Despite the resident's belief that the "poll" was so ridiculous that it couldn't possibly have come from the city, Deputy Mayor Lisa Shaffer seems to acknowledge the city's responsibility for the push poll in her newsletter:
Some of you may have also received a phone call with a rather long phone survey about the housing plan. I didn't get the call, but have talked to several folks who did. What I understand is that it's very long and complicated, and people ended up frustrated and annoyed. That's unfortunate. This kind of polling is commonly used when considering a major ballot initiative, to help us assess what the level of understanding is, what people's concerns are, so we can prepare a ballot measure that the voters will support.How much are the taxpayers paying consultants for this gem?
Our city needs to be put on life support. It is a sick, sick place.
ReplyDeleteAny extra funds in the budget should go towards straight jackets for our council. No to housing element.
ReplyDeleteIf the description is accurate, it doesn't sound like the survey design was crafted to bias for HEU support. If anything, it sounds so confusing that bias is impossible. The result is more likely to be unreliable and random.
ReplyDeleteIt's possible that the people writing and approving the survey questions and answers were unaware that this would be a phone survey. That, or they lacked a very basic understanding of how survey design for phone and written delivery channels are different.
In either case, more likely incompetence than malice.
Hanlon's Razor.
Either way, the results of this survey will be garbage. Waste of money.
This council just does not get it.
ReplyDeleteNo, NO, NO to your damn housing element. Let's get on to better things that will help our city. This will only help the developers.
I got the same survey and had a similar experience, although I did not stick it out and said I had to go. The second time I hung up. The third time, the person said "oh, this survey has reached its limit, good bye." Every time the person's accent was super heavy and they went really fast.
ReplyDeleteWe're dealing with real quality here, folks.
Vote NO on the housing plan.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThanks Lisa for admitting the city financed this BS. And thanks Tony for admitting on Facebook that the HEU will mess with Prop A. Thanks to all of city hall for all your lies, and deceit. Sorry I ever voted for you two hucksters.
ReplyDeleteToo crowded already. And the flagrant use of excuses to get around zoning to increase density are beyond corruption considering the harm done to residents without putting in adequate infrastructure like roads and parking let alone water...
ReplyDeleteVote NO on housing subsidies for wealthy developers.
agree; bottomline, I will be voting NO on the HEU. I hope this sends a strong message to our new Council.
DeleteI agree. Vote no on this plan to increase profits for developers and create dence developments and even more overcrowding within Encinitas
ReplyDeleteVote out all incumbents supporting this ridiculous plan
So Shaffer ADMITS that the city is polling the residents to then manipulate the ballot measure. " So we can prepare a ballot measure that the voters will support." This woman has got to be the biggest idiot of the bunch...
ReplyDeleteHere Lisa are some things that the citizens support:
-Fix the roads.
-Stop spending monies the city doesn't have.
-Fix the roads.
-No more pay or pension increases.
-Fix the roads.
-Cut staff.
-Fix the roads.
-Water the flowers in the medians.
-Fixed the roads
-Remove those stupid electronic billboards urging us to save water, there is NO shortage.
-Fix the roads.
-Control the noise and crime downtown.
I'm sure others have more to add, please do.
Shaffer, you are an idiot. There is no other way to announce it, you are an idiot. Are you really leaving after this next election?? Please make it so, don't lie to us again as you have so many times in the past. In fact I'd really be happy if you simply resigned and left the council, you have done enough damage to the city. GO AWAY!!!
Please add to the list: NO MORE BARS
DeleteReally, fix the roads! It was 50 million of repairs two years ago and it gets more costly the longer it is ignored. In Leucadia there are giant chunks of street corners loose and being tossed by cars. If you care about bikes like you claim, think how at risk they are. This is no longer something to ignore. Use your over sized flyer money, what a waste that was.
ReplyDeleteWait, people still use land lines?
ReplyDeleteThe $3 million dollar life guard tower was approved by the Planning Commission and is now a go. It will have space for the Sheriff's Department too. Maybe put in a rec room for the council and the City Manager too! Time to up the pensions again - you can't live on $190K/year (ask Muir).
ReplyDeleteBut will it have transgender restrooms?
Delete10:32 PM Yes - the ocean.
Deletea 2400 square foot life guard tower. that's about 1800 sq feet too big.
ReplyDeleteNeeds to fit the big screen TV for the off-season!
Deleteand while i'm at it, how about not buying anymore of these new, expensive yellow arrow- blinking traffic lights to explain to us pro idiot drivers how to interpret the "yield to turn left on green" driving custom that has been in practice since I can remember (1960's). Are drivers really so ignorant that they don't know this already?
ReplyDeleteAnd 101 at Leucadia Blvd must be the only intersection in America with a no right on green.
DeleteHuh?
