From the Inbox:
Encinitas City Council Schemes to Keep Truth from Voters
On June 15, 2016 the Encinitas City Council voted to up zone various areas in Encinitas for more density and more traffic. The only thing preventing this up zoning from becoming effective immediately is Prop A, the people’s Right to Vote. Passed in 2013, Prop A gives the voters of Encinitas the right to determine increased density and zoning changes. Prop A gives the voters of Encinitas the right to determine if Encinitas survives as a unique five community town or becomes a homogenous non-descript Orange County city.
The majority of the current up zoning is mixed use, a combination of retail commercial and residential condos at existing shopping centers at major intersections in Encinitas. Sprouts center, Town Center (Target) are some of the proposed retail properties approved for condos built on top of the business stores. The new ordinances approved by the Council allows a developer to reduce the amount of parking spaces which will push parking into adjoining neighborhoods. No matter where you live, you will be affected by this proposed up zoning with more density and more traffic.
On June 22, 2016 in agenda item 10B the City Council was presented with the ballot question for the November election. NOWHERE in the ballot question was the truth about the up zoning. However, within the proposed ballot question was this phrase: “encourage sustainable mixed uses in the City’s five communities…” with no other mention of up zoning to mixed use and increased density.
Council member Catherine Blakespear lead the Council discussion on removing the mixed use phrase from the ballot statement. The other Council members, Kranz, Shaffer, Muir, and Mayor Gaspar voted with Blakespear to remove from the ballot question any reference to mixed use.
What can be done with the City Council’s duplicitous action of not including the up zoning fact and removing the mixed use comment of why residents are voting in November? As a former Council member would say – So sue us. Why? Where is the honesty in this City Council?
Voters, the Council can be told firmly that the ballot question needs to fully reflect the up zoning and the mixed use. Send the Council emails objecting to their conspiracy on the ballot question to deprive the voter of vital information. Let the Council know the voters are watching and want that ballot question revised.
The text of the ballot question:
Shall City Council Resolution No. 2016-52 and Ordinance No. 2016-04, which collectively update the City’s General Plan Housing Element, amend related General Plan provisions, and amend Specific Plans, Zoning Code, Zoning Map, Municipal Code, and Local Coastal Program, in an effort to comply with State law, incentivize greater housing affordability, implement rules to protect the character of existing neighborhoods, maintain local control of Encinitas zoning, and resolve existing lawsuits, be adopted?
Ah, so it's not about density. It's about protecting the character of existing neighborhoods. Thanks, Council! Super helpful!
The ballot statement lies by omission from its first to last word.
ReplyDeleteI guess a deceptive and distorted ballot statement is just one more tool in the City's "toolkit," as Vina called it. Or another stick in what Manjeet (or was it Mike) called their "bundle of sticks."
We're paying good money for this swindle, folks. Time to wake up and demand an honest job and an honest plan.
The Planning Department has switched positions on Community Character. Gus Vina, Marco Gonzalez, and Manjeet Ranu all claimed that community character can't be defined nor measured. A quick reading of our EXISTING General Plan and Design Standards shows that indeed, community character CAN be measured. Community character is described in great detail since each of the five communities have specific measurable standards for height, set backs, minimum lot size, and even specific policies such as a support for dark skies in Olivenhain. All of these features are measurable.
DeleteNow they are claiming that their plan will in fact PROTECT community character. I would like to take this opportunity to "thank" shameful liars and cheats in planning who will say and do anything to keep the paychecks coming in. Congratulations on your Up Yours Encinitas plan.
The best, easiest, and probably only solution to this deception is to vote NO in November.
ReplyDeleteKEEP THE NO IN NOVEMBER!
Torches and pitchforks... run them OUT!!!!
ReplyDeleteOur current council just can't help themselves from lying to us. The truth would have so much easier.
ReplyDeleteSurely they have to know they are under a microscope and yet, they act as if no one is paying attention to their obfuscation. How stupid is that?
Up Yours council.
Up Yours manjeet and your obliging automatons.
By continuing this strategy, if it can even be called that, you are all sticking the middle finger up to your own community. What have we done to deserve such a betrayal? We voted you in, must be answer.
In an election year this is incomprehensible. All of you who supports this version of the ballot statement should follow Lisa Shaffer out the door. Her leaving makes her a favorite of the whole bunch for the time being.
This is all self created and shame on you all. Let the truth set you free. Try it. You will like it.
