Saturday, August 27, 2016

Encinitas Forward launches blog

A new blog has popped up covering the Encinitas election: Encinitas Forward. Though the creators are anonymous, it's professionally designed and, so far, quite even-handed in its treatment of candidates and issues. The creators are paying for sponsored Facebook links, so somebody's investing at least a little money in this.

Here's the blog's first poll: Do you support or oppose Measure T, the Housing Element Update?

164 comments:

  1. Another COE creation that allows multiple voting opportunities. I've already voted 6 times. Instead of wasting money on this nonsense why don't they fix the roads?? Idiots.

    All politicians are crooks, not all crooks are politicians.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They've just done another stretch of El Camino Real and they are even working on Santa Fe, so credit where credit is due.

      Delete
    2. Supervisor Kristen Gaspar has promised to fix the potholes county-wide. Didn't you get the big glossy mailer?

      Delete
    3. 7:59 AM
      Credit where credit is due - the white stripping is already fading on El Camino Real. The slurry or whatever it is called is also aging quickly. How much is the city paying for these schlock paving jobs.

      Delete
    4. Quit whining. It's not fading, they just did it within the last few months. It's fine. I think it's an asphalt overlay, and I'm glad they did it. You can't ask for street paving and then just keep bitching when you get it....

      Delete
    5. 8:43 AM
      City does a poor job, and you defend it.

      Delete
    6. Re:Voting multiple times (6:05a). We took your report seriously. We couldn't duplicate the problem on our computers or devices but rather than have any question about it we swapped out the polling system. Now using Opinion Stage which is very widely used. Just cost a few extra bucks - the old solution was free. Let us know if there are any further issues.

      Delete
  2. We're definitely NOT associated with the City. This is a passion project. We're trying to give a broader group of Encinitas residents - who for the most part are not paying any attention to local politics - a way to get educated, informed, and engaged. The polls are intended to be a mechanism to give feedback that goes beyond comments/opinions which can distort actual community sentiment. It's fine to have a vocal minority influence everyone else, but it would sure be nice to get a sense of what that majority is actually thinking and watch the balance of opinion change over time. We are using a few bucks to seed the site and page and see if it lives on after the initial exposure. Sorry about the multiple votes. The polling plug-in we're using is a bit inconsistent about locking out IP addresses after a vote. Looking into it now. Please have a little patience... the polling system may take a little while to evolve to where it needs to be (this relies on a third party vendor since we're not technically sophisticated enough to write a robust polling system plug-in ourselves).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. EF- you are stooges of the city , a city that can't provide basic services to it's citizens.

      Why not run a poll asking of the citizens want the roads repaired?? There's an easy one for you.
      STOOGES!!! and IDIOTS

      Delete
    2. 9:42 is the Delicate Flower of Cardiff. Fragile victim of name calling.

      Delete
    3. 10:00 AM is the conclusion jumper from Encinitas and psychic student of Sylvia Brown.

      Delete
  3. The majority sadly isn't paying attention, and never has been. Just ask your neighbors.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually believe it or not the majority do want good roads to drive on. The slurry seal / striping gives the appearance of a fix but is just a very temporary band aid. The city is broke as far as the now 50 million needed for REALLY fixing roads in Encinitas. Muir's pension is more important.

      Delete
  4. FYI, gents. The site isn't showing up on a google search right now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes - the choices of "Encinitas" and "Forward" for our name (which have lots and lots and lots of searchable entries) means that it will take time for the site to bubble up in the search rankings. We're tuning the SEO keywords to speed up that process. It will be a while, though. We're betting that once the site finally bubbles up it will show up in most searches related to Encintas... but choosing that path means it's going to be weeks before that happens. It's a chicken and egg problem.

      Delete
  5. 7:55 AM
    What a crock. Not associated with the city? Why are you repeating the city's party line? Where is your fair and balanced report.
    How many new market rate condos will be built at major intersections? Where is the information on mixed-use?
    Out of thousands of new market rate condos that will result from this citywide upzoning how many will be low income which is the affordable housing?
    Here is the answer Manjeet Ranu wrote to Councilwoman Catherine Blakespear - 199.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agree. This "balanced" view omits the HEU details essential to making an informed vote and produce an informed and valid poll. What "passion" do you have for polling when most folks have been purposely left in the dark by the City?

      Delete
    2. Do you think you are neutral and non-biased, 8:49, 8:55?

      Is it possible you don't trust voters to see any side but yours?

      I think this site is doing a good job at impartial presentation of the facts, and trusting the voters to decide.

      I hope they keep up the good work.

      Delete
    3. Hahaha, 9:20. You think removing the words "mixed use" and "upzoning" from the City's ballot statement because they're too inflammatory (according to Blakespear) is putting the facts before the voters? You think this site perpetuating the benign impression the City wants to give the HEU is impartial?

      You expose yourself here, you do know that.

      Delete
    4. 9:55, Yes.

      Fully exposed critical thinker and independent voter--naked for all the world to see.

      Delete
    5. Mixed use should not have been removed, and should come back in through City Attorney's so called "impartial analysis" ballot statement.

      Delete
    6. If you don't like it, build your own site...

      Delete
  6. If you look at the section of the site that introduces the HEU (2016 Ballot Measures), you'll find our best attempt at balance including links to ERA and Save our City sites and a summary of their arguments. We tried to include the best arguments we could find from both sides of the issue.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. EF pretends to be balanced, but a close reading of the content reveals a subtle, sophisticated manipulation. The bias is pro-Measure T. It's in the language chosen.

      It's unintentionally ironic but spot-on meaningful that the site's name is "Encinitas Forward" alongside a sunset, that is, the sun going down over Encinitas.

      Delete
    2. Are residents and stakeholders separate groups?

      If so, is one more important than the other?

      Delete
    3. 10:55 - We don't think the City is trying to pull one over on anyone and we understand why they are moving forward with this. So, we definitely have some empathy for them. But we also get that many people feel like this plan may be well intentioned but it will encourage development without solving the problem it was designed to solve... so we get that there are legitimate reasons to oppose it. But subtle, sophisticated manipulation? Nope.

      Delete
    4. Unorganized residents are not considered stakeholders by the powers that be in City. Stakeholders = special interests.

