Wednesday, September 21, 2016

Lisa Shaffer: if everyone who lives in Encinitas would just work in Encinitas, then high-density Measure T wouldn't create any traffic nightmares

Lisa Shaffer's newsletter:
If people can live in Encinitas near to where they work, especially for bigger employers like Scripps Hospital, that can reduce traffic. Most of the people who work in Encinitas do not live here because housing is not accessible. Commuters create a bigger traffic impact than if they could live nearby and walk or bike a few blocks to their jobs.
Remind us again what the population of Encinitas is and how many people work at Scripps Encinitas and where the massive Encinitas business parks are?

212 comments:

  1. Shaffer is losing her mind. Maybe the Scripps employees can live in the parking structures or in the freeway landscapes, like the homeless do. And she was an instructor? She should take the vow of silence and quit showing her lack of common sense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. White-collar jobs are few and far between in Encinitas. Commuting cannot be avoided. Does Shaffer imagine the person working downstairs at the nail salon can afford the rent up above? No way.

      Delete
  2. Here's the complete paragraph:

    "You may see flyers urging you to vote no. Unfortunately, the nay-sayers have no alternative solutions. They make assumptions and project the most extreme scenarios, to scare you into voting no. Their scenarios are not realistic, according to experts who actually understand real estate economics and state laws. The nay-sayers talk about traffic impacts, but neglect to tell you that mixed use with commercial and residential units generates less traffic than an all-commercial development. If people can live in Encinitas near to where they work, especially for bigger employers like Scripps Hospital, that can reduce traffic. Most of the people who work in Encinitas do not live here because housing is not accessible. Commuters create a bigger traffic impact than if they could live nearby and walk or bike a few blocks to their jobs. The nay-sayers don't explain how Encinitas taxpayers can avoid additional and larger legal bills from continued lawsuits and court-ordered settlements. There is no denying that our current housing plan does not comply with state requirements. We have only to look to Pleasanton, CA, to see the impact of non-compliance. In Pleasanton, a court took away the city's authority to issue building permits until they approved a housing plan that met state law."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My god the woman has no concept of logic at all. If she wrote that she should be fired and go back to school. Everytime one of them open their lying mouth, No on T grows stronger.

      Delete
    2. Great! Let's be like Pleasanton and stop building for awhile. Rethink the stupid spending and ugly building approval at city hall. This council has allowed the most dense, impactful misplaced development ever in Encinitas in a very short stretch of time. Enough!

      Delete
  3. Good God - please take away the authority to build from these build anything, raze and crowd clowns..that would be wonderful.

    ReplyDelete
  4. She is also telling the voters that there are only 13 sites that will be upzoned. No, Shaffer, you are wrong.
    For this one map it is 195 sites that will be upzoned.
    Shaffer can't be that stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Good God - please take away the authority to build from these build anything, raze and crowd clowns..that would be wonderful.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Blakespear and Shaffer wrote the argument for Measure T and against No on T! I will not vote for Blakespear - she has betrayed everyone who is against T. I learned my lesson last election when Kranz and Shaffer betrayed the Prop A group. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So you will vote for Gaspar who gets election funding from owners of the largest sites being up-zoned in Measure T. The mailer PACs are not transparent, but it's clear what they are doing already. They are not stupid, they fund him so that they can build the maximum T allows, without respecting the design guidelines. If T fails, they want to make sure their lots are included in in any future re-zoning. Drive around, you will see large lots not in T with Gaspar signs. They want to be included in any up-zoning should T fail.

      Delete
    2. Well said, 8:03.

      Delete
    3. No, 8:03, don't tell people to drive around. To be up to date with city policy, people must bike or walk around. Surely, city staff and council members never drive around. As models to follow, they only bike and walk. That explains Brust's car allowance. It's only $500 per month, and she lives way out in Olivenhain. If she didn't bike and walk so much, her car allowance would be much more.

      Delete
  7. It's 15 sites. Each site is composed of a specific number of parcels. Has somebody counted the number of parcels at each site and added them up?

    Shaffer is in fantasyland with all the other academics and bureaucrats who have no real world experience. They can't see reality because they've never worked in it. Their thinking is theoretical, not practical. When their theories don't work in practice, all they know to do is dig deeper into the theories.

    ReplyDelete
  8. 11:25 PM
    No, it is 195 separate sites or parcels. Yes, planning has the address and APN of each one of the 195 sites. But what a clever way of hiding the number of sites to be rezoned.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 12:09 You're mixing up sites and parcels. There are 15 AHE sites. Each site has a specific and different number of parcels in it. Each parcel is individually owned. Some owners own more than one parcel per site.