What are the possible negative consequences of a no vote?
ReplyDeleteNONE. Vote NO!!!
DeleteWow. No possible adverse consequences?
DeleteNot even a remote possibility?
And in all caps with multiple exclamation points.
You sound like a thoughtful and serious person.
Thank You 11:41. Someone in this 1 horse town has to be serious and thought provoking, might as well be me.
DeleteHopefully a judge comes in to unravel the mess our corrupt staff and sold out elected officials have created for themselves. Residents blame staff and staff blames residents so put everyone under oath and sort it out. Some people need to be fired, indicted, or at least vibed out of town. The staff has a well documented record of blantant lies and there is even documented cases of what could be collusion between developers and elected officials. Probably enough there to start an investigation and/or put up a build moratorium. Then, Hillary actually fulfills her promise to overturn Citizens United. Meyer, BIA, and the like can no longer legal buy themselves politicians, moral people actually run for office, and this stupid failed law goes bye bye.
Delete1:42 PM
DeleteDo you believe in unicorns as well?
1:42. Crooked Hillary is a liar, she is self-serving, enriching herself by selling fafors to globalist, taking and hiding money from foreign country's, she had destabilized the middle east to enrich her friend Sid Blumenthal- Hillary and Bill are guilty of ther disastrous actions that have made them money and taken from taxpayers.
Delete2:03,
DeleteYour fourth-grade writing skills confirm everything we suspected about Trump voters.
Thanks for that.
2:28. Crooked Hillary. Bloomberg, the NY Times, the AP all report on Crooked Bill and Hillary selling favors. Hillary leveraged her insider crony government contacts to trade access for cash. Ericsson in Iran, selling Uranium rights to Russia, fleecing mining permits in Hati. If there is a way to monetize government to access the Clinton'said will do it. Now Kaine, the ultimate crony insider. supports TPP to harm American workers and families, works for Soros and Uber rich as head of the DNC. These are the facts- Crooked Hillary is a lying thieving me first plutocrat. Jeez, no surprise Donna Brazil let and the DNC Hillary machine owed behind closed doors today to defeat Bernie Sanders supporters request that the DNC do away with super delegates in the future.
Delete5:50 PM
DeletePlease take your political rants to another, more suitable, blog. Unless you want to address local issues, please go away.
This attitude has made Encinitas quite prominent among legislators and not in a good way. The "I've got mine and I won't yield an inch to accommodate more affordable housing" attitude isn't getting Encinitas any sympathy in Sacramento. This is one of the reasons that the legislature keeps passing laws like density bonus. Encinitas isn't the only city but we've become the poster child for refusing to meet state requirements. The Legislative Analyst issued a report several years ago identifying coastal communities resistance as one of the major problem areas for affordable housing.
ReplyDeletePass all the local initiatives you want but they will never trump state statutes. The legislature always gets the last word.
And what will the legislators do to little biddy Encinitas?? Come down here and build affordable housing for us?? Not likely. If you want affordable move to Nebraska.....or you can wait for the next great market crash and then your $1M bungalow with only be worth say, $350K. Now that's affordable. Oh wait no one will have any money so will be right back where we are now.....
DeleteThe affordable housing exists in spades. We know this and just need them counted and
DeleteOn the books. Council knows this can be done but the desire isn't there.
11:24 Define the minimum requirement to satisfy the state . The city won't. The notion of affordable housing in this town is absurd. Lisa and others on the council have admitted that This is all about pay back for crony's AND keeping the pay/pension gov. culture secure/
DeleteThe amount is around 500 but your pay / pension comment is the real reason it is not happening. Residents need to demand this solution before Huntington Beach is upon us. It is not too late!
Delete11:39 AM
DeleteYours is a common attitude expressed here. You say what will the legislature do to us (implying they'll do nothing) and then complain when the city settles lawsuits based primarily on those very same statute requirements. You can't have it both ways.
The legislature often depends on private lawsuits to ensure that cities and counties are operating within legal requirements. The city settles these cases when they realize they have a weak legal basis for their position. Stringing out a case that has little chance of winning just wastes money.
11:24s comment is a sample of the propaganda we can expect from the ethically challenged side of this debate. They want to blame the residents to deflect from the fact that it is not affordable housing as they call it and thier plan is far over reaching and being promoted on lies. Bring in a judge.
