consider moving. I bet your neighbors dislike you more than you dislike them.

      Delete
    3. These 3 disaffected people have a bitch with the State not the City; but for some unapparent reason, they absolutely cannot comprehend this fact. Hardly wait for the Judge to decide the housing element; can you?

      Delete
    4. Thank you for your honesty 4:27. And thanks for exposing the argument in the op-ed for the fig leaf that it is.

      This is about classism plain and simple, as you have so eloquently demonstrated, Mr. Bunker.

      Delete
    5. Marco or Meyer: anyone care to hazard a guess?

      Delete
    6. The classism is the likes of David Meyer pretending the density bonus law, which he boasts on regular occasions he helped write, is anything but a cynical joke on the lower income and those who actually think affordable housing can be a reality.


      Look at the sad, sad results of the program

      Delete
    7. Yes, Density Bonus generated 39 units out of a total of 53 in the past 5 years; meaning, not the best program but better than what the City Council has been pursuing; which is based on their class-envy and not their better angels. The best plan would be to move City Hall out to New Encinitas where the money and votes are and build a five level multi-family cluster across the street from the Encinitas transportation hub. A closed-system is doomed to failure, especially when you have a Council made up of wanna-bees who want bees over good neighbors and neighborhoods. Staff claims the new city manager is being held politically hostage by Julie Graboi, Donna Westbrook and the immortal Bob Bonde. Plus, CM Brush's secretary just took a demotion to get out of the firing line of the Council offices all the better to hide out in Public/Water Works down-breeze from In & Out.

      You want 'flies'with that?

      Delete
  2. The whole density bonus issue is nothing but a way for developers to increase their profit. Affordable housing is a joke.

    The council has hired a "fancy word" person to confuse the voters at the ballot box regarding the HEU. We will not be fooled by their vane attempt.

    NO to the HEU.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Carly Simon wasn't singing to a windmill.

      Delete
  3. No ethics at city hall.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "The only subsidies density-bonus projects provide are profits for the developer from additional market-rate units." While Density Bonus may give developers additional profits over and above what they might earn if they developed under the existing zoning, they are still subsidizing the affordable unit(s) so that statement on its face is incorrect. Obviously, this gets passed on to the home buyers but all subsidies eventually come out of our pockets.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They are subsidizing barely anything, if at all. They hold onto the units to rent at "affordable" rates. These rates are based on a city's average income. This means that an "affordable unit" rents for $2,000/month or more in Encinitas.

      The developer collects a nice monthly check while watching the investment appreciate.

      Throw in the fact that the unit is oftentimes rented to someone in the developer's family and the whole thing becomes even more of a scam.

      Delete
    2. 2:45 PM

      You are wildly mistaken. It would take too long to go into detail but the rents are governed by statute depending on whether the unit is for a low or very low income family. This restriction is for 55 years which would be a very long investment and not worth it. The monthly rent on a three bedroom house for very low income is under $1,000 a month.

      "... the unit is oftentimes rented to someone in the developer's family ..." I see that canard a lot here yet not a shred of evidence.

      "They are subsidizing barely anything, if at all." Totally false. In reality it's the project's home buyers that wind up subsidizing the below market rate unit as I'm sure the developer passes the cost on to the price of the market rate units. But cheer up, that increase will also raise the value of your house and the new home buyers will be paying higher property taxes which will, in effect, subsidize existing residents. You can thank Prop 13 for that.

      Delete
    3. Ecke, anyone?

      Delete
    4. I do thank Prop 13 for holding down property taxes for longtime homeowners, many elderly, on fixed incomes.

      The affordable units are not automatically restricted for 55 years. That 55 year formula is complicated, and results when projects are subsidized by the government, in addition to relaxed zoning standards. Other subsidies are offered in some projects, such as delayed taxes, or tax increments.

      And the units do not have to be rented to very low income. They can go to low income to be counted. A studio can be rented out for $1100 plus per month.

      So 6:09, get your facts straight. Opinion is not fact, but the concerned citizens who wrote the op ed have based their opinions on the facts on the ground, not speculation and conflicts of interest.