      Delete
  7. Is there a link to the Waves to Ride blog that I'm not finding on the Encinitas Forward site?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So who or what is behind this site? The exclusion of any info regarding this is a sign they have something to hide.

      Delete
    2. ugh, reply went into the wrong area. I'm referring the the owners of encinitasforward.com.

      Delete
    3. OK, added a link to Waves to Ride. Didn't realize that this blog had gone so deep on Measure T/HEU.

      Delete
    4. Which site?

      Except for the UT, Coast News, Advocate and the like, the EF blog and the blogs and sites linked are anonymous.

      Delete
    5. 11:37 is simultaneously anonymous and ironic. You are aware that WC Varones isn't a real name?

      Delete
  8. Vote NO on Prop T! Good for developers and Planning Department ticks--bad for residents. Vote NO!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The poll indicates it is losing, yet the link to this poll blog is from EU, which is decidedly heavy with No on T advocates. city planners are nervous now - better get the Gaspars (Cop-outpars) on it!

      Delete
    2. This is a great link for No on T people to share with their contacts. Most people are against this once they find out that T will benefit developers and will ruin community character and quite possibly, the property value of people already living here who aren't in the on sweet deal given select developers.

      Thanks for whoever put this up. The facts and the pictures speak for themselves.

      Delete
    3. Ruin property values? REALLY?!?!?!? I live in a bungalow..surrounded by bungalows.....right by the beach.....until my neighbors, one by one, turn their bungalows into homes...but I'm still by the beach...then some of those homes get remodeled into huge homes..and they're really nice....and I'm still by the beach...and then some of the remaining bungalows get bundled up and they build an 8-plex...getting a little busier and noisier...but I'm still by the beach...now wait....you're going to pay me a million dollars for my bungalow???????

      Please 12:04 - be honest....I get you on community character, i disagree with your broad brush of "developers", but don't for a minute argue that somehow your real estate is losing value in all of this....that's just making stuff up.....

      - The Sculpin

      Delete
    4. How many houses do you have, Sculpin? I thought you said you lived in Olivenhain.

      Are you one of the developers who you so strongly defend?

      Delete
    5. 12:54, It was a hypothetical, obviously.

      Is it hard for you to visualize that as Encinitas has grown in housing units, density, and population our house values have grown dramatically?

      Delete
    6. If Measure T opens the door to high density and three stories up to 48 feet on selected parcels in the five communities, Sculpin, what independent effect will that have on other residential property values?

      Delete
    7. I'm not sure what you mean by "independent effect". If you mean what happens to the house next door to the "three stories up to 48 feet on selected parcels" then short term it's most likely going to take a hit due to the disruption of building and changing use. Whether that is a drop in value or a slower appreciation rate or both is too hard to guess. Probably depends on the project too. But long term, the property will catch up. From a macro level, Encinitas is strictly a residential community, and I see nothing that will change that. Demand for residential homes will be strong for decades due to the lack of building during the most recent recession. Also, our location is superior to other areas so while increased density and traffic are unfortunate for those of us already here, I see it as having no negative impact on overall values. People will pay enormous sums to live here. Doesn't matter if it's a 3 acre spread, a stack n'pack by the train station or a modest family home close to shopping.

      And if challenging lazy thinking is considered "defending developers", then so be it.

      - The Sculpin

      Delete
  9. Is the poll accurate and representative of the community?

    It's now running 56 percent against Measure T.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unfortunately this is a totally unscientific poll. We're running a few ads across all of Encinitas but we're also linked from here and from a couple of other places. Lots of people are participating - with over 100+ votes just this morning - but it's hard to say that the poll has any statistical validity. It's more an expression of the current feelings of those who are actually pretty engaged with the issue. We will re-run the poll periodically between now and November and see how the sentiment changes. We are gratified by the way it's caught fire, though. There's more heat out there than we thought.

      Delete
    2. I'd put your efforts elsewhere, 1:02. Allowing multiple voting makes your poll irrelevant. Either fix the issue or remove it.

      Delete
    3. We swapped out the polling system. Now using Opinion Stage which is well regarded and widely installed. Let us know if the problem persists.

      Delete
  10. Just vote NO on this ill conceived plan that will continue to line the golden pockets of the developers. Enough is enough. We have very little land left in Encinitas and the only way to build is UP.

    NO on Measure T!

    ReplyDelete
  11. I don't think that this is a City-backed site. Let's face it, it is too honest. The City style is to release lie upon lie upon lie. For example, they originally argued that we had to pass this for the benefit of affordable housing. Now they have Shaffer and Blakespear agreeing with the Planning Department that there WILL be no additional affordable housing beyond he inclusionary housing that is already in place, when Kranz, Barth and others also stated it was the main reason for doing this.

    This could be called the Planning Department charity project! When planners speak of "sustainability" they are talking about continuation of their six-figure salaries and government pensions. They have been able to keep their jobs even though they have outsourced them to consultants and stuck tax payers for at least $4 million dollars in bills.

    This is a high-density gravy train for developers at the expense of the beauty and quality of life that the rest of us enjoy.

    Also, when this goes down in flames--dramatically cut back the Planning Department from when this Prop T (Titanic) came! Vote Hell no!

    ReplyDelete
  12. 1:09 good comments. The facts are that this in no way, shape, or form solves a problem. Affordable housing is the problem, there is an easy out counting / green lighting existing units, but that is not the goal of city council. Citizens of Encinitas should demand existing units be counted and an easy path put forward, it is completely possible. Notice what the city is doing with the 20 year amnesty units? Nothing. They can become affordable housing as well. The city council wants pension money and that is their game. It is disgusting.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Used to be you started a paper to booster land use issues...Surf City Times, etc. Now it's websites, and I'm not buying any of it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We aren't focused exclusively on Measure T - that's just the poll and feature for the current 2-week period. We'll get to the mayor's race, the city council races, and issues that aren't even on the ballot but are of critical interest to Encinitas residents (like Leucadia flooding, Leucadia streetcape, pedestrian RR crossings, etc.)

      Delete
    2. Surf City Times had interviews, and other features as well. But, nice try.

      Delete
    3. Who can forget Gary Taylor and Bob Nanninga in the Surf City Times? God bless'em both.