And they put the no right turn light right next to a sign showing the same symbol with the words "no right on red."
Okay. So if that symbol means no right on red, but the light is green, then can I ignore the no right light?
WTF?
That flashing yellow light cost the taxpayers $10,000. Of course you could read the DMV manual and learn the same bullshit, and the manual is FREE!!!!
DeleteEncinita's City Engineer is about the worst in the nation. He is a moron.
ReplyDeleteAgree 100% 6:45.
DeleteHe only came over to us after his job was on the line in Carlsbad. Why should we get their rejects?
DeleteIf the City doesn't mail out to everyone you whine: now that it does mail out notices to everyone, you whine even louder. The fact is, no matter what the city does, you whine. Hard to take your position serious, whiner(s).
ReplyDelete6:31 PM - A City suck stooge. Probably one of the parasites.
Delete6:31 is more than likely living off the government teet. Those kind of people complain about whiners all the time, but really have nothing to say. Crawl back in your pie hole!
DeleteIn all fairness, the high-profile mail notifications are required by Prop A.
DeleteWhich would seem to be a good thing when the city plans to radically change the character or a neighborhood.
I don't see anyone complaining about the mailers per se - it is the context of same with which they have an issue.
DeleteYes, Prop. A requires mailers to be sent to every property owner within 500 feet of a project. The city has put an overlay zone for affordable housing over the whole city. Guess what? Everyone gets a slick mailer!!
DeleteThis means the next high-density affordable housing project may be in your neighborhood. Vote NO in November on the Housing Element Update.
How do we know that voting NO will even be an option. The slick BS flyer did not spell that out.
DeleteHow about reengineering the lights around the I-5 and Encinitas Blvd? Grid lock and chaos at peak hours.
ReplyDeleteI refused to participate in the phone survey. As with every other so-called "outreach" attempt, this was about trying to get citizens to tell them how they can package their election materials so that voters will vote against their own best interests to support developers and city staff's paychecks.
ReplyDeleteVote No on the Housing Element.
It seems the surveys are counter-productive. By the very act of supposedly trying to assess the attitudes, they are creating them - and it is contrary to the desired effect.
ReplyDeleteTwo words people: Traffic and Water. The End.
DeleteHere is another option for the city that I wouldn't bet against and we damn well better insist that they don't.
ReplyDeleteWhen the ballot statement is written, there damn well better be a 'none of the above' option. I can see it now. They present several bad choices and don't give the voting public the option to deny the whole plan. I wouldn't put anything past the Planning Dept. selling us out in anyway they can.
We have to insist that the ballot statement allows us to have all the choices and not just those they want. Considering all the crap Planning pulls, week in, week out, there is nothing that they won't stoop to in order to screw this community over.
NONE OF THE ABOVE must be one of the choices.
It surely seems like it is past time to show some civil, civic disobedience in some meaningful way. Years ago one of our fine community defenders organized a silent protest where the audience stood silently in unison and turned our backs to the council during the proceedings. That simple action was covered by the local news stations and had to have been embarrassing to the council members, staff, and city manager. On camera interviews were asked for and given freely outside the chambers. I was proud to have been there that night to join them and would relish the opportunity to do so again. It might be time again.
I think a ballot measure has to be a "yes" or "no" vote. In order to pass the "yes" votes have to outnumber the "no" votes. If they split it up into two or more measures they will probably kill each other off.
DeleteThis is classic. So many of you supported Prop A and now you're bitching when the city is following the requirements. Clearly, many of you expected Prop A to be such a deterrent to any change that no one would try. Guess again
ReplyDeleteThe city is NOT following the requirements. They still try to sneak around the height thresholds when they can get away with it.
DeleteIf they follow Prop A, there should be an option to vote NO, not just 4 options to say YES
Delete8:32 pretends to not know how ballot measures must be phrased, even though it was explained in this very thread.
DeleteI got the mailer and supported Prop A and yes, I'll also bitch: why the need for glossy paper when plain would have done at a fraction of the price?
Delete"Staff" never take such a common-sense approach. They no doubt thought the fancy paper stock would put lipstick on the HEU turd.
Paper stock? Really?
DeleteTo those who are criticizing the mailer, just remember that it doesn't reflect the wording that will be on the ballot. It's telling you the four options that will be considered by the planning commission and then the city council. Whichever option they select will then be put on the ballot in November for an up or down vote.
DeleteWhile it is possible they could place more than one option on the ballot, I doubt they would as it would be far too confusing as only one option could prevail and there would still have to be the ability for the voter to vote no on any of them.
5:45pm you are either a tool for the city staff or you haven't informed yourself.
ReplyDeleteYou say the city is following the requirements? That is not even close and you either know it and are in the Planning Dept. or you haven't seen the latest glossy full color mailer we all got this past week and once again are a stooge for staff.
