Speculation is that the city screwed something up in the first mailer so that it was not legal notice of the high-density development plans, but as of yet no one has identified the difference between the two copies.
Thursday, May 26, 2016
Take 2
Speculation is that the city screwed something up in the first mailer so that it was not legal notice of the high-density development plans, but as of yet no one has identified the difference between the two copies.
Does someone on the city staff have an interest in a printing company? The glossy paper and color printing must have cost a bundle.
ReplyDeleteNot only did they cost a bundle for sure, they did NOT have to be on fancy paper and in color as Shaffer claimed Prop A requires. She never tires of saying "and it has to be in 13-point font." Heaven forfend someone can actually read the thing.
Deletehmmmm.I did not receive anything today. I guess our mail service in Cardiff is sub standard, as usual. How does the USPS stay in business? Oh... our tax dollars.
DeleteI'm in Cardiff. Mine came no problem.
DeleteMine came in Leucadia, as well. Seems like a big waste of money to send this out twice. There was some kind of mistake, apparently, with the language of the first mailing, that required this to be sent again at tremendous cost to the taxpayers? Staff and/or the expensive consultants should be held accountable.
DeleteThis wasted money is all the more reason to VOTE NO on any ballot measures that would increase our density. Our infrastructure and our financial base, our quality of life cannot afford it. I would rather have a judge assigned on a case by case basis, but doubt that would actually happen.
What all the discussion is leaving out is that all of the existing affordable housing has NOT been counted. So the number of "required" affordable units has been highly exaggerated.
The most honest way for the City to deal with our dilemma would be to offer an option, re the HEU, whereby existing accessory units AND POTENTIAL SITES FOR ACCESSORY UNITS could be counted. All single family residential zones, BY RIGHT (as of 1993), allow for accessory units in Encinitas. So in R-15 zones, that could actually meet, potentially, the R-30 "proxy" requirements of State Law, whereby the units don't have to actually exist, merely the potential for their construction.
It has already been the case that state law, California Govt. Code, mandates that accessory unit permits are to be administrative, NOT discretionary. The permitting fees are to cover the costs of processing the permit, and are NOT to be used as a method of taxing homeowners, or discouraging construction of or conversion to accessory units.
OK ANOTHER! So far THREE of these mailers! CAN THE CITY FIGURE OUT ANY MORE WAYS TO WASTE TAX PAYER MONEY ??? Fix the roads and get a grip on things at City Hall for crying out loud!
ReplyDeleteThe glossier the mailer, the bigger the lies! These things should have collective resident radar up like nothing before.
DeletePLEASE alert your neighbors that something is very, very wrong with this plan. It's been full of lies and misrepresentations from day one, all with the blessing of the council.
8:37 PM
Delete"The glossier the mailer, the bigger the lies!" While the paper is a glossy base the format of the mailer is anything but glossy or slick. There were complaints in the past that people didn't receive the HEU information or complaints or that the mailers weren't distinguishable and were discarded. Well, it seems everyone is noticing these. But some of you still need to complain anyway.
Kinda like the endless gaspar mailers - get it, 8:37?
DeleteVote NO on this scam they are trying to shove down our throats.
ReplyDeleteAgreed - it is a fraud.
DeleteAGREED, lets keep those people out of our city!
DeleteThose people?
DeleteBottom line message to all the neighbors. I don't want to live in Redondo Beach or Pacific Beach, so I am voting no on the housing element.
ReplyDeleteI would guess that the city outsourced the printing and mailing of the mailer at a set price for a certain number to be printed and mailed.
ReplyDeleteAnd your point is...? We still overpaid for the oversell.
DeleteSend Shaffer out of office with a failed HEU.
ReplyDeleteVOTE NO.
Yes! She is absolutely counting on the passage of the HEU so she can crow about her "legacy" for years to come,
DeleteShe has vowed to pass it, which ostensibly is why this "ethics professor" supports the fearmongering whoppers being fed to the electorate.
The mailer was different because it was announcing the City Council meeting instead of the Planning Commission.