      Delete
  14. There is no way that it can be a city site because it seems to be too competent to have originated from the City of Encinitas! The people who created this site have intelligence and ethics.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The introductory information under the 2016 Ballot Measures tab could have been written by Deputy Planning Director Manjeet Ranu and Planner Mike Strong. Either that or it was copied and pasted from city material.

    It doesn't mention several important points. The city decided to use R-30 proxy zoning to satisfy the RHNA numbers for the HEU. This zoning automatically counts as "affordable" housing regardless if most of it turns out to be market rate housing at very high prices. In fact, at Lisa Shaffer's forum Assistant Deputy Director Glen Campora from HCD stated that it's impossible to build affordable housing in high-priced land areas like Encinitas without public subsidy.

    It also doesn't mention that builders can use the Density Bonus law to get a 35% increase in density, effectively increasing the R-30 zoning to R-41, with the density bonus all market rate. The zoning number indicates units per acre.

    Also it doesn't mention inclusionary housing, a requirement for 10% affordable housing in subdivisions of more than 10 units. However, if Density Bonus is invoked, and it will be, the inclusionary and density bonus units offset each other, plus in lieu payments can substitute for inclusionary units. This is where the 199 affordable-units figure that Blakespear quoted comes from, 10% of almost 2000 units built.

    Does this sound like a reasonable deal to create affordable housing? I say vote NO and send the HEU back to the city to be redone. At one point city staff got the RHNA down to 669, with all the illegal affordable units still uncounted. The city took the easy way out, and at the same time, decided to upzone to the maximum in order to maximize new city revenue to shore up city finances for pension obligations and street maintenance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's an awfully long list of "doesn't mentions." Two plus years' worth of selling us a sham, spending millions at taxpayer expense. Criminal.

      Delete
    2. How do density bonus and inclusionary units offset each other? Please give numerical examples.

      Delete
    3. If affordable units are not eventually built, then the requirement for an updated housing element with even higher numbers will arise again in eight years. I believe all cities/counties are on what is supposed to be an eight year cycle for continuing housing element updates.

      Delete
    4. If a project requires 3 affordable inclusionary units to be built and the project uses Density Bonus to get a 35% increase in market rate units, which requires three more affordable units to be built, the total will not be 6 affordable units (3 + 3), but only 3 affordable units (6 - 3) to be built. This is the offset allowed by court decision.

      HCD has already said that if the HEU passes or fails, Encinitas will go an a 4-year update cycle because HCD can't make a finding of compliance until 2017 which makes the city late.

      The real question is why does Encinitas have such high RHNA numbers compared to comparable cities in San Diego County. It's because the city, through a previous SANDAG representative, accepted the high numbers to benefit developers, not because the city earned or deserved the high numbers because of lack of affordable housing. This is the manipulation of the law that makes it a scam.

      Delete
    5. 1:33
      This scam will not be a law by then.

      Delete
    6. Let's use the Hymettus "Estates" project as an example to clarify the interplay between density bonus and inclusionary but with one exception. Let's say neighborhood flooding is not a problem there, so the water detention basin isn't required.

      The real zoning allows five houses, density bonus boosts that to 10. Inclusionary requires one of those 10 to be affordable. Five of those 10 are already the density bonus, but only one has to be affordable.

      So we have one density bonus affordable required and one inclusionary affordable required. Does one offsetting the other mean the net affordable requirement is one house?

      Delete
    7. Yes one offsets the other and you end up with one "affordable" house that the developer says will rent "somewhere north of $2,100 per month."

      Delete
    8. Low income for a four-person household in San Diego County is $68,000. If 30 percent is devoted to rent, that's $20,400, divided by 12 is $1,700, so the $2,100 is $400 above the affordable standard.

      Delete
    9. The Hymettus Estates project is an example of amazing math and the lie of the 35% bonus. Add in three stages of rounding up and 35% magically becomes 100%.

      Delete
  16. Manjeet and Mike are running scared. They are like the captain and the first officer of the Titanic. Who will hire them after this?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Oside, San Marcos, Hungtington Beach, or Vista

    ReplyDelete
  18. Yep, still allowing multiple votes. Useless and pointless.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry about that. We've tested on multiple computers and mobile devices in multiple locations and can't duplicate the problem at this point. Still working on it. Anything unusual about your configuration? Mobile device or PC or Mac?

      Delete
    2. We've swapped out the polling system for one that is well reviewed and widely used. Just had to pay a few bucks (the old one was free). Let us know if the issue with multiple votes persists.

      Delete
    3. I can confirm that the IP Address filter is working, but of course this doesn't make it scientific.

      It's very easy to change an IP address or vote from multiple devices. Even if authentication is used, there is self selection bias.

      There is no problem using a public opinion widget like this, as long as you clarify that it's not scientific (which you have).

      If you detect patterns in the data suggesting manipulation (e.g. Periods of a few hours with huge volume all voting for one side), then I would take it down, as you are becoming a party to the manipulation. If the poll is being used to cause some voters to give up and stay home, then it's doing more harm than good.

      Watch carefully, as someone already bragged about their vote count.

      Delete
    4. 8:29 - Absolutely agree with everything you said. In fact, we thought long and hard before leaning into a "polling widget" at all. A lot of people in the "real" polling business feel that these little online polls could do more harm than good. These polls do have a self selection bias and can be gamed to some extent even with good tech to block multiple votes. For example, if you are part of a grass roots group that cares deeply about an issue, you can call your extended family and all your friends to vote in the poll - while other people (who are potentially in the large majority in terms of point of view) aren't interested enough or engaged enough to participate themselves much less try to game the poll.

      Also, the results are not statistically significant - the final percentages are not an indication of how Encinitas will vote. The results are actually more of a heat indicator... almost like the visual presentation of the sentiment in the comment threads on an issue. We will do our best to educate people on how to read the data.

      FWIW, we landed on the side of trying the polling thing in spite of the issues. There are definitely problems... but the polls spark discussion, encourage people to think about their positions on issues they may not have considered, and potentially drive them to become better informed. We feel there are strong benefits in terms of engagement with important local issues that people otherwise are blissfully unaware of and will probably never interact with until they're confronted on election day with a confusingly worded measure or a bunch of names for local office that they know absolutely nothing about. We think it's worth the risk in order to see if we can get more people thinking about the issues and participating.