      Delete
    5. 2:53 AM

      "And the units do not have to be rented to very low income." Yes they do if that was what the developer claimed when they submitted their density bonus application.

      "The affordable units are not automatically restricted for 55 years."

      Yes they are, longer if the financing requires it. It's right there in the density bonus statute. A studio would rent for a lot less than $1,000 to qualify as very low income eligible.

      "... get your facts straight." I wish you would.

      Delete
    6. 2:53 AM... Wow, no wonder we have such conflict in this community. You REALLY don't know what you are talking about. Yes, You are entitled to your own opinion, 2:53 AM but you are NOT entitled to your own set of facts; please, please stop fomenting until you understand what you are opining about!

      Here's the latest California trend; it is focused up North currently, but might as well be right here in Little Oaks City' http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/17/business/economy/san-francisco-housing-tech-boom-sf-barf.html?_r=0

      That's NOT the wind you hear whistling, it's Gus Vina laughing at the residents of Encinitas who have continued to elect Prima Donnas, outliers of failure and true-blue knuckle-heads.

      The reason there is such a thing as Density Bonus is because most people don't want to waste their time reading up on local housing law; expecting their represented leaders to solve some of these problems; instead they listen to people like you 2:53 AM the result is promoting folks completely unsuccessful in their private lives fleeing into the public realm for life-mulligans and lo and behold, their skills, or lack thereof almost immediately become publicly recognized and then they struggle mightily to stumble across something that will fool all of the people all of the time.

      Does Shaffer really have enough common sense to get out of politics? Aside from Kranz himself, can there be more than a 5 people in Encinitas that believe he should be returned to office?

      Would you honestly let Tony or Lisa watch your pets over a wekend? Or Julie and C.J. or Kathleen drive a church bus to camp? Obviously not. Think hard and elect adults next time. If no adults run, then "Here comes the Judge, here comes the Judge..."

      Delete
    7. I read the relevant Govt. Code, and it's complicated. Why don't you quote the section where it says ALL density bonus projects must maintain the low income units for 55 years? It shouldn't take a lawyer or a judge to understand the law, but from my reading, it didn't seem as though that length of time was to be mandated in every case, that is, for every affordable unit in a density bonus project.

      Your attacks are so full of ego. Apparently, you delight in trying to prove others wrong so you can pump up your inflated sense of self righteousness.

      Why would any developer designate very low income units? I suppose because that person, or corporation could get more relaxed development standards? But I don't know of any "very low" self imposed designations in this city.

      Thus, what I said is correct. The developers don't have to provide for "very low," unless they decide they want to do so, and no one, in Encinitas, to my knowledge, has.

      Why don't you stop picking on personalities and attacking others, based on your biases, and consider the facts.

      Delete
  5. Greed thinly disguised as a policy to accommodate the less wealthy. What a travesty!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hymettus Estates (just approved by the planning commission) is a prime example of this fraud. This project actually REDUCES the number of affordable living units onsite from 2 to 1, while giving the developer 3 extra $2+ million market rate houses.

      Delete
    2. Watching that approval from the back of the room brings two words to mind: "Kangaroo Court."

      They had their orders.

      Delete
    3. Are you assuming that it's down to a choice between the current buildings and the proposed project? Because it's not?

      Without DB, the parcel would have gone from two affordable units to ZERO. While not great, DB produced one incremental affordable unit relative to the likely alternative.

      Delete
    4. If you are strictly counting affordable units on the property, whether developed or not, it will go from four low-income dwellings now to one after development.

      DB will result in a net loss of three units. Nothing incremental about this project.

      Delete
    5. And how many affordable units would be built on that parcel when (not if) a developer develops it without using DB?