ReplyDeleteDon't bother 10:14, no one reads or listens to anything if their mind is already made up. Same people posting here sat around for two hours on Tuesday to provide testimony to damn city for stripping and gutting prop a, without realizing it was already addressed and restored. They will probably say same things at Council.
ReplyDelete11:30 AM The Council/Planning Dept. realized the negative impact it would have in the November election when the electorate was informed this ruse. The voters would react negatively to this power grab and reject the housing proposals. Doesn't matter to me - NO is the vote from me.
Delete"Already addressed and restored?" Then staff "forgot" and left it in. Watch for Shaffer to praise staff for "remembering" at the next opportunity.
DeleteHad residents not started raising a ruckus the minute they saw the clause way back when, it would NEVER have been "addressed and restored." But you knew that, 11:39.
They've got you working right through lunch over there, don't they? Or do you get overtime for being such a loyal little foot soldier?
2:24- You are so right. Even though the City position is "staff forgot" I call B.S. And, if they really did forget, whoever did it should be fired. Many citizens spoke in good faith on how this violated Prop.A. And, no the city says we should have known it was already taken out. I have a copy of the 65 page document and as of this past Tuesday it was still in there.
ReplyDeletePlanning said they will remove the gutting of Prop A? Don't believe them! They agreed to remove one passage, maybe two. Don't believe Planning for a second! Their intent is obvious. Density increases without mandating truly low income units be built. Thursday nights Planning commission meeting couldn't have been more clear to anyone watching.
ReplyDeleteThanks to Glen O'Grady for bringing up a mandate for density projects to include a 25% low income unit quota.
Thanks to Tony Brandenberg for joining him.
Thanks to commissioner Drakos for making a majority that could have sent this on to council to consider.
Guess what? Tasha spoke out against any mandating of low income units be required.
Guess what? Manjeet railed against any mandating of low income units.
Sadly, only commissioner Drakos held onto this great idea when the votes went down.
We now know where Tasha stands. Yikes! Is this what we want for a future council member? Some obviously do but they are the past. We need a future we can believe in and allowing developers to keep infilling without providing a substantial number of affordable housing will not fly.
In one way, this move will only serve to defeat this stinker of a plan. Thanks to Tasha for making this all the more clearer about what needs to happen. Don't believe her!
Don't believe Planning won't hide some other effort to get around Prop A than the couple of specific paragraphs they have agreed to remove! Don't believe them for a second!
City doesn't provide enough notice? They are hiding things
ReplyDeleteCity provides notice? They are spending too much and cramming this down our throats.
You have decided to be butthurt either way.
Tasha = Shaffer II.
ReplyDeleteTasha from what I can tell is no one we want. No vote for her.
DeleteThe earlier mailing noticed the then-upcoming Planning Commission HEU meetings that happened on Tuesday and Thursday this week, and the publication of the doc in the Coast News.
ReplyDeleteYesterday's mailing noticed the now-upcoming City Council HEU meeting and the publication of the doc in the Coast News.
If there are other differences, I haven't found them.
The purpose of the 13-point type is to prevent the city staff from putting the info out on 8-1/2 X 11 sheets and small Web pages that would make the info hard to read and the maps/charts next to impossible to decipher.
The 13-point type ensures everything will be big and easier to follow.
Ever so helpful.
DeleteI guess you people don't know what you voted for. Prop A requires a mailer notice 20 days before a public hearing. Both the planning commission and city council are public hearings so they require separate mailers. And if you think why didn't they just combine the two it's because the city council hearing could have been pushed back if there were issues with the planning commission and would have required a separate mailer anyways. That's what you voted for and that's what you got.
DeleteGimme a break, they could have been combined. But that would take telling the truth and some smarts.
DeleteI agree. Focus on firing lame staff. Glenn Pruim tops the list. Fire people that make continual bad judgements.
ReplyDeleteFiring needs to start at the top where it most warranted. Manjeet. If he remains there nothing will change. Some dept heads should follow but only after several senior planners are shown the door with Manjeet. Masih can you hear the bell tolling for you?