      We would also argue that there are some nuggets of real information in the poll results. For example, it's interesting in this Measure T poll how many people are actually voting "YES" when the plan doesn't have a natural base of support. Measure T is confusing and is known by three different labels ("Encinitas At Home", "Housing Element Update", and "Measure T"). It's not on the face of it an appealing idea. And yet there's discussion, debate, and even some support for the plan.

      Anyway, you've hit a vein with your thoughts. We will indeed watch carefully for manipulation. And if we start getting the feeling that we're discouraging voters rather than energizing them, we'll stop.

      Delete
    5. EF, what do you mean that Measure T has no base of support? What about the City Council, Planning Dept., and the BIA. It's comments like that that make people suspicious of your motives.

      Delete
    6. What EF means is: "I'm a city and developer shill throwing up a website in a pathetic attempt to influence readers to think there's support where virtually none exists, outside developers and their friends at City Hall."

      That's what EF means.

      Delete
  19. First, your poll is misleading because the housing element update consists of many developer friendly (read that as increasing profits) changes to the General Plan Land Use Element, Noise Element, municipal code zoning, design review among others.
    Your question should be - Do you oppose or support the many changes to our General Plan (our constitution), our municipal code, design review (taller buildings and eliminating our commercial only zones to become commercial/residential or residential only instead? These are only a few of the changes if you support Measure T.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Have any of the folks at Encinitas Forward read through all 230 pages of the documents we will be voting on? Did they attend all the outreach meetings, the workshops, the Planning Commission meetings, and City Council meetings? It doesn't sound like it.

      The ballot documents should be called an omnibus bill. They read like a wish list for the Planning Department only indirectly related to the creation of affordable housing. For example,the method of measuring building height is changed from measuring from the lowest of natural or finished grade to measuring from an average grade at the center of the parcel. And this is after maximum building height is pushed up to as much as 48 feet from the now maximum 30 feet. The changes are certainly developer friendly and very unfriendly to adjacent property owners.

      Delete
  20. 8:17 sure sounds Lisa Shafferesque, written in bureacratese. It would be just like her to try to preserve her legacy, already in shambles.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Encinitas Forward is a STOOGE publication for COE.
    All politicians are crooks, not all crooks are criminals.

    ReplyDelete
  22. If EF reads as tilted toward supporting Measure T, it could be because it necessarily draws on the 230 pages of city documents that heavily support the measure.

    Even a site that aims for neutrality would seem tilted if its source material is warped.

    On the other hand, a critical analysis would tilt against Measure T.

    EF isn't a city or council member site. A non-government citizen who is a Cardiff resident owns the URL. That's not a guess. Deep sleuthing revealed the owner's ID.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let me guess: JT backed by Paul Gaspar? He and the wifey just love promoting fake websites, then trying to hide. They just don't do it very well.

      Delete
    2. Wrong guess. Neither is smart or sophisticated enough to produce the EF site.

      Delete
    3. Funny, most people I know would not characterize them as "smart or sophisticated."

      Delete
    4. 11:14 AM -- Well, let's have the name of the owner of the URL. This would be good for transparency. Just saying.

      Delete
    5. Right, neither JT nor Paul Gaspar is smart or sophisticated enough to produce the EF blog.

      Delete
    6. OK, 3:01, when you post your name, address and phone number on this blog and 11:28 verifies that information, he/she will tell you who owns the EF URL.

      Delete
  23. The poll on Encinitas Forward works similar to Peak Democracy so I'm sure everyone here will discount the results as being unreliable. Unless of course, the results support their position, which for most of the people here means no on the HEU (Measure T). Why be consistent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not true. As a NO ON T person I would take no interest in manipulated results. That would be dumb.

      Just as with Peak Democracy, this is yet another "outreach" effort and opportunity squandered.

      Delete
    2. There is a big difference between Peak Democracy and all of the other polling projects and the Encinitas Forward site. Council and staff spent over $4 million dollars on invalid studies then made them even LESS valid by cherry picking results, blending answers, and changing citizens' answers to support initiatives to benefit Encinitas City staff. The city has access to OUR money, has a staff of over 200 full-time workers, has the COUNCIL snowed, and hires even more so-called consultants when they can't do their jobs. They hire professional people, yet a group of volunteers who are using their own time and limited funds to try to inform citizens of matters that will affect us all are being compared. This is wrong! Most city advocates have made no money on their efforts but do what they do to help voters make informed choices.

      Delete
  24. ..."a group of volunteers", eh? Who are you? I want names.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 2:08 sounds like Marco Gonzalez in his usual attempt to curtail 1st Amendment Rights. He likes to threaten to sue people who don't agree with him while saying whatever he wants.

      Delete
  25. Prediction: If this is a City-led effort, Encinitas staff--most of whom do not even live in Encinitas and who benefit from the passage of Measure T, will get on and vote in favor--even though they can't vote in the election!!

    That is what happened during the General Plan Update when MIG subcontractor Matt Raimi was hire to do the Health Element. Encinitas staff members were encouraged to take part in surveys--even though most of them don't live in this city.

    The Health Element along with the General Plan were all thrown out, and though we paid Raimi and Associates over $1 million, Raimi praised Diane to the sky and Diane Langager wrote the following letter of endorsement!!

    "Raimi and Associates helped the City of Encinitas develop a standalone Public Health Element in support of the Comprehensive General Plan Update. R+A has extensive experience in preparing public health elements and related studies. R+A's common-sense approach to planning and knowledge of health considerations in the built environment were both instrumental to the overall planning and public participation process. Additionally, R+A's professionalism and positive attitude helped us complete the outreach and the preparation of the draft Public Health Element in four months; this allowed us to integrate the work effort seamlessly into the overall Comprehensive General Plan Update. We highly recommend R+A and are confident that their consulting team will be an asset to any City or County’s work project."

    Diane S. Langager
    Principal Planner, City of Encinitas

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. High praise for a project that was thrown out and cost a lot of money.

      The biggest problem with opt-in surveys is that we don't know who is actually voting in them! No wonder Diane Langager is so complimentary of someone who she could pay using our money to do her job while she continues to collect a salary of $120,000 per year! This is the model for the entire Planning Department and other city departments as well! If you want to see this abuse continue and you vote yes on Measure T, this is where the money will go. Vote NO!