      Delete
  6. 7:56 AM
    Units? Not houses? You mean that David Meyer's Saxony/Quail Gardens tentative map that eventually sold to Shea homes for the bait and switch of not selling the subsidized homes in the development to some family that could have home ownership? Those units? Then the council at that time agreed that Shea homes could convert their proposed condos on Vulcan into low income apartments to keep "those people" out of the developer's density bonus subdivision. Or the Lennar development in Leucadia of million dollar houses where the city made a "mistake" and let another developer buy at less than $500,000 each the two low income affordable homes in the density bonus subdivision instead of selling the homes to a low income family?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This misinformation has got to end. The affordable units/houses have to remain below market rate whether they were sold to another and then rented at an affordable rate or just sold outright to a qualified family. Either way they remain below market rate.

      Shea still has affordable units in Coral Cove (or whatever they call it now) so "those people" are still in the subdivision.

      Delete
    2. 12:48 PM
      Selling the below market rate house to another developer for his future retirement fund is OK?
      Density bonus is also for home ownership for the low income family.

      Delete
    3. 1:22 PM

      Waiting 55 years for retirement seems like a long time. My guess is it has to do with tax deductions.

      Delete
    4. 12:48, do your homework. Comb through city records and correct YOUR misinformation. "Affordable rates" are anything but. You need to study up and straighten yourself out.

      The developers' dirty little secret is getting out not only in SoCal, but in other cities all over the State.

      Delete
    5. 2:47

      I have and you're wrong.

      Delete
    6. Care to elaborate?

      Delete
    7. 4:09 PM

      All affordable units/houses in density bonus projects have a Affordable Housing Regulatory Agreement which is recorded on the property as a covenant that requires the property remain affordable (low/very low) for 55 years no matter who owns it. State DB doesn't require the unit/house be sold to an income eligible party just that it remain in the affordable category (low/very low) for 55 years.

      Delete
    8. Then tell us, 3:04. Let's hear your inside knowledge in detail.

      As someone stated, "affordable" is $2,000 per month in rent. Want to explain how that's affordable in the usual sense of the word?

      Delete
    9. 11:35 PM

      A very low income affordable rent for a three-bedroom house that was built as the below market rate unit in a density bonus project would be under $1,000. Because the density bonus is calculated depending on whether the below market unit is for low or very low incomes (there is a higher bonus for very low) the unit has to remain available for that income class for 55 years.

      Delete
    10. Maggie and Barth backed the Shea proposal. Don't reinvent the past record.

      Delete
    11. Shea bought the development on Vulcan specifically to be able to transfer their low income obligations there. The city allowed it. Gene Chappo got up at the meeting I was at and called them out on "Ghettofication" and defeating the spirit of the law...

      Delete
    12. 8:16 PM

      As has been pointed out here on past threads, the Iris Apts. was part of the solution to the Nantucket problem on Andrew St. The second phase was sitting there partially built because the bankruptcy left the two affordable units unbuilt. The neighborhood was very upset and wanted something done.

      If you think a 22 unit apartment complex is a ghetto then you must not get out much.

      Delete
    13. Part of the "solution?" The solution should have been providing onsite affordable units. That is what the law requires. But somehow the developer slipped out from under the requirement in what Barth defended as a one off.

      Yes, a ghetto: everyone knows the poor people live there, not that the developer cares. Chelsea was quite matter of fact in saying "we keep those people under control," as in "do not fear a bunch of low-income folks all on one property, we'll keep them contained."

      The ghetto label comes from Chelsea's attitude, not the residents who thought they were getting a standalone home amongst others. No such luck for them with our brand of "affordable housing advocates."

      Delete
    14. 1:46 PM

      How arrogant and ignorant. You just have no idea what you're talking about. Your ghetto characterization shows you haven't actually seen affordable housing. Actually, you've probably seen it but didn't know it was affordable housing. And Chelsea didn't say "we keep those people under control" they said that they will evict any bad tenants. The "those people" is how you think of them.

      Delete
    15. 1:58, clearly you were not at the council meeting when Chelsea made their now-infamous remark. Shaffer's eyes bulged. It was nothing to do with bad tenants. It was a disgusting revelation of how they view those they make money off of building "affordable."

      Delete
    16. It was Chelsea who showed arrogance and ignorance. Between the Shea/Barrett/Meyer shell game and Chelsea's comments, the whole swindle was a shameful mess.

