Wednesday, August 24, 2016

8/24/16 City Council meeting open thread

The current city council has continued prior councils' practice of not providing written summary minutes of council discussion, but only "action minutes" which state the outcomes. Encinitas Undercover will provide a forum for observers to record what occurs at each council meeting.

Please use the comments to record your observations.

57 comments:

  1. Muir is obviously out to lunch. Who is he talking to with eyes glaring at the ceiling?

    Nice catch, Catherine, for pointing out the article on railroad crossings that Muir knew nothing about.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is Muir still breathing? This guy is beyond dumb...

      Delete
  2. Good going to the council majority (Blakespear, Krantz and Shaffer) for making some good decisions tonight.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Bucky Beaver (Gaspar) didn't look so well tonight. If she's worn out now, just wait if she gets elected supervisor. They will run her ass ragged.

    ReplyDelete
  4. So Judy claims she crossed the same tracks illegally for decades and now that she has her Swami's crossing close by, she has no sympathy for the rest of our community. Don't lessen the penalties one iota, now that she can cross conveniently.

    What a piece of work that needs a lot of work herself. Why would she even bother to express such an opinion after she has been doing the same for decades?

    Kudos to Mark Muir for bringing this forward. Maybe Judy can help with all the citations her fellow citizens will be getting, while she has her legal crossing so close by.

    This type of exclusivity is maddening. Go away please. You provide no value to your fellow citizens who don't have the Swami's crossing so close by. Aren't you the lucky one. Too bad for everyone else. Yuk.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 10:07- Do you mean Julie Thunder in your comments. You posted Judy, but I was wondering.If it is Julie Thunder, there is more to come about what she and a few core people on the No Rail Trail group are doing.

      Delete
  5. Why not a mass illegal crossing of the tracks by 400-500 citizens all at the same moment in time. Good luck NCTD citing everyone. If the sheriff tries to write someone up, mass stampede the officer. Everyone must wear the same color clothing to confuse the officer. It's time to lower the tracks.....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Better yet, why not tie each other to the rails with chains and padlocks?

      If you are going to make a statement, make an ef-ing statement.

      Delete
    2. That was Guerins plan until she realized that being arrested wouldn't look good for her 30 year retirement party from the Sheriffs Dept ... Not to mention her pension.

      Just another govt test sucker.

      Delete
  6. The decision to reduce the crossing violation was a no-brainer. Who in their right mind thinks it should be a crime punishable by up to 1 year in jail and if your a kid - forget about getting hired by a good company! Come on Kranz, Shaffer and Blakespear get out and talk to someone other this Judy clown.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Judy is Chairing the Mobility and Livability Work Group; she is Catherine's appointee and Shaffer's go-to policy wonk.

    ReplyDelete
  8. 9:26- Who is this Judy person. I wrote above I thought someone was talking about Julie Thunder. I guess there really is a Judy. I will check it out, but was wondering?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Berlfein, a Barth apologist and Kranz's remaining fan.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Judy Berlfein, married to Dadla Ponizil. She's totally committed to the rail trail along San Elijo so she has a personal bike path to go to Seaside Market. She was Kranz's campaign manager.

      Delete
    2. Catherine and Lisa and Tony let Judy on the committee without her having applied. If she really is Tony's campaign manager, perhaps she can manage to get Tony to campaign out-of-town, like where his family is?

      Delete
    3. 4:37 PM

      It's a nice conspiracy theory but dead wrong. Berlfein wasn't selected by the consultant but she did apply. Her application is on page 61 of the July 13 agenda report.

      I'm not her and don't really know her.

      Delete
  10. Muir, do us all a favor and go play on the tracks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Paint him black and white and he could replace Shamu at SeaWorld!

      Delete
    2. He might be fat, but he has "BY FAR" the best voting record on the entire council!

      Delete
    3. 10:34 Please elaborate. I can't wait to hear your response.

      Delete
    4. What a joke! All those NO votes by Muir and Gaspar amounted to nothing.

      Zero, Zilch, Nada.

      Delete
  11. Yea, Muir has voted for a perceived impression, having been coached that his vote was null and void in any given situation. This guy just seems to be out beyond left field - he needs to go.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Muir has voted against Developers more than any other council member!!!
    If this statement is wrong, please prove it! Don't make shit up, or resort to name calling. Let's deal with the facts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 10:46 you sound like Muir's only fan. The guy is as dumb as they come and needs to be replaced. He has done nothing for this city that is beneficial. He only knows how to collect a big pension.

      Delete
    2. 10:46 Since you made the claim that Muir has voted against developers more than any other council member, it is up to you to show us this is factual. Please include dates and motions and final votes of when these occurred.

      Delete
    3. 10:46 Makes shit up, then immediately challenges us not to make shit up in the same short post.

      Irony, FTW.

      Delete
  13. Shallow comments regarding weight from shallow minds.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 12:55 What the hell are you talking about? The weight problem of Muir is the truth. Any one with decent vision can not help but notice.

      Crawl back into your shallow, shallow world.

      Delete
    2. I bet people are constantly making fun of you about your face.... Behind your back of course ha ha

      Delete
  14. Muir voted against developers many times. I'll give you two examples, then it's your turn:
    1. Voted against the developer on the Hymettus project
    2. Voted against paying the BIA $300,000+ settlement on Density Bonus

    Put up or shut up! Show me where your council member has taken a position against developers that is different then Muir?