      Delete
    2. City government is a sham and just a vehicle for slouches like Muir to bleed the coffers dry. Pension liabilities - $40 million and rising....

      Delete
  26. Please fellow citizens, lets demand the non debate proceed without Kristin. Dave has proved his worth over and over and we and he deserve the opportunity to have An Evening With Dave.

    LTC, please go ahead with your original scheduling for this public forum.

    Just because our mayors handlers know better than to subject their puppet to up front scrutiny, is no reason to cancel this evening. Just rename it from a debate to An Evening With Dave. we will pack the room.

    This will give the trolls an opportunity to try to tank their opponent but his record speaks volumes and hers ? well, no wonder she chickened out.

    LTC, please carry on for our community and hold this evening as scheduled. We deserve it. dave deserves it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gaspar's trite rocks and sand analogies crumble under the scrutiny of facts and experience. She is a poser, trying to stand in lieu of real representation. Vote Roberts - the community cannot withstand the ineptitude of Gaspar.

      Delete
    2. Why won't she debate?

      Delete
    3. She wont debate because of your hate!

      Delete
    4. So she'll only debate if we clap loud enough? Is she running for Supervisor or Tinkerbell?

      Delete
  27. This website might have been prepared by anyone. We have some citizens who could do this in their spare time since they know how, but the City or others could hire it out if they have enough money. Don't trust the results. This is going to be a big job to inform citizens not to give away their rights.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What is most pathetic in this day and age is the perception that voters just want to be a part of a "winner" so all this bullshit is aimed at those idiots who will vote for the percieved "winner". Kinda reminds me of a time when half the ball caps I saw in San Diego were Atlanta Braves hats. Look at the media, in general, trying desperately, to make this pres. race look close.......for their own benefit.

      Delete
    2. Yes, EF could be done by anyone, but it's owned by a man who lives in Cardiff and probably works on it with his wife. They're private citizens and our neighbors.

      Delete
    3. 3:31, you are fishing.

      The ICANN WhoIs lookup shows this opened under DBP, or Domains by Proxy. DBP is created for the sole purpose of masking the identity of domain registration. The only way you find out the name of a DBP domain owner is if DBP cancels the account for violations of their user agreement, or by order of a court. If DBP canceled their service, then the name would show up in WhoIs.

      Unless the owner talked to you about it, you don't know. If they did talk to you about it, then that's hardly "deep sleuthing."

      Delete
    4. When the EF guy launched the blog, he neglected to activate the ID masking. A short time later, he discovered the masking and activated it. 3:31 found the domain owner's name before he hid it. That's deep sleuthing.

      Delete
    5. Maybe, but I doubt it.

      DBP is owned by the founder of Godaddy.com, and the two services are integrated. If you've ever registered a domain through Godaddy, you know they make it super easy and obvious as part of the registration process. It's not a feature you turn on after the fact.

      Delete
    6. Well, you can doubt it all you want, but what 5:33 posted is exactly what happened.

      The EF site owner wants to be anonymous, snd 5:33 is OK with that.

      The reason 5:33 referred to the owner was to assure people that EF is not a city site or anything of the kind.

      Delete
    7. 9:11, fair enough.

      Delete
  28. Ok, I'll bite. All I have to do is post on Encinitas Undercover my full name, address, phone #, and W.C., you will reveal the name of who is operating this site to everyone right here on EU? Do I have this right?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The EF and EU owners want to remain anonymous. That's understandable and should be respected.

      Very few people who comment here reveal their names. That's OK.

      Delete
  29. https://www.thecoastnews.com/2016/08/26/hoping-the-bar-is-set-higher-in-race-for-supervisor/#comment-409332

    ReplyDelete
  30. 5:41- Obviously EU wants to remain anonymous. There is no W.c Varones, and I have checked every available source I can think of. However, EU, ie:WcVarone, also said if anyone on this blog that posts anonymously would put their own name, address and phone on this blog, he or she would reveal the name of who is supporting this new group. So, which is it Wc?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You read the offer wrong, 5:41. Try again.

      Delete
  31. Here is the offer. Where am I wrong?
    OK, 3:01, when you post your name, address and phone number on this blog and 11:28 verifies that information, he/she will tell you who owns the EF URL.

    ReplyDelete
  32. EU and W.C. Varones have nothing to do with it.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Cracking the anonymous blog code is called Operation EF-EU.

    ��

    ReplyDelete
  34. Does anyone know what's up with Kristin Gaspar's website logo? Looks like she has already announced herself Supervisor. It's on all of her pages in the left, top corner.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Supervisor of what?

      Delete
    2. I'm assuming the same position as Dave Roberts, Supervisor. His website says the same thing but has a line underneath the Supervisor title that says third district.

      Delete
  35. While we're talking about fancy websites, look at Kristin's campaign website - its shiny and pretty and oh so slick. How bout that gallery of professionally posed pix?! Big $ there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 9:06pm - I noticed her logo on that website says Kristin Gaspar Supervisor. I thought her website was done by a pretty sophisticated firm - Revolvis. So unless they are trying to assume the Supervisor position without the vote, that's really audacious.
      On the other point, you're right. Plenty of money being spent here. When I googled them I saw that they managed Marco Rubio's 2016 campaign. Wow.

      Delete
    2. I just went through and looked at Gaspar's contributors. I didn't get through the whole list, but what I have so far is about 130 individual contributions from anyone involved in the building industry.

      Out of the 130, many contributed not once, but two and three times during different reporting periods.

      I don't see how she can refute that she is not heavily backed by the developers.


      Delete
    3. She is also endorsed by Mark Muir and Jerome $tocks$.

      She announced that she will be voting for Donald Trump because his values align with hers. OMG! OMG! OMG!

      Delete
    4. Her votes don't allow her to refute that she's not heavily backed by the developers.

      Delete
    5. 10:13 She and her husband have stated that she is not backed by developers. I would take that as another one of their lies. The contributor's list doesn't lie, but they are hoping no one will bother to check it.