The latest $70,000 mailer states three stories is their goal. There is not a density project that they don't go all out for and this is not just the council. This past week the Planning Commission approved a density bonus project on Camino Real and ignored the neighbors pleas to do something for them. There were environmental concerns that the Commission ignored. They allowed the 50' buffer to the creek or ravine to become 35' that eventually drains into San Elijo lagoon. There is a supposedly protected riparian habitat there that they also ignored.
The Planning Commission fell into line with the developers and approved an in lieu fee of $35,000 for not including a low income unit within the project. Yes folks, $35,000. Compare that to the million and half or so that these homes will sell for. wtf.
This project has a long history going back to '04, as if that is any excuse. Why are projects allowed to hold onto their date of application when it should be from the date of granting the permit to build?
Once again residents are screwed, the developer gets his density bonus allotment and doesn't have to build the low income unit by paying a pittance. This fee should equal the price of the homes in the project. Anything less is a complete giveaway. We have had enough of this bs by the sell out Planning Dept.
This in lieu crap has to stop.
All the variances developers ask for are always approved. If they want the advantage of using this rotten density bonus law, they damn well should not granted any variances and be made to work within the existing codes.
As long as these planners remain in their jobs, there will be more of the same old, same old. A week doesn't go by that the public is ignored and developers get everything they ask for.
The ultimate responsibility, of course is with the council and the city manager. History can be a cruel judge and everyone of their names will be stained with all they could have done and didn't. The fix has been in and little has changed while the same planners keeping their jobs.
There has to be a better way for our city to be governed than what we have. Sometimes I think they all take turns being the bad guy to spread the 'wealth' around. Divide and conquer. It works or has so far. Is there no shame?
After spending $4million and growing, trying to sell the HEU it is doomed and justly so. Maybe then heads will roll. Or not.
The latest phone poll is as corrupted as Peak Democracy was. Pollsters are leading citizens to answers that support what the staff wants. The latest flyer clearly states three story units. It is going to be a long and expensive year wasting our limited funds on a dud.
Three stories is not banned under Prop A.
DeleteThree stories without a public vote is against Prop A.
There will be a problem blue c vote on the HEU. Therefore, the HEU conforms 100% with Prop A.
9:05 PM
Delete"... or you haven't informed yourself." Look who's talking.
First, Sage Canyon, if that's what you're talking about wasn't a density bonus project. It was a lot averaging project, a technique sanctioned in the general plan.
Second, because the subdivision was 10 lots it was required to build an affordable unit or pay the in-lieu fee, an option that has always been part of the ordinance. All you had to do is look it up or watch the video like I did but you appear to lazy or worse, not able to understand the difference. No matter, facts just get in the way of your hatred for the staff.
HEU=DOA.
ReplyDeleteI just got back in town after being gone 3 weeks. I went thru my mail and I did not get anything about the HEU or Prop A. What did the city mail out? I'll call Monday and see if I can get one. If I didn't get one, and I live in Cardiff, are we even sure, others got one? Makes me wonder.
ReplyDeleteI live int Cardiff and got the mailer. It was addressed to "occupant." It should have gone to every parcel, as required by the code.
DeleteI looked thru all of my junk mail and still did not find it 9:08. I'll call the city and get another one. Maybe it got lost.
DeleteMaybe 9:08 is one of the 28!
DeleteThe only reason we will be voting on the Housing Element Update is because Prop. A requires it. The Major Amendments that trigger a vote are the following:
ReplyDelete· increases the number of permitted dwelling units on a residential lot
· increases the number of separate parcels that may be created from an existing parcel
· changes zone type for a parcel from Agricultural, Public/Semi-Public, Ecological Resource/Open Space/Parks or Open Space to a different zone type
· changes zone type for a parcel from a non-mixed-use zone to a mixed-use type zone, in certain circumstances
· changes a parcel from any residential land use to any non-residential land use
· increases the allowed maximum height of development or how height is measured
· increases the maximum allowable commercial or retail square footage for a parcel
· repeals any Planning Policy Document
Notice the last one requires a vote to kill Prop. A. The city has lumped all these triggers as "intensification of use." It seems the city is attempting the blur the requirements of Prop. A. Anyone who votes YES on the HE Update is giving up the right to participate in making decisions on all the important issues in Prop. A. A NO vote assures the citizens make the decision, not a simple majority of the council. Any talk from the council about removing the Prop. A killer clause from the ballot measure is not to be trusted.
10:37am. "This was not a density bonus project'. Really? Then what were the developers paying an in lieu fee for? I apparently am mistaken that in lieu fees apply to other than density bonus projects. For that I have to thank you for clearing up a mistaken assumption I have had. Now I know better, thanks to you. I stand corrected.