Delete12:56 fails to get the city has really poor legal advice in these matters. The fact is the CA can't win so we settle. That is unless a losing case can be soaked for every $ and council snowed as well.
Delete2:12 PM
DeleteSorry, but it's you and others that fail to get it. The city has gotten excellent legal advice in these lawsuits. You just don't like the results. When you are on shaky legal ground, don't expect to win.
1:51 PM
"propaganda" ... "ethically challenged". Please.
I'll let you bring in the judge but you have to pay for it and pay the legal costs of the other side when we (you) lose. If your legal reasoning is rock solid then you won't hesitate to bring suit. If you win we'll pay you back. If you lose it's on your dime. What are you waiting for?
11:24 AM
DeleteDidn't you get the memo from Manjeet Ranu? More than two thousand new dwelling units at market rate. Catherine Blakespear asked Ranu how many low income units will the city get out of the upzoning. His reply - 199.
Bless Catherine's little heart, she FAILED to discuss this information in a public meeting.
2:38 you are out of your league. Your reply does not even make sense.
DeleteWhat excellent legal advise are you referring to? Just because you say so means zero.
The city has said a state judge would be brought in to decide our faith. Do I have to connect to rest of the dots for you? I know it is hard with a feeble little mind but try.
This town is made of some very intelligent people with much bigger fish to fry. The JV players in this town from Coast Law to planning staff and even the BIA are hardly worth the time except when they come shit in our yard. Time crush these roaches so we can get back to our lives.
10:45 AM
DeleteI can only assume you have no understanding of these matters. You claim to refute my assertions but provide no evidence as justification. Your argument (and I'm being generous here) is basically insults. Please demonstrate how the attorneys the city has consulted did not provide good legal advice. Your proof has to be more then the fact that you disagreed with it.
In my response to 1:51 PM I was being a bit flippant because all I see here is whining. And yes, the residents do bear some of the blame. They are the ones who passed Prop A. Maybe you still believe the motivation behind Prop A was only to give a voice to the people when in reality its role was to frustrate the city attempt to adopt a housing element that would meet state requirements.
The city is still under judicial oversight from the BIA and DCM lawsuits until it fulfills the settlement agreements which both require the city to have a certified housing element.
I do like Encinitas the way it is but I understand some things have to change. I just want to keep control of those changes and minimize the impacts both from government action and private action.
So study up and someday maybe you can make the JV squad.
Solana Beach, which incorporated the year before Encinitas, has a certified housing element, and it has an ordinance similar to the one created through Prop A. Same for Escondido.
DeleteBecause citizens can vote on projects which would upzone, creating more density, inevitably leading to more traffic, more pressure on crumbling infrastructure, including water concerns and street maintenance backlogs, does NOT mean that the City couldn't have found ways to count more existing potential for affordable housing so that our city could "comply."
I'm voting no and urging all my friends and neighbors to do the same.
1:48 AM
DeleteMaybe you've missed past threads but even if the city counted all the existing illegal accessory units, most wouldn't count toward this cycle's requirements.
Maybe you've missed past comments, but the city hasn't proven existing uncounted accessory units are "illegal." That is an assumption not based on facts.
DeleteAlso, you are assuming that "most wouldn't count toward this cycle's requirements." That's because the fix is in. Encinitas City Staff and SANDAG don't want to count all the existing affordable housing; they want to assume that existing accessory units have already been counted, so that higher density can be forced on unwilling existing residents.
And another monstrosity coming on 101. Another wake up call to get active. Vote no on up yours plan in Nov.
ReplyDeleteIn effect, Encinitas does the same thing SANDAG does with ballot proposition language and any written material presented to the public. They focus-group it, then take the approach that's most likely to achieve the result they want. A common word for this practice is "deceit."
ReplyDeleteJust vote NO in November.
ReplyDeleteNO, NO, NO!
The Del Mar City Council is actively resisting their citizen efforts to also have a say in the development of their community. It is a regional pattern of bought and sold political stooges serving the interests of the developers and big land holders - local city government are yokels who are easily swayed by PAC backing, subtle bribes (free fact-finding trips, kitchen appliances and business directed their way.) These city council people do not represent the citizens' interests - vote NO on the housing farce and dump all incumbents.
DeleteWith that logic, we'd be voting for Paul Gaspar, which is the same as voting for development interests.
Delete9:06 AM The statement of 7:17 PM is in no way an endorsement of Paul Gaspar. It is ludicrous that he is even running - it shows the blatant attempt to put the lackeys in power to do the bidding of their developer mentors. Both Gaspars need to be banished politically.