      Delete
    6. What you trolls call 'developers' are in most cases people who own property or as they are correctly referred to as 'property-owners': 90% of the conflict in this town is over those who do not own property trying to control residents that DO own property. The residents have more to fear from Barthspear, Shaffer and Kranz, their own council majority as far as 'destroying' our hometown, with the by-right change that allows 2 commercial bee hives within 14 feet of you at home, the current comparison to all the other coastal towns in the County that contract with the County Sheriff's office for protection; Encinitas comes in last in per capita investment in public safety; the recently approved Complete Streets plan that is designed to consciously create traffic jams morning, noon and night AND the just-short-of-a-million local tax dollars misspent on fighting State Housing Laws; not to mention Shaffer, Kranz and Blakespear approving a 30 year 33 million dollar expenditure of a 1.7 acre toxic school site valued at $2.8 million dollars; nearly a million dollars every summer paid to bond holders that could be dedicated to so many worthy uses. Lest we forget the public's complete lack of trust and respect for Blakespear and Kranz now that they've created a faux Working Group to locate the Rail Trail back up on San Elijo. Oh, and thanks to Dennis Lees for not disappointing with his letter to the Coast News; the onset of dementia almost rivals that of Publisher Jim Kydd.

      So, students, property-owners is a correct description, 'developers' is incorrect.

      Delete
    7. Stop! Stop! Stop! Stop with this constant blatant misrepresentation of the situation with Pacific View. That property is worth between $18MM and $21MM right now and the city got it for $10MM. This bull**** about the low appraisal is ridiculous. The city got multiple appraisals and the one these trolls cite was the lowest and also assumed no change in zoning (which is in the power of the city to change). So stop it.

      Delete
    8. Yeah, 7:32 is just blatantly making stuff up. Commercial bee hives 14 ft from my home? Please tell us exactly where we can find that in the new ag ordinance. I looked it up already this morning, so good luck.

      7:32 is just a brainless Trumpbot who has learned this election cycle to just be loud and make crap up.

      Prove me wrong. Show us where you got 14 ft as the distance for bee hives under the new ordinance.

      Delete
    9. If you own property because you develop real estate for a living, and you intend to develop the property you own, and you have no plans to ever live on the Encinitas property you own, then I think the term "developer" is accurate and fair.

      Delete
    10. 7:32 is a right wing reactionary nutcase. Like his twisted compatriots, he can't argue the facts because they don't support his views. So he has to make shit up.

      Delete
    11. 8:02 What the PV property is worth now is irrelevant. What matters is how much it was worth when the city bought it.

      The city got two appraisals that differed by about $4 million. $5 million is the approx average of the two.

      Baird valued the property at $9.5 million, but that was based on its being rezoned to R-15, which would be on the buyer to get. It's seriously doubtful that Baird got any bids because there was too much risk.

      The city got bluffed into paying $10 million. By the time the bonds are paid, the site will have cost $20 to $25 million.

      A court would have made the rezoning decision, not the city.

      Delete
    12. Sorry, but, once again. . .

      EUSD asked for bids both as is and, alternately with a guaranteed rezoning to 15 units per acre before the close of escrow on the property. If the rezoning under state education code failed, escrow doesn't close, the property doesn't transfer, and the buyer walks away with the bid money, minus a small deposit.

      Here's the exact language in the bid instructions, with a link to the source material. You are looking for section (1)(G)(2):

      "The bidder may submit a bid price conditioned upon the potential re-zoning of the property to residential (DR-15) within an escrow period of up to thirty- six months with bidder required to close escrow within a period of sixty (60) days after re-zoning to DR-15 is actually finalized."

      With EUSD selling the property as R15, the value was at least $9.5M. Since the auction was aborted, we cannot know if there were compliant bidders, but it's likely there were.

      http://ww2.eusd.net/Pacific%20View%20History/ENCINITAS%20UNION%20SD_%20Draft%20Instruction%20to%20Bidders%20for%20Sale%20of%20Surplus%20Property%20With%20Revision.pdf

      Delete
    13. 6:02 Nobody has to call bullshit on you because the text itself does:

      "(2) Re-Zoning Purchase. The bidder may submit a bid price conditioned upon the potential re-zoning of the property to residential (DR-15) within an escrow period of up to thirty- six months with bidder required to close escrow within a period of sixty (60) days after re-zoning to DR-15 is actually finalized. The District further has the unilateral option to extend the escrow period for an additional period of time if necessary to complete the rezoning. Any bidder submitting a bid price on this option shall also be required to make a payment to the District of a non-refundable deposit/option payment of $200,000, upon execution of the purchase agreement. The District agrees that it is committed to making every effort in the rezoning process."

      There were no bids.

      Delete
    14. Also, there would have to be a PUBLIC VOTE to rezone from public/semi-public to residential. The Naylor Act was intentionally disregarded. That property is NOT worth $18 Million today, as public/semi public. Also, it's NOT a toxic site.

      Delete
    15. 11:33, you are making my point.

      EUSD guaranteed the rezoning. Any bids under this rule were "conditioned" on rezoning. Very little risk for the buyer. Just a 2% deposit. A downside risk on any investment that's capped at 2% is a beautiful thing.

      The Naylor Act has nothing to do with whether there were bids or not. The prop A vote is your opinion. Obviously EUSD had legal advice that gave them enough confidence to offer the guarantee.

      If your brain can't fathom that anyone would bid on a R15 property a block from the beach with risk of loss capped at 2%, be my guest. But I should also let you know that the Easter Bunny and Santa aren't real.

      Delete
    16. Quick follow up for anyone interested. Here's a scenario that demonstrates what the guarantee was all about:

      Hypothetically, let's say the market value of the PV property was $5M zoned as public/semi public, and worth $10M with R15 zoning (the value was likely higher, but $10M makes the math easier).

      Now let's imagine an auction of the property without rezoning as a condition of sale. Let's change the rules. EUSD agrees to make a "good faith effort" to help the buyer rezone the property, but they do not guarantee the result of that effort.

      Under these circumstances, if a buyer bids $10M and the rezoning fails, then they paid $10M for a property that is suddenly worth $5M. In that case, they take a loss on the deal of $5M. Alternately, if they offer $5M for the parcel and the rezoning is a success, they instantly make $5M. But the real auction value is likely to be somewhere between these two extremes. At a bid price of $6M, a buyer would be risking a $1M loss for a chance to gain $4M.

      Obviously, the auction bid price a buyer is willing to pay in the range must be based on the likelihood of rezoning success. As the probability of rezoning success approaches zero, the acceptable bid price moves to the low end of the range; as the probability nears 100%, the bid price moves to the high end of the range.