      Look at the map on page 54 here:

      http://www.athomeinencinitas.info/wp-content/uploads/BALLOT-MEASURE-PACKAGE-2016-77-Part-A-Pages-1-76-compressed.pdf

      Delete
    2. 12:19 AM -- Stop playing with words. It makes you sound like a city propagandist. Check your dictionary. There's no significant difference between the two words unless it is specified in the context. Shaffer didn't do that. If she had taken the time to do it, it would have undercut her deception. It's the old bureaucratic trick of trying to fool the public that something is different when it really isn't. It's all about making the 195 number sound so much better by claiming it's only 15. Shades of the Rutan and Tucker report on Prop. A that made Shaffer look like a fool. She relied on the "experts" and was wrong. She's doing it again.

      There's a tone of desperation and hysteria in what she wrote. She's realized that she was outsmarted and outwritten by the opponents to Measure T. Shaffer has never taken well to criticism.

      Delete
    3. So it's only 15 sites as long as you consider the entire 101 corridor from Swami's to La Costa as two "sites."

      Gee, that's not at all intentionally deceptive and misleading.

      Delete
    4. I think both are deceptive, and choosing between the 2 is a false choice. The Waves to Ride analysis made it very clear that nothing happens on a parcel level. In order to have a successful re-zone, a combination of parcels need to be aggregated together in order to have the physical area to build the project. This is a nuance that many are very happy to ignore in advocating for their position. I don't think this would sway opinion in any way, but it does take the bite out of the argument that Encinitas will turn into Huntington Beach overnight.

      - The Sculpin

      Delete
    5. Quoting from Part A of the city documents:

      "For some sites in the inventory to be viable for development, particularly for sites located on or near Coast Highway 101, the City will evaluate ways to encourage the consolidation of smaller parcels to facilitate well-designed, modern projects that provide housing options for households of all income levels. For sites that are a part of the inventory, as many types of subdivision actions will occur as administrative decisions as allowed under the Subdivision Map Act, subject to appeal as provided for by law. The City will periodically review development standards and incentives that would encourage mixed-use or infill developments on small parcels. The City will also meet with developers to discuss potential project sites and identify areas and properties with potential for redevelopment and provide information to interested developers."

      The city uses "sites" and "parcels" interchangeably to mean the same thing.

      It's clear from the quote that the city is using the state requirement to maximize urbanization while not requiring affordable housing. Any affordable housing that might result would come from density bonus or inclusionary.

      The unethical ethics professor is out to lunch in so many ways it would take a book to document them all.

      Blakespear is by no means the ideal choice for mayor, but she is light years better than Gaspar. Of the two choices, it's matter of which is less bad. Clearly, that's Blakespear. Paul Gaspar would be an even bigger disaster than his wife.

      Delete
    6. Sculpin,

      Can you clarify? Are parcel owners legally required to band together in large groups in order to be upzoned?

      Or are you referring to the language in 11:10's comment, where the city is just saying they don't think it would be economically viable for some lots?

      Because if the city is saying that nobody on smaller parcels would ever choose to build 3-story condos, that's absurd. Look next to Caldwell's antiques!

      Delete
    7. I think the point is that economic and physical feasibility of R30 projects declines as the footprint of the project gets smaller. In many cases, you can't design a viable R30 project on one or two contiguous small parcels. In those cases, a developer would have to convince a bunch of owners to sell to assemble a big enough footprint. In practical terms, the more parcels are needed, the more likely you'll have an owner who doesn't want to sell, or sees his property as a lottery ticket and prices it to the moon.

      It means that "sites" in the inventory that consist of fragmented small parcels are less likely to ever get redeveloped at R30.

      More players = more complexity = more hassle for potential developers.

      Delete
    8. Not Sculpin and just so nobody misunderstands what I'm saying here, I'm using "sites" to mean the 15 AHE sites and "parcels" to mean the individual properties that make up the sites.

      One of the surprising things that anybody who digs deeply into the AHE finds is that most of the parcels do not meet the square footage size the plan requires for high density development.

      That's why the city will "encourage the consolidation of smaller parcels." The trouble with that is a great number of the smaller parcels are owned by different entities. For development to proceed, owners of adjacent parcels within the sites would have to aggregate to meet the square footage size required.

      See the five latest entries at the Waves to Ride blog for a detailed explanation.

      http://wavestoride.blogspot.com/

      Delete
    9. 1:07 hit the nail on the head.