      How dare you call out those who call bullshit on the shell game "arrogant and ignorant." You, 1:58 are part of the problem.

      Delete
  7. Remember there are five people on the council that have leanings toward developers. The "those people" comment came from one of the developers.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Whether or not you agree with the mandates the city is required to include in its Housing Element, HCD is merely the department tasked by the legislature to implement the statute and many of the provisions, like 30 units per acre, are right there in the statute. Your beef is with the legislature not with HCD and from what I can see the legislature isn't backing down.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Says the city spin doctor.

      Delete
    2. Straight out of the mouth of any one of the Council members. They read this blog and some even post.

      Delete
    3. So if the "city spin doctor" or a council member said the sun rises in the east you would discount it as well. Attack the person instead of the statement. How lazy. Well I'm neither one.

      Delete
    4. Sorry, 1:11...the resemblance was just so awfully close, we couldn't tell you apart.

      Delete
    5. 7:30 PM

      Drinking too much Kool-aid? Don't like an answer, it must be from the wrong person. I guess it beats having to actually think for yourself.

      Delete
    6. Not kool-aid, just experience. The signs are there and yes, once identified, save a whole lot of time. "Next."

      Delete
    7. 10:13 AM

      Nice to see you're proud of group think. It must be too uncomfortable to think for yourself.

      Delete
  9. Right at the top of the op-ed:

    "The Housing and Community Development Department mandates. . ."

    No, HCD is not the source of the mandate, state law is. This is intentionally misleading. The trick is to make it sound like the mandate is a regulatory decision made within an agency of the executive branch that could be undone by a simple policy change.

    Now why would they intentionally avoid mentioning state law in the whole op-ed? If their stated intent is ". . .to supply missing background information, correct factual errors and provide a more precise context. . ." then it would seem that the true nature and source of the mandate would be a very important detail.

    Maybe they just forgot?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 9:50 - there are two separate entities at work here: the State's density bonus law and HCD's affordable housing program.

      The sixth paragraph down states:

      "The state’s density-bonus law supports HCD’s goal...."

      HCD sets the goals and guidelines to achieve affordable housing. Density bonus law works hand in glove to support those goals.

      Maybe you just forgot how it works. Something about your comments smells like you're in the biz. And getting nervous.

      Delete
    2. 10:27 AM

      "... HCD's affordable housing program." No, it's not HCD's affordable housing program. It written right into the statute. Density Bonus is laid out in a separate statute. Both statutes were written by the legislature.

      "Maybe you just forgot how it works." Maybe you should learn how it works.

      Delete
    3. The HCD rep himself said when he came to Encinitas last December that areas like ours cannot produce affordable housing forced by density bonus and affordable housing laws.

      I was in the audience - were you, 1:06? The man told us the affordable housing law produces not much affordability, if any, in high-cost land areas. Did you hear him? I did. That was all I needed to hear to know that affordable housing law is a sham.

      David Meyer boasts proudly of having written the density bonus law and "knows it better than anyone else." That's all I need to hear to know that the density bonus law is a sham.

      The laws are a joke on those who actually believe high-density housing will give areas like Encinitas any meaningful affordable housing and an even nastier joke on low-income earners.

      Look at the SANDAG table. It supports everything the opposition and HCD itself say.

      Delete
    4. 1:31 PM

      "The man told us the affordable housing law produces not much affordability, if any, in high-cost land areas."

      Then be my guest to go to Sacramento and get the legislature to change both laws.

      I'm not defending density bonus. I don't like it. The legislature is currently trying to make the density bonus statute even more onerous with David Meyer leading the charge. He's up in Sacramento testifying in support as a cosponsor of the bill.

      My only point is if you're going to discuss it at least be accurate.

      Delete
    5. 10:27 makes my point.

      The writers of the op-ed will be so pleased to know that they have succeeded in convincing you that "HCD sets the goals and guidelines." In fact, they don't.