      In this hypothetical, it's up to each bidder to estimate the risk and reward independently and decide the right balance. A highly conservative bidder can minimize exposure to risk, but their bid price will be lower than other bidders willing to assume more risk, so bidders must take on risk if they want to win.

      In this scenario, EUSD has no risk associated with the rezoning. Whether the rezoning succeeds or fails, they get paid the winning bid price.

      This scenario puts all of the risk on the auction bidders, and none on EUSD.

      In reality, the auction DID offer rezoning as a condition of sale. What this does is shift all of the rezoning risk from the buyers on to EUSD.

      If a bidder bids north of $10M, but the rezoning fails, then EUSD's potential sale proceeds immediately drop from the bid price to the market value at public/semi-public: $5M. If the rezoning fails, the buyer loses almost nothing (~2% deposit), and EUSD loses a lot (somewhere north of $5M).

      So why would a seller ever agree to shift risk from the buyers to themselves? Three reasons: (1) drive higher bid prices. With rezoning risk off the table, buyers must bid the full market value at R15. (2) the seller is very confident that state law supports their rezoning effort, and the actual risk of rezoning failure is very low, or (3) the seller is really dumb and doesn't understand the risk shift. You can call Tim Baird a lot of things, but he's not dumb.

      Sorry for the long post, but I thought it might help some folks understand why the guaranteed rezoning made it much more likely that there were indeed bids north of $10M.

      Delete
    17. Final thought:

      A bidder also would not be concerned that EUSD is just out to pocket their deposit. Under the terms of the deal, EUSD is obligated to make a good faith effort to affect rezoning. The legal bill for that effort would be far more than the $200K deposit. If the rezoning fails, EUSD does not realize any net gain from keeping the deposit.

      The low amount of the deposit assures buyers that the sellers' interests are aligned with the buyers' as both parties lose money if the rezoning effort fails.

      Delete
    18. EUSD did not guarantee the upzone. They said they would try.

      A public records request revealed there were no bids. The response from EUSD was quoted on this blog.

      Nobody was dumb enough to hang up ~$9.5 million in escrow for 3+ years and sacrifice $200K in the process.

      The purpose of the auction was to bluff the city into overpaying for the property. It worked.

      Delete
    19. That's not right.

      "Conditioned upon the potential rezoning" is an explicit guarantee. It's a condition of sale. If the rezoning doesn't happen, you get your money back.

      You misread EUSD's response. Their response was that any bid packages received were offered back to their respective owners when the auction was aborted. Any packages not returned were destroyed. They could not ethically keep or open the packages, or even disclose the number received. Go back and read for yourself.

      Delete
    20. Nobody with ~$9.5 is going to put it in storage for three+ years on the big maybe that the upzone of a P/SP property will happen. They're going to use that money to make more.

      That's why there were no bids.

      EUSD's reply to the records request was evasively worded so they wouldn't have to admit there were no bids.

      Delete
    21. Only earnest money (deposit) is needed to open escrow. You don't have to fully fund the escrow account until a day or two before closing.

      The buyer can use their assets how ever they wish during a protracted escrow.

      Delete
    22. 3:22 That contradicts the purpose of escrow. It's insurance that the buyer has the money and is committed to the purchase. If escrow required only a deposit, I, for example, could make the deposit, hang Baird up for three years and then bail.

      "Escrow accounts are used in real estate transactions so that the buyer can perform due diligence on his potential acquisition while assuring the seller of its capacity to close on the purchase. For example, an escrow account can be used in the sale of a house. If there are conditions to the sale, such as the passing of an inspection, the buyer and seller may agree to use escrow. In this case, the buyer of the property deposits the payment amount for the house in an escrow account held by a third party. This assures the seller – in the process of allowing the house to be inspected – that the buyer is capable of making payment. Once all of the conditions to the sale are satisfied, the escrow transfers the payment to the seller, and title is transferred to the buyer."

      "Escrow account: a special financial account for the temporary deposit of funds before they are paid out (or returned) at the conclusion of, for example, an insurance or will settlement or a merger deal. For example, as part of the terms of the sale of Diageo's (UK) USA food division to General Mills (USA) in 2000, Diageo transferred $642 million into an escrow account. This money will be paid out in full to GM if that company's share price ($38 at the time of the sale) is at or above $42.55c on the first anniversary of the deal. In the event, however, of GM's share price falling below $38 the money will be returned to Diageo."

      Collins Dictionary of Business, 3rd ed. © 2002, 2005 C Pass, B Lowes, A Pendleton, L Chadwick, D O’Reilly and M Afferson

      Delete
    23. Partly correct.

      The key phrase is "Once all of the conditions to the sale are satisfied. . ."

      In the case of PV, both sides would have obligations to meet certain criteria before the sale can close. The buyer has an obligation to remove financing contingency (if any) and wire the full purchase price into the escrow account. EUSD would have an obligation to complete the rezoning of the property. However, there is no requirement that one side fulfill their side of the deal years in advance of the other side. They are equals in the deal.

      Both must fulfill their escrow obligations before the deal can close. End of story.

      Delete
    24. 6:28's style is to evade the facts. Start at the top of the string and count how many facts 6:28 has evaded.

      The bottom line is the prospective buyer has to deposit the whole accepted bid amount in the escrow account. That's the definition of escrow. No prospective buyer did that. There were no bids because there was far too much risk — little chance that parking ~$9.5 million for three+ years would pay off.

      The city got suckered into paying $10 million for a property worth about half that much. Its price will have at least doubled by the time the bonds are paid off.

      Delete
    25. So, after each point of your argument has been taken apart, ignore all of that and simply go back and restate it.

      Look, I understand that you have an emotional attachment to a specific story angle that requires you to believe certain things. But that doesn't make those things true.

      If you are so certain of your argument, then why did you change it?

      First you said a "public records request revealed there were no bids." When that fib was exposed, you changed it to: the statement was "evasively worded." Well, either it said there were no bids, or it was unclear--can't be both, so which is it?

      You are welcome to believe what you want, but any rational mind that follows this dialog will recognize your willful blindness.

      Delete
    26. Taken apart 8:27? Your style is to evade the points, which you have skillfully done while asserting your own falsehoods.