DeleteKudos to the citizens in Del Mar for seeking their own version of our Prop A.
ReplyDeleteThat this action is needed in the first place rests on the shoulders of any and all council member for not defending their own community's best interests who voted to put them in a position of trust. That trust has been violated and shame on those council members, which ever city they reside in, for selling out those who believed in them.
It is not reassuring one bit that Del Mar is dealing with the same traitors that we here in Encinitas is.
It would be interesting to know what other similarities we share with Del Mar on this topic. It could just be all these influenced councils are not that uncommon.
If this is true, there has to be a source for this contemptible type of undemocratic strategy. I am reminded of the organization called ALEC. American Legislative Executive Council? This group has lobbyists in every state in the nation writing legislation that literally without editing is proffered by amenable state house reps.
The cancer runs deep.
During the miserable time when that sob Vina was here, I was constantly reminded that he had to have been one of ALECS practitioners.Too bad for that poor city who hired him. They are, or already, in deep sheet. Sorry for them, but joyous that that weasel is out of here.
Bravo to Herschel for his letter to the editor in the latest Coast News about Del Mars version of our own Prop A.
Every potential candidate here and there should be asked whether they support a concept such as what we have here. There shouldn't be a moment of hesitation if they are really who we all want defending us.
Slim pickens, once again. I suppose the only elevating thought is, that we here in Encinitas, are not alone in the corruption we are all dealing with.
Three weeks left for candidates to declare here in Encinitas. Yikes! No matter how hot it is, hope springs eternal that some candidates will step up that deserve the trust we put in them with our votes. Sadly, so far, there is not a one. If anyone begs to differ, refer to the Ask Any Candidate's recent exploration into several litmus test requirements for any voter to trust anything coming out of the mouths of any candidate. We have yet to hear a thing. Telling? I would think so.
Has anyone submitted a statement and rebuttal against the housing element initiative? The City Council are the ones to select the anti-housing initiative statement if several are submitted - how can they be trusted not to tamper with that responsibility? They could pick the weakest or have a shill submit Trojan Horse arguments. Don't underestimate the conniving that may occur in this process.
ReplyDeleteBumper sticker:
ReplyDelete"No consequences, Bruh!!!"
Every single declared candidate so far supports the Up Yours Encinitas urban density plan.
ReplyDeleteFor any doubters out there, go ahead ask them yourself and do let us know what you find. Transparency of any sort has not been forthcoming and any indication that there just might be even one, would be much welcomed.
Ask Any Candidate and help the rest of us see a way forward in this time of nothing but poor choices.
Hey, why don't you call yourselves "Up Yours California" to show the legislators what you really think of them. After all, that's what you're really demonstrating, that California law doesn't apply to Encintas unless we agree with it. So come on, be bold.
DeleteI wondered when the developer voice was going to chime in. 1:38 is late to the discussion and singing the city's song.
DeleteOur council and city's willingness to lie to feather developer nests is a big Up Yours, Encinitas. Your transparent attempt to deflect reveals a satisfying level of panic.
Dear developers who live in Rancho Santa Fe. We in Encinitas will gladly accept the building and zoning freedoms of your city.
Delete2:26 PM
DeleteSorry but I'm not a developer, city staff or council person. I just recognize absurdity when I see it and am taking it to its next logical step. You just don't want to state the obvious.
2:34 PM
Rancho Santa Fe isn't incorporated and is under the county development rules.
Ask Any Candidate why the written ballot statement mentions nothing about mixed use, when that is their whole ball game with this Up Yours Encinitas Hosing Plan. Transparency must be why.
ReplyDeleteWe here know, but others may not and they should.
Every voter in Encinitas should know what our council is doing with this lie of a plan for urban density coming to our community if this is not voted down.
Let the truth set us all free from the mistruths proffered by our council. No in NOvember.
Up your Encinitas and up yours california. I got mine. Everyone else can go jump in the ocean.
DeleteActually, "I got mine" is what the city is proposing. The temp planning director, supported by the council, refuses to put a percent requirement of affordability on high density. Other cities do, we don't dare get between our beloved developers and their profits.
Delete4:16, you've got your argument exactly backward.
"refuses to put a percent requirement of affordability on high density"
DeleteActually, that's not correct. We put a percentage requirement on all developments over 10 units. It's called the inclusionary housing policy.