    Let me save you the time and respond now - I didn't think you could find anything. So you need to resort to name calling - typical!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 3:57 Wow, that is an extensive voting record for your friend Muir. Two whole times? You really can't be serious.

      Remember, when you make a claim, you need the back up and the facts.

      How long has your fat dude been on council?

      Two times is laughable. Thanks for humoring us.

      Delete
    2. Also voted against changing the rules to allow non-agricultural office use in agricultural zoning.

      And voted against the El Camino Real building owner who massacred a grove of trees in order to expand his parking lot closer to the backyards of Jolina Way neighbors.

      Delete
    3. 6:12 How did the final vote come out on both of those issues?

      Delete
    4. 3-2 in both cases, Kranz-Blakespear-Shaffer voting for developers, Muir-Gaspar against.

      Delete
    5. 9:00 That has been my point of contention all along with this NO voting of Muir and Gaspar. They use that NO vote to look good in their campaign.

      If it wasn't for the other three (Blakespear, Kranz and Shaffer) there would be no business getting done. Thank God for three people who are willing to put themselves out there and do the business of the city.

      It is a shame that Gaspar, in her role as mayor, has sparked a division on the council and has conducted herself in a way that is not professional. She really needs to learn to be open minded and try to get along with the people she works with.

      As far as Muir is concerned, that guy is hopeless. All he has done was follow Gaspar around like a little panting puppy dog. I'm surprised he hasn't keeled over yet.

      Delete
    6. Perhaps, but at least in the case of the agriculture rule change, I think Muir and Gaspar were in the right and the majority were changing the rules to give a huge financial windfall to their buddies.

      Delete
    7. 10:16 I don't remember that issue so can not comment on it.

      I hope you are not saying that Muir and Gaspar have never done that with their developer buddies.

      Gaspar is making decisions on a lawsuit that involves her client. The city has already given this developer some $125,000??? Gee, I guess that is not the same thing.

      Delete
    8. Here's the agriculture=office issue: link. I was mistaken: it was Kranz-Shaffer-Barth, not Kranz-Shaffer-Blakespear.

      I'm not saying that Gaspar and Muir aren't backed by developers and friends of David Meyer, but their voting records are way more pro-community character than Kranz-Shaffer-Blakespear/Barth.

      We've just cited 5 votes where Muir and Gaspar were on the side of less development and Kranz-Shaffer-Blakespear/Barth were on the side of more development. I can't think of a single vote that was the other way. Can you?

      Delete
    9. The cases you refer to were not big developer, large projects. One was a tiny increase in a parking lot. Let's get real here!

      Delete
    10. EU is just stating the facts; the voting record of Muir and Gaspar ARE far more Community-Minded than Kranz/Shaffer and Barthspear!

      Barthspear? I think we stumbled onto something here?

      Delete
    11. 12:37 Oh, you mean the NO votes by Muir and Gaspar that did not change anything or help the city in any way? Surely, you jest!

      Delete
    12. Gaspar and Muir vote based on BIA contributions. Kranz, Blakespear, and Shaffer vote based on BIA intimidation. Net result is the same.

      Delete
  15. Muir and Gaspar know they're going to lose 3-2 on many votes, so they take what appears to be the popular high road. They're not voting their beliefs or taking their supporters' side because they know that's futile. The only thing those votes do is look good to people who are against development.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Muir also voted against the tiny houses in Olivenhain the residents were against. I could go on and on, but it won't change your tiny minds. You still haven't came up with anything. Oh yea, he's fat.

      Delete
    2. 10:28 The only thing you have right is that he's fat.

      So, you came up with one more. And, he's been on council how many years? Not a very good record so far. You better do some more digging.

      Delete
    3. Name 1 council member who has a better record against developers then Muir - give "ONE" example.

      Delete
    4. Marjorie Gaines, who also was our first mayor.

      Delete
    5. Sheila Cameron had a better record than anyone on the current Council. That is why she is and continues to be attacked at every turn.

      Kranz, Barth, Shaffer and Blakespear are turn coats.

      Delete
    6. My, my, the Muir supporter became silent.

      Delete
    7. Still, on the current council we've found five votes where Muir and Gaspar voted for neighbors / against development, and the majority voted for development / against neighbors.

      Can anyone recall any votes where the majority sided with residents and Muir & Gaspar sided with developers?

      Delete
    8. 5:12 So not impressed. You have to admit, they were not BIG developments.

      This is so small town politics, to say the least.

      Gaspar is taking developer money for her campaign. That is all I need to know.

      Delete
    9. We came up with names that have a better voting record than Muir, but now you want to play little games because you didn't like the answer.

      How childish.

      Delete
  16. If you want to call buying the Pacific View property siding with residents, Gaspar voted against it, she said, on financial grounds. I don't remember how Muir voted. Gaspar's voting against it can be seen as siding with developers because it could have become a massive condo complex had the city not bought it, unfortunately for about twice its value.

    ReplyDelete
  17. 6:46 PM

    "... it could have become a massive condo complex ..."

    Not really. The best zoning they could hope for is R-15 which is the surrounding zoning. Even with density bonus, they wouldn't have been able to build a "massive condo complex".

    ReplyDelete
  18. Site is 2.1 acres = 30 units at R-15. DB doubled R-5 at Fulvia/Hymettus to 10. 60 units on 2.1 acres is pretty massive.

    ReplyDelete