      Delete
    27. Good dialogue, Simplicio.

      --Salviati.

      Delete
    28. Who but Baird would mount such a deceptive defense of his own scam?

      Delete
  36. Jerome $tock$ is the Voldemort of Encinitas. He Who Cannot Be Named. He Who Must Not Be Named. You Know Who. Ssssss. $sssss. He must be one bad dude.

    ReplyDelete
  37. No. $tock$ is just a corrupt developer's tool with no sense of integrity. It was a great day for Encinitas when he got creamed in the Elections!

    Haaaa!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jerome and Mikey : EF you.

      Delete
    2. It was the 2012 trifecta:

      Stocks ran in Encinitas.

      Danon, who was Bilbray's chief of staff, ran for county supervisor.

      Stocks was Danon's campaign manager.

      Bilbray ran for Congress.

      Stocks, Danon and Bilbray lost.

      Delete
  38. jeromoron and a$$ream, a match made for each other. Both of the GASpars are tools to be played and willingly so. The lack of depth in any of them would not be believable, if it wasn't so laughable and I don't mean funny in the slightest.

    Neither of these pliable tools will debate their opponents, as their handlers know better than to expose their weakness's to an observing public.

    Such a waste of effective activism by a handful of residents who could have easily chosen to join with this community and instead have sold out their community and for what? They got the trail back to where it always belonged and we are all thankful for that.

    Their appreciation has been shown to be non-existent. These handful of liars are still claiming the trail will be moved back onto San Elijo. NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN. If they are using this lie as a vote getter, this will came to haunt everyone of them.

    Try the truth. It is always easier and makes you feel good too. Then again, considering who manages both of these campaigns and their PACS, we can expect nothing else. What a waste of what could have been. Lie down with dogs and don't wonder why you are flea infested. We don't wonder one bit. We know and have known for too many years. You have to have known too and went ahead and disgraced the fine work you brought to an effective conclusion. What a waste.

    ReplyDelete
  39. 12.14 PM, the rest of the posters have taken up a collection to buy you enough gas to drive yourself into your Mom's Garage, borrow her hose and putting on end into the exhaust pipe, carry the other end into the driver's side window and turn on the ignition. Sweet dreams and the only waste in this town is you, wasted on hate and the regret that you never lived up to any promise. Mother never let you know how disappointed she was in you... such a low life...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ^^ Thunderhole.

      You can tell because she purports to speak for others without their consent. Also, there's only one hothead in the Off The Rails junta who reliably overreacts when poked gently with a stick.

      You can take the girl out of Barstow, but you can't take the Barstow out of the girl.

      Mr. Thunderhole must be a saint. Just sayin'.

      Delete
  40. WC- remove the posting at 1:59. They call for the death of an individual. You remove my posting because I call people idiots and a$$holes, but I've never called for the death of anyone...do your job faithfully. Make this blog censor free or censor the worst posters..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree, 1:59 crosses the line; that comment should be deleted.

      Delete
  41. Thanks 3:40pm, No worries. I will not be committing suicide and in a way, that post needs to remain up, so others can see where this once honorable group has chosen to descend to. That was mean and uncalled for, but when they signed on with who they have aligned themselves with, it is par for the course.

    They are really stooping to a new low for them, well, nothing really new with their puppet masters
    usual modus operandi. If I expressed any hate, I don't see it. Regret, yes. Betrayed, yes. Disappointed, of course and greatly so. What a waste. It didn't have to be so.

    This community is worth defending for and fighting for. Vote down Measure T, above all else. One of these years we might have candidates where this will be a priority. Prop A is worth every effort to save from the current iteration of the Up Yours Encinitas Hosing Plan, no matter what they choose to call it.

    I will continue to take every breath in support of this dream that we will not have three and more stories lining our downtown and the Leucadia corridor and the other sites. With the impacts on the traffic that is horrendous already and everyone of them is on board seems to make little difference to any of them.

    The one we can do to make our votes count is to defeat Measure T.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why is this Housing Element issue called "MEASURE T", and not "PROP T"?

      Delete
    2. 9:44,

      I could be wrong, but I think when the ballot item is initiated by a vote of elected officials, it's called a measure. When it's brought to the voters by virtue of a private sector signature drive, it's called a proposition.

      Delete
  42. 9:44pm. When the ballot comes, you will find a whole slew of county and local measures with their own Measure numbers and following letters.

    Our Measure T on the surface, will look similar to the the other thirty or however many ultimately end up on the county ballot and will not stand out initially on its own to the voters.

    For those around here who have been paying attention, it won't fool us for a second, no matter what they call it. It is an Up Yours Encinitas plan. For others, the city is hoping the voters scroll on down and go for whatever is there. The city is counting on the uninformed masses to follow the pied piper over the cliff.

    Don't buy into it. Vote No in NOvember on Measure T.

    Engage Encinitas has announced the schedule of 'forums' this fall. This is rich. Look who is involved. Former council members who tried to defeat Prop A, real estate pushers, and some builders who need to get a different architect or go build their Soviet Chic designs somewhere, anywhere else, but here.

    Measure T on the ballot will not be drawing particular attention to itself for those who may not know better about the concerted effort to urbanize our city, by hook and crook.

    No on Measure T is the one thing every voter can do to preserve what we all love about living here. The change that this plan will make, if approved, to our community, zoning and quality of life, should be unacceptable to every voter, unless they have vested interests in making profits at the expense of the rest of our quality of living. Don't buy in to any of it.

    No on Measure T in November.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 9:05 AM

      "The city is counting on the uninformed masses to follow the pied piper over the cliff."

      Good thing you're not arrogant.

      Delete
    2. Oh, but the City is. Why do you think they renamed the "Housing Element Update" the folksy "At Home in Encinitas?"

      No one's going to feel at home if this turd passes.

      Delete
  43. No in November on Measure T .

    Measure T stand for --

    Too tall buildings
    Too much traffic
    Too crowded beaches
    Too many new water users .

    To much like Huntington Beach

    Vote no on Measure T. Spread the word .

    ReplyDelete
  44. Happy to report me and all my neighbors are voting no on T.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Words that start with T:

    Trump
    Titanic
    Tragedy

    ReplyDelete
  46. Measure T = Developer's latest voodoo pin in their Prop A doll.

    ReplyDelete