ReplyDeleteI believe Sage Canyon could have gone for two more units for max density so only paying a single lieu pittance fee [$35,000] does not qualify as a density bonus project. Thanks for keeping me on the straight and narrow description of what qualifies as a density bonus project in our community.
The Planning Commission is now absolved of any critical responsibility for their ruling. All is now clear.
You are mistaken, 1:44. In-lieu fees are to get out from under the inclusionary unit, not density bonus affordable unit. Spend some time on the City website to learn the difference.
DeleteThe ruling was a very bad one, though. A couple of years ago - with Gaspar predictably voting "no," the in-lieu fee was finally raised. It had been absurdly based on a U-T table for condos. That one's not hard to do: developers put that fix in.
I don't recall offhand the correct in-lieu fee, but it's in the 100s of 1,000s, not $35,000. It would be interesting to know how that deal went down and who, beside the developer, profited.
I know that fact checking is not very popular here but if you would just take the time to glance at the planning commission agenda report you would see on page 6:
Delete"The City Council considered and approved a payment of $35,088.00 per unit developed, or a total of $350,088.00 for the proposed 10-lot subdivision, as per the attached Resolution No. 2007-43, September 19, 2007"
I know this is inconvenient to your rant.
1:44 PM
DeleteAs 3:02 PM pointed out, density bonus and inclusionary requirements are separate programs. The inclusionary requirements date back to 1987, before the general plan was adopted, and are allowed, not required, by state statute. Density bonus, on the other hand, is required by state statute. The city requires any subdivision over 9 units to provide affordable units or pay an in-lieu fee. There is no bonus for this. Density bonus does allow a bonus and the developer has to built the unit(s).
A density bonus subdivision still was required to meet the inclusionary requirements so sometimes you saw both affordable units and an in-lieu fee. However, a recent court opinion allows a developer to count the affordable density bonus units toward fulfilling the inclusionary requirements.
I have to correct the in lieu fee that was approved by the Planning Commission last week. It was not $35,000. It was $3500. How about that? Check that and get back to us, if the number of zeros are right or wrong.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the correction, one way or the other and that the inclusionary housing played a part instead of bonus density. That makes it all so much more acceptable.
The planning commission didn't approve the in-lieu fee, only the city council can do that which it did in 2007 for a total of $350,088.00.
DeleteI believe the reason the in lieu fee was so outrageously low is because this project has been hanging around since '04. You are correct for new in lieu fees that Lisa voted brought forward a couple of years ago to raise them from around $180,000 to maybe $325,000.? Since this project is 12 years old, they get to keep that original date. Just this fact stinks. Every project should start with the date of the issuing of the actual building permit, not when they first apply for the development. Thanks to all those for bringing forward the corrections earlier today.
ReplyDeleteIf there is one thing we need around here, it is fact check. That goes both ways to the staff and council and the publics interpretation of what we see and hear presented to us. Thanks to all here, friend and foe.
Seriously doubt it was as low as 35,000, even in '04.
Delete2:13 PM
DeleteIt was $35,088 per unit for a total of $350,880.
Should be about $350K per unit. Still would not have been $35K in '04. If you think it was, show your work.
DeleteRead Bernard's original letter in the link above. It is hilarious except that this is true. This is an appalling waste of money.
ReplyDeleteI just read Lisa Shaffer's comments about the poll. I voted for and campaigned for someone who identified herself as an ethics professor. Lisa's comment about this survey shows no demonstration of academic skills nor ethics. STUDENTS at UCSD couldn't get away with this quality of work, yet we are actually paying professionals for this process that will yield no information to support stated goals. This is really sad.
ReplyDeleteIt's not sad, it's fraud.
DeleteShaffer had the ill sense of exposing her ignorance of real world applications of theoretic constructs. She lived in the Ivory Tower, where the sorrid vapors of the working class did not penetrate. In academia, everything is built on a circular lazy Susan - your equally inept peers praise your abstractions as brilliance, even though there is no application of such in "real world" settings. Ethics are taught by family values, not academia. If you need to go to school to be taught ethical inter-play, this society is doomed.
DeleteLisa Shaffer lives in her own little world. She believes what she says is important. She is in a constant ego battle with Gaspar. Gaspar responds to this by calling Shaffer council woman instead of Deputy Mayor. It is comical watching these two knock heads, but neither one of them are winners.
DeleteShaffer even complains about stepping in for the mayor because Gaspar was off probably promoting herself for the Board of Supervisors position.
It would be nice if they would both do their job and forget their big egos.
Vote NO for all incumbents. We need to get rid of Muir ($tock$ buddy), Kranz and Gaspar (another $tock$ buddy).
And, Vote NO on the Housing Element.
It would be comical if they weren't making decisions that affect you and me.
DeleteAnd NO on Gaspar for Supervisor.
Delete