      See, if this was an arbitrary regulatory decision by a bureaucratic and unaccountable state agency, then lots of people would consider voting against the HEU until the state agency changes the "goals and guidelines." Far fewer people would support an explicit nullification of a democraticly enacted State law that virtually every other city has been able to deal with--even if that law is flawed.

      That's why the writers made a conscious decision to mislead.

      I happen to be one of the swing voters in that scenario. If this was a discretionary policy of unelected bureaucrats, then I'd support rejection. But it's not. It's a law, and it was properly passed by our elected officials. I disagree with it, and would support reform, but we don't live in a place where we can pick and choose what laws apply to us. I've been to those places--trust me, you don't want that.

      Work for reform. Comply with the law until that reform happens.

      Delete
    6. As I understand it, Encinitas has not been in compliance with this law for quite a few years. Were there any consequences because of that? Just because it is a law does not mean that it is a good thing. Also, laws can be undone.

      Delete
    7. 2:48,

      Fair question. There certainly is an argument to be made for willful disregard of state law at the local level. But the point here is that the writers of the op-ed must have figured they'd lose that debate, so they decided to frame the debate with a false premise.

      What do you think? Do you think they should have made the case for nullification, or was it okay to mislead if the ends justify the means?

      Delete
    8. City of Encinitas has been in violation of the State Housing ordinance since 1993; and has been actively trying to get a Housing Element approved since August 19th, 2009. Almost every other city/township in California has been able to get their HE approved; a complete turnover of staff and councilors since 2009, the only thing that is the same, are Donna Westbrook, Bruce Ehlers, Pam Slater, Everett Delano, Sheila Cameron, Kathleen Lees, Judy and Dadla, should we go on? What are they collectively against? As Brando answered,"Whad'ya got?"

      Delete
    9. 3:04, No one is following your "argument." Talk about making a mountain out of nothing.

      Do you actually believe that the db law works - not in the David Meyer way, but in actuality? Do you think the affordable holding law works in our area? Are 8% and 5% of affordable goals acceptable to you?

      Both laws are clearly neither the state's nor HCD's when you get down to it: they're pro-developer, anti-low income farces.

      Delete
    10. 6:06, sorry you were unable to follow.

      Delete
    11. 7:39, sorry you can't tell time.

      Delete
  10. It appears that we are still operating well as a city in spite of not having a State Housing ordinance. Why not continue on in the same mode? What is the state going to do to us if we don't comply?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In Olde England a place was called a city because it had a cathedral and could support important matters. Functionally Encinitas is just a town that was cobbled together from 5 villages.

      If we were a real city we would have a pro football team and an airport. We don't even have a stadium. Oh wait, we do have pretensions of being a city so we should be trying for all those things!

      P.S. I like living in this town (not a city).

      Delete
    2. 4:22: Nada. Glen Campora of HCD said the only lawsuits come from affordable housing advocates, never the stste. Cue David Meyer lawsuit. Cue collective eye roll. The guy cares about as much about providing affordable housing as a cat does about sparing a mouse's life.

      Delete
    3. 5:19 We are incorporated as the CITY of Encinitas. If it makes you feel better to say you live in a town, so be it. The facts are the facts.

      Delete
    4. I lived in a 3rd floor walk up above a blues club on Manhattan.

      Ignore the technical definition. Trust me. Encinitas is not a city.

      Delete
    5. Education
      About.comGeographySearch
      Geography
      What Is Geography?MapsPhysical & CulturalSharePrint
      Ads: Geography Town Planning City Planning Urban Planning Urban City
      What is the difference between a city and a town?

      In the United States, an incorporated city is a legally defined government entity, with powers delegated by the state and county and created and approved by the voters of the city. It can provide local government services to its citizens.
      In most places in the U.S. a town, village, community, or neighborhood is simply an unincorporated community with no governmental powers. Usually, county governments provide services to these unincorporated communities. Some states do have official designations of "towns" that include limited powers.

      Generally in the urban heirarchy, villages are smaller than towns and towns are smaller than cities but each country has its own definition of a city and an urban area.

      Delete
    6. Are you really arguing about the difference between a city and a town? Mercy...