      Delete
    10. Really, 1:14? Because most of see the city's plan as creating anything BUT "more hassle for developers."

      Delete
    11. 1:18 Obviously, you haven't studied the plan and don't understand the on-the-ground realities.

      If you'd dig into the details, you'd find that 1:07 is right.

      Read 1:12 and follow the suggestion.

      Delete
    12. Waves to Ride is excellent, I know more than you think and have studied the plan ad nauseum.

      NO ON T.

      Delete
    13. My point exactly!!!! EU - 1:07 and 1:12 pretty much covered it. So if this thing passes tomorrow, there's still a ton of work to be done in putting together a deal between disparate property owners with differing needs and objectives. The city is the least of their problems, and can do nothing to help the process along. We're talking years. Waves to Ride did such an excellent job explaining this that I just assumed everyone was ignoring it. It didn't occur to me that no one understood it!!

      - The Sculpin

      Delete
    14. Ton of work??? Those parcel owners just hit the lotto, Sculp, but you can quote Shaffer like she has a clue, if you like.

      Those lucky few will be packing up, developers razing the 195 parcels, and the rest of us getting screwed faster than you can say "jack rabbit."

      Delete
    15. It sounds as if just about everybody who reads and comments here agrees that NO ON T is the way to vote.

      If some people don't understand what's down in the weeds of the plan, that's OK as long as they vote NO ON T.

      Delete
    16. 2:09 is one of the people who doesn't understand what's down in the weeds of the plan.

      Delete
    17. Really 2:09??!?? Why are you assuming everyone is greedy? What if one of those parcels is a family legacy property and not for sale at any price? What if it's a dream retirement parcel on which the owner will build their final home? Is your worldview such that all property owners are developers? Do you own property?

      - The Sculpin

      Delete
    18. It is current city policy that new development or major remodels include lot consolidation. Sometimes individual lots are aggregated by the assessor into one parcel. A parcel designation is under the control of the assessor. So if someone wants to develop over multiple parcels, it's the legal lots that will be consolidated with the assessor usually following along.

      Delete
    19. What if the parcels have different owners?

      Delete
    20. Sculp, I do own property. Neighbors down the street in what we thought was a tight-knit community of preservationists are suddenly ecstatic to find themselves on the map.

      Don't underestimate the reality of how quickly hitting the lotto changes a parcel owner's perspective.

      Delete
    21. 3:14 - OK - sorry to cast aspersions (anonymity will do that) - and I get that, and I'm sorry that your community is feeling the effects of this kind of "enthusiasm". But believe me it will be very short lived. It's one thing to have appreciated property - it's another to actually pull the trigger and leave ones home. It's entirely another thing should they decide to contribute their property to share in the overall development profits. That would mean they would have to move out of their current home, and then pony up cash for their share of the development. Basically, they would be taking on risk - huge risk! That's just not going to happen - especially if their only asset is their home. So next time you're having a beer/wine/toke with them, congratulate them on their luck and ask them if they've thought this thing through. They're answers will surprise/astonish you!

      - The Sculpin

      Delete
    22. 3:06 PM

      Since assessor parcels are created for tax assessment, if a development like a shopping center sits on various legal lots owned by different people then the assessor will have a parcel for each lot.

      Delete
    23. Sculpin seems to live in an alternate reality. When zoning changes many sell to reap the government handout awarded them. Look at Hymettus for proof of this inconvenient truth.

      Delete
    24. 4:11 What is the distinction you're making between lots and parcels?

      Each AHE site is composed of many parcels. The parcels vary in size and shape. Each parcel has an APN and a street address to match. Each parcel has an owner. Some owners own more than one parcel.

      The AHE APNs and street addresses are listed on the large pages the city mailed to every resident twice.

      Those pages show every parcel that was considered for upzoning. The SMUP the council chose contains only some of the parcels originally considered. So to know which parcels are proposed for AHE upzoning, you have to separate that group from the others.

      Delete
    25. Think about it, folks.

      If you own a small lot in one of the sites, and you really want to cash in, then you want to be the last one to sell to the developer. You want the developer to have already put money at risk by buying up properties all around you. Ideally, yours is in the middle of a potential development, and they can't do a project without it.

      Then and only then can you drive the highest price for your property, because you have the developer over a barrel, and they will be forced to pay up.

      Unfortunately, all the neighbors know this too, and no one will want to be the first to sell. Without a first seller, there is no project.

      If a developer tries to break the stalemate by paying the first seller a high price, everyone else will want the same or better.