ReplyDeleteWhere is Karen in all this? She is our first local city manager ? and it doesn't seem to be making any difference. Ok, yes, she serves at the will of the council and the council serves at their own will and not ours. Democracy seems to be lacking with them, doesn't it?
Methinks that Manjeet and Strong are both going to be toast if this doesn't pass in November. They've gambled a lot of our money on this, but now they've had to back out the Prop A annulment and still the measure provides for no affordable housing, something that his was about from the get-go.
DeleteThen plug the toaster in. This thing will not pass. So much more sneakiness in the plan beyond the Prop A reversal they'd have to start over again to get a clean version.
DeleteWatch how Manjeet sits at the very back of the planning area and lets Strong/Sapau take the heat. They're his fall guys and either don't know it or think their time will never come. Suckas.
Associations with Shaffer, the least popular council member of all time, and Manjeet, one of the most disliked City directors who is hated by his own staff besides residents is enough on its own to vote against the Housing Element.
DeleteFor me, the ongoing failure of the project and the waste of money to manipulate data is all that it takes. Vote NO!
7:58 PM I think $tock$ is still #1 Council turkey of all time. But your assessment of the current situation is spot on! Manjeet needs to be shown the door. Vote NO!
Delete$4 Million and growing by the week for this stinker of a housing plan couldn't be more obvious to the public about what needs to be done. The city hall bubble refuses to see what we all see every week that this is allowed to continue. Enough already. Stop the madness! Each and every council member is on board with letting Planning Dept. carry on and is to every one of theirs discredit.
ReplyDeleteWe have no dependable candidates that deserve any of our votes yet. When that day finally comes, there will be an outpouring of support from this community that will make clear these sell outs in our midst have had their day.
The only surviving member on the dais will/should be Catherine, since win or lose, she will keep a seat. As our next mayor, I believe she will morph into our advocate, as long as we have a new resident supporting majority pushing her from behind. Dreaming on of a better day for our precious town that deserves to be defended by our elected reps and has not been by the current seat fillers.
Catherine does not seem capable of learning. She goes along with whatever Sabine feeds her. What would lead one to think she will "morph into our advocate" when she's still clearly aligned with the Barth/Shaffer/Boerner crew?
Deletehttp://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-city-cheating-housing-20160529-snap-story.html We got a mention but links to the fiction piece by VOSD.
ReplyDeleteCity manager, if you read this, fire planning and get some down zoning specialist in here. Santa Barbra is designated slow growth, we should be able to as well. Just need to bribe the right person it seems.
Karen, please hear your constituents pleading with you to show some spine. Don't wait for this stinker to be voted down or else you could be in the target zone. You are a local and have to know a change is coming. Please show that you be on our side. Separate yourself now. Distinguish your identity by standing for the residents. It is more than time for you to show your worth. The sooner the better. We are calling on you and counting on you.
ReplyDeleteKaren was hired to pass this monstrosity. She is not going to help any of us. She may live here, but she will work on what she was hired to do.
DeleteBest bet: organize and get the word out. A "no" majority vote will take care of things without residents counting on any one City Hall employee.
She was hired because she will do what is best for herself - notice her nose is getting browner?
DeleteKaren did fire Lisa Rudloff from Parks and Rec., so you never know, she may go for Manjeet next. One can only hope.
ReplyDeleteHope is what you do when you're not willing to take action.
DeleteHope is what the City wants us to sit back and do.
Consider a little silent civil civic disobedience action at a council meeting to illustrate that the residents being tired of all the bs going on down there and have had enough.
ReplyDeleteFrom NETWORK, the movie, ' we are tired as hell and aren't gonna take it anymore. Many can sure relate to that here.
A few years ago a silent protest was initiated at a council meeting with the audience standing in unison and turning their backs to the dais. Boy, the local TV stations went rabid over trying to cover that story. There must have been at least three stations there the next time but they had missed it. Interviews with some of the participants however couldn't have been more damning to the council and mayor. That is just the kind of publicity that none of them want but was deserved at the time. For now, why not?
Turning our backs silently to every planner and the acting dept. head would be an irresistible attraction to the news stations.