      Delete
  11. This street fair brought out the crazies! Angry motorists, barflies and girls dressed like hookers. Family event has gone south! Ya know the corral full of drunks do stumble out at some point.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We went in he morning and it was mellow. Had breakfast from the buffet at Whole Foods, walked up and down and talked to the exhibitors. Had a good laugh when some dog wrapped its leash around my legs. If you don't like to be around drunks go before the pouring starts.

      Downtown parking is a bit of a problem now, it might be much worse in a few years if the HEU passes.

      Delete
    2. "Downtown parking is a bit of a problem now, it might be much worse in a few years if the HEU passes."

      All the more reason for Lisa Shaffer to put in her precious parking meters!

      Delete
    3. Yes, everyone who doesn't enjoy public displays of drunkenness, do "go before the pouring starts." Because after all, this really is no longer your town. Unless, that is, you "go before the pouring starts."

      Talk about a frat boy mentality. And there's no "might" about the HEU making things much worse. It's all about the vitality, isn't it.

      Delete
    4. Unless your drunk is old, and stumbles into 101 traffic after a bender in Cap'n Kenos. Then he's "well liked."

      Delete
    5. Because he is well liked, hater. Said person is still fighting for his life, so have some respect, you toad licking idiot.

      Delete
    6. Booze has been part of the Encinitas Street Fair for over 20 years. Quit pretending that people weren't in the beer pen getting hammered until now. The main money raiser at the STreet fair is the beer garden, rocket scientist. God, it's the dumb hour here on the blog. Thank god there's an election coming up.

      Delete
    7. 7:38, who, who?

      Not everyone is worth of respect, 8:18, no matter what their condition.

      Delete
    8. http://m.seasidecourier.com/news/pedestrian-seriously-injured-while-crossing-coast-highway-in-encinitas/article_09472ec6-c40a-11e5-a742-3f72d9b6b9f0.html?mode=jqm

      Delete
    9. That article was posted 3 months ago and the person struck is "still fighting for his life"? Still don't have a name.

      Delete
    10. Go into Captain Keno's and ask. I'm not posting out of respect.

      Delete
    11. The point is: drunks are drunks. They all cause the same problems downtown. They all are human beings with people who care about them.

      There is no difference between the Keno's guy, and the drunks at Union. Treat the Keno's guy with the same level of disdain as you would the Union crew, and treat the Union crew with as much compassion as you offer to the Keno's guy.

      Drinking is drinking, no matter who's doing it, what they are drinking, or where they choose to imbibe.

      Delete
    12. What's wrong with girls dressed as hookers? Go down to the beach - they're not dressed at all

      Delete
    13. Wow, who made you the judge and jury? I guess you're the founder of the modern temperance movement..

      To me, there's a big difference between running a disorderly house that causes problems in the community like some of the places downtown, and Captain Keno's, which is an asset to the community, helps those in need and is a cultural icon.

      If you want to make an impact, get off your rear and go work with your neighbors to raise the issue of a disorderly house, or picket an establishment. Otherwise you're just blowing hot air on a blog....

      Delete
    14. I'm sorry. Didn't realize that serving a patron to the point where he stumbles into traffic was an "asset to the community." I guess we have different standards.

      I'm not in the temperance league, by the way. I think it's nice to have nightlife in town, though I'm past the age where I use it much.

      I'm all for enforcement, and cracking down on problem establishments.

      Just pointing out bias where I see it. If Union had over served some frat boy to the point where they did a header into an SUV, consider how that narrative would play here and during public comment in Council chambers.

      Booze is booze.

      Delete
    15. Over-serving is a feature of any bar, restaurant or roadside stand that serves booze. It is the whole point. Bartenders simply aren't in the business of monitoring intake, they're there to serve drinks.

      There's a problem in town with certain bars downtown and the crowds they draw and how the crowds act. Keno's doesn't draw a crowd. Patrons yes, crowds no.

      That's my point on the downtown bar scene, and Keno's is not downtown, it's in Leucadia. As far as picking winners and losers in the who got killed by booze derby, there are no winners. That's why there's a person with a broken neck lying in the hospital....