Not what we're talking about here 6:46, and you know it.
DeletePlanning Commission Chairman O'Grady asked for a 25% affordable housing requirement and was stonewalled by Manjeet.
2:20,
DeleteAre you suggesting Manjeet has veto power over Panning Commission and City Council decisions?
It's well known that Manjeet pulls the puppet strings Murphy left hanging for him.
DeleteRemember, Shaffer calls him and his staff of lackeys the "experts." Blakespear calls Shaffer "an intellectual powerhouse."
Manjeet doesn't need veto power...he just has the power.
And absolutely no morality at all. He is a continuous liar.
DeleteThere may be a little confusion between what we currently have with density projects at 10% or so, with what some planning commissioners first proposed of a 25% requirement. Three of these commissioners had a majority to pass this on the council before Tasha opened her trap and convinced that majority to fold.
ReplyDeleteEven if it had been forwarded on to our council, there is little chance this 25% mandate would have survived, considering how they acquiesce to the influence of their own planning dept., and in turn, the developer interests that rule that runaway dept.
Not so strange bedfellows. It is within this community's right to demand such a mandate b ut the will does not exist.
Ask Any Candidate. It might just open a few eyes for any doubters out there.
You seem to be confusing Denaity Bonus and Inclusionary Housing Policy.
DeleteDB allows additional unit potential in exchange for affordable units. DB is state law.
IHP mandates a certain number of affordable units or an in lieu fee on every large project, whether DB is invoked or not. IHP is a local law.
The two are often confused. They are completely separate.
Creating a special 25% affordable requirement that applies only to parcels upzoned in the HEU would be viewed as a penalty or unreasonable constraint on development--HCD would never certify it.
But the IHP is coming up for update soon, and as long as it applies equally to all projects over a certain size, we can increase the affordability requirements.
I believe planning commission and council decided to separate the IHP decision from the HEU to avoid the appearance that the IHP is being used as a tool to constrain R30 development, which is wise.
The truth is, a well crafted IHP is a legal and effective way to produce affordable units and/or moderate growth under a compliant Housing Element.
I would encourage everyone to read up on the IHP, and engage deeply in the upcoming Council review.
Density Bonus and Inclusionary Housing are not completely separate. Density bonus units can offset required Inclusionary units in a project. It's the city's policy to subtract the Density bonus units from the required. Inclusionary units to give a reduced total. This has been done in Encinitas, but it take a larger subdivision to be applicable. Density Bonus requires a subdivision of five or more units. Inclusionary requires 10 or more units. The result, of course, is less affordable housing.
Delete8:29 AM
DeleteThis is true. A recent appellate ruling allows density bonus affordable units to be counted toward fulfilling the inclusionary requirements. You are incorrect that it has been done in Encinitas but that is only a matter of time until it does. I'm surprised and disappointed that the legislature hasn't addressed this situation. It only undercuts their argument about providing affordable housing.
Clarification:
Delete"Can be" or "must be?"
Is it legally permissible to double count the units, or required?
10:58 AM
DeleteI guess a developer could decline to take advantage of that decision but don't hold your breath. Since density bonus is invoked by the developer, they would identity which units fulfill the inclusionary requirements. As noted above, the inclusionary requirement is a city ordinance and is one unit for every ten is required to be affordable or pay an in-lieu fee. Density bonus is optional.
1:06,
DeleteI know, but . . .
Does the court decision preclude the city from changing how to count how affordable units satisfy the local and state requirements?
In other words, can we declare that the order of operations is:
1.) use local code to determine the number of affordable units (or in lieu fee) that applies to a project.
2.) if the project is not invoking DB, end. If the project invokes DB, goto 3.
3.) Use formulas to calculate the DB for both market and affordable units.
4.) total up the affordable units required under 1 and 3 (additive), and the total unit cap including the bonus.
It seems odd that the inclusionary units and DB units would be necessarily double-counted, as that would create an incentive to invoke DB without adding much incremental affordable housing.
If a builder is already required to account for affordable units under IHP, and those units double count towards DB, then the developer is essentially getting the bonus density at no incremental cost. (Or at least at a deep discount). It's all carrot and no stick.
1:29 PM
DeleteAs far as I can tell, based on the ruling in "Latinos Unidos Del Valle de Napa v County of Napa" the city is required to count any density bonus affordable units toward fulfilling the affordable units required in the city's inclusionary housing ordinance.
Between that and the city's mid-range density designation any developer who intends to build 10 or more units is highly motivated to invoke density bonus.
Its clear to me the city wants to be sued. They couldn't wait to be sued by the BIA, and they throw that threat right into their ballot statement. Cute. If we truly had a representative government, our City would challenge the BIA's lawsuit by simply telling the court "Our hands are tied Your Honor. The people of Encinitas have spoken with their approval of Prop A and won't let us build anything over 2 stories / 30 ft tall without a public vote. If this were an equitable hearing, it would be the People of Encinitas sued for voting the way they did and not the City of Encintas." And if the judge awards the plaintiff BIA as the winner, the City counter sues the state by taking the case to Supreme Court, repeating the same true argument. The bottom line is greed. We have created a multi-headed monster becoming a city with developers in their back pockets when they don't listen to its voters and welcome lawsuits like this from the BIA to meet their common ultimate goal: to cram Orange County down our throats to make the most money possible with whatever property possible. You don't see the BIA going after Rancho Santa Fe. I wonder why? Maybe they have sensible lawyers who live there and actually want to protect their quality of life.
ReplyDeleteRSF isn't incorporated, so it can include county land in its regional affordable housing requirements. Plus more guest homes, granny flats and servants quarters, there, are actually counted as affordable housing.
Delete1:40,
DeleteThat's nice, but the BIA suit wasn't about Prop A, it was about how the city changed rounding and net acreage calculations for Density Bonus.
1:40 AM
DeleteYou continue the misunderstanding that a local initiative can override a state statute. It can't. It has been well established at the appellate level. Any judge will nullify a local initiative that does so. Just ask the city of Pleasanton. While the Pleasanton initiative differs from Prop A, the principle is the same.
The "Our hands are tied Your Honor. ..." won't fly.
Isn't this project being built as we speak? Who says RSF doesn't have density projects?
Deletehttp://www.thecoastnews.com/2015/05/12/neighborhood-group-voices-concerns-over-potential-high-density-development/
- The Sculpin
Despite being county, RSF has the most restrictive property and building restrictions in the county. Why? Because money trumps all in American culture. Idiots in this country respect wealth more than their phony gods . They treat the wealthy like gods. Look at Trumps pol numbers among white people.
Delete7:31 am -- You continue your misunderstanding of Prop. A. It doesn't override any state statute. It only requires a public vote to approve certain major amendments approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. A public vote isn't against the law. This is the legal conundrum for a judge. A judge would hesitate before overturning the result of a public vote, a fundamental right. More likely the judge would order the city to rework the ballot measure and run it trough again.
Delete3:57 is right.
DeleteBecause Encinitas is a CFZ (Consequence-Free Zone).
3:57 PM
DeleteI know exactly what Prop A says. Encinitas has been without a valid housing element for many years. This is directly contrary to state law. Prop A requires that any significant changes to the general plan, especially where there is an increase in density, requires a popular vote. In order for the city to comply with state law the HEU will have to be put to a popular vote. If it passes then all is well as far as city compliance goes. If it is defeated the city goes back to court where the judge will have to decide whether to allow the city to try another election (for at least $300K) or simply nullify Prop A. Any rewriting of the HEU would take many months not to mention lead time for a special election.
The city of Pleasanton had a local initiative (Measure GG) which limited the total number of housing units and could only be exceeded through a popular vote. Their housing element wasn't certified, they were sued and lost with the judge nullifying Measure GG. Pleasanton spent nearly $4M to find that out.
Whether a judge would allow Encinitas to take the time to once again update and pass a HEU after many, many years of being out of compliance is unknown but given the length of time involved I doubt it. As the Pleasanton case demonstrated, a judge wouldn't hesitate to overturn a public initiative if it frustrates state law.
5:20 PM
DeleteYou seem to forget the issue here. The Encinitas City Council deliberately removed wording from the November ballot question that would have provide the reasons for the vote.
The ballot question should say - Shall Encinitas City Council increase density, increase the building heights, change zoning to mixed use, give more unilateral power to the Planning Director, remove environmental protections, and give back the power to a 3 person Council majority to decide on future zoning and upzoning?
You "doubt it"? And would be...someone who stands to profit by the HEU's passage...just a wild guess.
DeleteThis judge business is pure fabrication. The Deputy Director of HCD said last December that the state does not sue/send a judge in/any of your typical city fearmongering.