      Delete
    16. You have to ask the person if it was really worth it. I think NOT.

      Delete
    17. 7:30,

      You seem to be twisting logic into knots to create a definition of alcohol problems that fit your preconceived biases.

      What does it matter whether Keno's is in Old Encinitas or Leucadia? Do you imagine that problems caused by drinking honor some arbitrary line on a map? Last I checked, the only bar to get busted for dealing hard drugs was in Leucadia.

      Finally, Keno's isn't even in Leucadia, so you're just wrong on all counts. Look it up. Leucadia doesn't officially start until you get to Pannikin.

      Delete
    18. That Pannikin line is only "official" because the City arbitrarily chose that point, in cooperation with a few who helped develop the N101 Specific Plan. Deeds pre-existing the City's incorporation don't restrict Leucadia to North of North Court.

      Delete
    19. 2:19,

      You are making my point. All place names and boundaries on a map are arbitrary. Wherever you think the line is, or should be, do you think drunks on a pub crawl stubble up to the line and turn around? Do you think DUI drivers stop and honor such lines? Do you think bartenders on one side of the line over-serve, and the ones on the other side of the line do not? Do you think that drunk patrons on one side make noise and fight, and on the other, they do not?

      That's one magic arbitrary line. Now, what exactly was your point again about The importance of Keno's being on one side of an arbitrary line that exists only in your head?

      Delete
  12. Thongs at the beach seem to be acceptable these days. Walking around the street fair yesterday afternoon in a thong? If only her mom and dad could have seen their daughters performance on the street in a huge crowd, one would think that they would have been more than amazed than those of us who witnessed this immodest display. There was little left to imagine, as it was all hanging out.

    She was the only one out of the thousands to consider this beach side apparel appropriate off of the beach. Usually these anal floss fashions are appreciated by any red blooded man and I count myself one of them, but at a street fair this was a bit much.

    There also were a few vapor practitioners who should have known better than to walk around exhaling their crap among the attendees. They are by law allowed to only smoke those devices in approved and designated smoking zones. The lack of respect for others is, sadly, so typical of most smokers. No one can deny the fact that smokers never even consider their butts a toxic brew that should always be dispensed in a trash can. Shame on them. About the only thing good about these stupid vapor devices is that there are no butts left over. As for all the unknown chemicals that these devices use, time will prove these are just as bad as the original drug delivery device, cigs, has been to the users for decades. These vapor stores should have never been allowed in our city. Anyone can see who these stores customers are and the young being hoodwinked by this industry. I am sure this will bring forth a few comments about how good these are for getting people off of cigs, but that is a lie. These devices entice many more to take up the habit than they ever help to get off of them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are some who don't know what the significant impacts that smoking, vaporizing and alcohol do over time to our bodies. There seems to be a mentality that the bad things only happen to others. The overall impact to our society is of financial concern as well.

      These people, over time, will more than likely not live to a ripe old age.

      Delete
  13. For this week's Council meeting, April 27, 2016:
    Council to vote on giving $100,000 of general fund tax money to begin a homeless program in Encinitas. The city will hire a housing navigator out of the $100,000 to do the work and find dwellings for the homeless. This is part of Gaspar's proposal of ending homelessness in Encinitas. At least two nonprofits are involved - the Community Resource Center and another group in Escondido.
    Agenda item 10A.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It only applies to veterans - not the general, run of the mill homeless......

      - The Sculpin

      Delete
    2. Have the Feds fund it - they can spend trillions on futile wars; maybe they should care for the homeless vets suffering from PTSD.

      Delete
    3. Find housing for them in Escondido or el cajon... the beach is expensive to live and homeless need an area with lower cost of living near some crappy walmart or something.

      A homeless program in Encnitas is a bad idea. There will always be free loaders.... just read Animal Farm.

      My idea is to gather them up and if they want to eat or sleep, let them pick a few hundred bushells of agrigculture. Earn your keep. You will feel better about yourshelf.

      Wake up- nothing is for free..... free government services is a one way ticket to selling your freewill and opportunity to the Guberment.