The only lawsuits come from the BIA. Personally, I think it's time to put a stop to their strongarming of Encinitas. Your "whether a judge would allow" scare tactic is pathetic. Greed backs all your musings and won't sell.
Oh,and who am I? A concerned resident whose vote will be a resounding "NO" come November.
5:47 PM
DeleteThe council is required to provide descriptive wording for the ballot. The wording is their choice but must be reasonably accurate. Whether the final wording they adopted does that I'll let you decide but that has no bearing on what I said at 5:20 PM.
5:52 PM
I guess you can't accept that someone could offer their opinion without having profit motive, especially if you don't agree with that opinion. I stand to gain nothing, directly or indirectly, if the HEU passes. You also cling to the notion that HCD is going to sue us. They aren't. That's left to private parties which has already happened. While the city has settled with the BIA and DCM (D. Meyer), we are still under the court's jurisdiction until we fulfill all the required action laid out in the settlement one of which is to get the HEU adopted, certified and passed.
It appears you can't accept that reality.
What I said was " The Deputy Director of HCD said last December that the state does not sue...." So...what are you talking about clinging to?
DeleteYou are touting the David-Meyer-owns-this-city line. There's a reason you're pushing his thug side of the story. Most of us reject it. I say bring it on. Time to have this out with the greed factory.
4:35, surely you remember the dire warnings of "unintended consequences" of Prop A from the Council and "staff." Never happened. Remember?
DeleteOh wait, if you're a developer you hated the consequences. But none were unintended - all were intended ;)
6:36 we (citizens) will be voting no. You sound like a councilmember, if you are please take your string of failures and retire to your bad ideas.
Delete5:47,
Delete"remove environmental protections, and give back the power to a 3 person Council majority to decide on future zoning and upzoning"
Please provide a citation for these claims.
According to the city, the supermajority language was removed from the final version. I'd honestly like to see and read for myself if you think it's still there.
7:59 PM
DeleteWhat I meant, although I could have worded it better, is that many people use the nonexistent threat of being sued by HCD as a red herring. As far as the "David-Meyer-owns-this-city line", I'm not pushing anything. The lawsuits are a matter of fact as are the settlements. You appear to be in denial.
The lawsuits filed against Bay Area cities are from affordable housing advocacy organizations not developers. Are they thugs? Are they greedy?
9:17 PM Sorry, I'm not a councilmember
Shady wording for sure by the city. The question is how can the community mobilize to get the word out to the voters about what is really going on with the ballot measure
ReplyDeleteThe consequences that the above posters are worried about have nothing to do with the will of Encinitas residents or what is best for anyone except for developers, government workers who benefit from this plan, and the fleet of consultants that they have brought in. This is self interested disguised (not very well) as public policy to benefit Encinitas residents.
ReplyDeletePerfectly put, 5:59.
DeleteWhat consequences?
DeleteNo one is willing to admit that there are any.
5:59 for council. Clearly said and truthful. What we need.
ReplyDeleteBy now you’ve heard about the approximately one bajillion statewide ballot measures facing voters in November.
ReplyDeleteBut in a new story, Maya Srikrishnan reports on a slate of local ballot measures up and down the state that could have a major impact on how California leaders address the statewide housing crisis.
Gov. Jerry Brown, for his part, wants to help developers override some local restrictions on building new stuff. Residents in cities all over the state, however, are ready for a fight. Many of them are proposing measures that would give locals even more control over what can be built and where.
Del Mar, Costa Mesa, Santa Monica, Gilroy and Cupertino all have measures on the November ballot that would force certain development proposals to a public vote instead of letting elected officials make those decisions.
Experts seem to think local initiatives that challenge state policies will only increase in the future.
“The initiative is being used as a battering ram to tear down legislative hurdles, and you’re starting to see more planning issues coming out again,” said one SDSU professor.
http://voiceofsandiego.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=f8720dfcecbd610409ebced95&id=7d216e8fe4&e=6bd11eee3f
That so called writer Maya, is the same Voice of San Diego that listened to Meyer when she wrote about our communities honorable resistance to density programs that belong in urban settings. The Voice of San Diego was more the like the voice of developers for allowing Maya to publish the slanted view she wrote.
ReplyDeleteI doubt she has changed her stripes since then, but anything is possible. Partisan reporting before and she is now back. Must be who she knows and not her investigative talents that showed to be so lacking in the recent past.