      Vote against any loser supporting a homeless program in Encinitas.

      Gaspar - Your out!!! along with Tony and Lisa.

      Delete
    4. 5:35, with your spelling and grammar, it's a miracle you're employed - if you are. You're mighty uppity for someone so obviously ignorant.

      Delete
    5. Wow, you read Animal Farm. Let me get you a reading rainbow award....

      Delete
    6. When you have nothing, just come back with grammar and spelling mistakes. you have nothing.

      Delete
    7. Sculpin is either a City Employee or married to a City planner.

      There is no way any person above an IQ of 50 would write the crap out of that fools fingers.

      What a clueless tool for developers.

      Delete
  14. 11:57 AM
    No, it doesn't only apply to veterans. Read the staff report.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Gaspar, the city, and the two nonprofits seem confused on their exact goal. In one sentence it is to help the veteran (estimated at 20 homeless) but in another sentence it is to end all homelessness.
    Part of their goals are:

    "Complete assessments of at least 80 Encinitas unsheltered homeless (actual figure may
    change based on current Point-In-Time counts and ongoing outreach efforts);
     Assign at least 50 Encinitas homeless to the Housing Navigator, with a primary focus on
    veterans;
     Match 100 percent of all Encinitas homeless veterans, interested in housing, to available
    housing resources, and;
     Place at least 25 Encinitas homeless, with a priority to veterans (actual figure may
    change based on current Point-in-Time count and ongoing outreach efforts), who have
    been assessed, assigned, and matched, and are interested in housing."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe the Federal government needs to implement a public works program where indigents work for their keep. This worked in the Great Depression, why not now? To provide free amenities for nothing in return doesn't help anyone - able bodied persons should be encouraged to work - call it esteem building. If they are too crazy to work, then have the Feds implement a program to address mental illness. It is time the government quit wasting money and resources on corporate wars and serve their constituents.

      Delete
    2. Or maybe we need to start investigating and suing the towns and cities in flyover country that use "Greyhound Therapy" to deal with their mentally ill homeless populations.

      Delete
    3. 7:53- how dare you imply that poeple should work for a living. How about taxing the rich elite 1% in this town and FEEL THE BERN!!!!

      Delete
  16. What a great opportunity for the Mizels to do something grand rather than selfishly renaming OUR library in their name forever. They could actually help others directly.

    Since Steve Mizel is a former Mariine, what could be more satisfying to him and his family than to help get homeless veterans a place to lay their heads.

    This would be something this community could really get behind and support the Mizel family. Renaming OUR library is not and it is not because of any one family or organization. The Encinitas library belongs to this town [and the county] and should always remain the Encinitas Library.

    Council don't follow through on this MOU without vetting this before the community. It is not yours to do with as you please and will only show how cheaply you can be bought off for. The amount of dollars is irrelevant. The bigger issue is going behind our backs and not seeking public opinion before you do something that you have no right to do without our concurrence.

    If council intends to pursue this matter any further, put it on the agenda first. You are not living in a vacuum and no amount of money is enough to not hear from us first.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm probably wrong, but I suspect SM is unlikely to be swayed by how an anonymous blog contributor feels he should be spending his money.

      Delete
  17. Bringing this foolishness down here to throw some light:

    AnonymousApril 24, 2016 at 3:21 PM

    "The reason there is such a thing as Density Bonus is because most people don't want to waste their time reading up on local housing law; expecting their represented leaders to solve some of these problems...." ["...." represents a lot of babbling that no intelligent person could or would follow.]


    Would you honestly let Tony or Lisa watch your pets over a wekend [misspelling is 3:21's]? Think hard and elect adults next time. If no adults run, then "Here comes the Judge, here comes the Judge..."

    News flash, 3:21:

    HCD's Glen Campora said the judge DOES NOT come in and "take over a city" for failing to update its housing element. Your developer fearmongering will no longer play in Encinitas. Find a new place that wants the BIA and David Meyer running things, because we ain't gonna take it any more.

    ReplyDelete