      A very likely outcome of this is no deal at all, and no project.

      The only way it happens is if the sellers all collectively negotiate. But that's a big, hairy, complicated negotiation on how to set the total price, and distribute the proceeds to all sellers. If any one seller doesn't like the deal and backs out, then it's over.

      I know it doesn't fit the narrative that stokes the most fear, but it's reality.

      Delete
    26. 5:57 PM

      A lot is the legal description of the land owned. A parcel is for tax assessment. Normally, they describe the same piece of land but not always. Look at a recent housing project in Cardiff that went before the planning commission. There were several older single-family homes on individual parcels but each parcel consisted of more than one legal lot. The developer proposed demolishing the SF homes and replacing them with twin homes with each home on a separate lot. Since the zoning is by the legal lot, the developer could do that.

      Parcel and lot are often used interchangeably, even in the industry, but they are actually different.

      Delete
    27. The land that AHE proposes to upzone is all described by individual Assessor Parcel Numbers and corresponding street addresses, so I think that's what applies here.

      Delete
    28. 9:49 AM

      Parcel number is adequate in this situation but zoning density is estimated based on the legal lot size.

      Delete
    29. 11:48 Stop with the pointless semantics and hair splitting.

      The AHE zoning is 30 units per acre whether it's mixed use or all residential.

      Delete
  9. Thank you, Lisa for finally and simply revealing to working people just how clouded your thoughts are. OMG, this is what we are dealing with; just like Tasha's idea to take commercial properties away from private property owners and then give that property away to small businesses of her choice; the 2 largest employers in the city are the City and the school districts. Lisa, why don't you get this? Plus, Tizzy Catherine, Kranz and Tasha absolutely do not live in the world of the working family. In context, out of context, Lisa has finally proven what many of us suspected; she is an unvarnished idiot. And now these idiots are going to close streets and give every street a new bike lane and sharrow. God help us.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Why is a sitting council person telling us who and what to vote for? I know she isn't running again, but she is still a Council member. If I were Catherine, Tasha or Tony I would be pissed.

    ReplyDelete
  11. So many things wrong with this "newsletter," where to begin?

    There is no mechanism to "incentivize greater housing affordability," for starters. Our Planning Dept. refused to include any such requirement, so what is Shaffer imagining will happen here? Developers voluntarily forego profits??

    Increased traffic projections use the City's own calculations, so no idea how "naysayers" are "neglecting" to tell the real traffic impacts.

    No alternatives proposed? Concerned residents have been speaking before the Council for well over two years, offering alternatives and warning against including developer-friendly policy changes that the State doesn't require. All fell on deaf ears.

    Lawsuits? Pleasanton has been proven not to be comparable to our situation. "The State" (HCD) has said it will neither sue Encinitas, nor send in a judge. Developer suits have been settled by the City, not gone before a judge and won in court.

    These same developers are not suing other cities for identical land use code as Encinitas, so why our City rolls over for them is anyone's guess.

    As far as "work after November?" If passed, it'll be game over. Developers would then have the legal right to build everything they've been handed and residents will not have a prayer.

    When the draft plan came out last year with a clause that restored the Council's 4/5 supermajority on upzoning and reversed Prop A, the City showed its hand. Note that residents, not the Council, led the charge to have that sneaky clause removed. Shaffer herself made not a peep.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Right on 10:22!

      Amazing that they can just straight up lie and act like it is the truth just bduase they say it.

      The city settles everytime because the people suing are donating to the people approving the settlement. Its a scam and in the end some developers and city folk will see scratched into a wall "Cunningham was here".

      Delete
    2. 10:22 AM

      So you're saying, in effect, that the housing element EIR is wrong. If so, sue the city.

      Delete
    3. "There is no mechanism to 'incentivize greater housing affordability'. . ." Yes there is. Condos and apartments are more affordable than a angle family detached home of similar location, build quality, and square footage. I can prove it. Would you trade your home straight up for a condo in the same neighborhood?

      As for the 4/5 thing. You can do what you want, but I'm going to vote based on what's actually included in the final measure, not based early draft language that was removed.

      Delete
    4. 10:22 AM

      "Lawsuits? Pleasanton has been proven not to be comparable to our situation."

      Not really. Rarely are cases exactly alike but the fundamentals are the same. A local initiative housing cap prevented Pleasanton from meeting their RHNA allocation. Pleasonton had the ability to raise the housing cap by putting it to a vote but chose not to claiming that the cap was set by the local initiative. Encinitas doesn't have a cap number. Any required increase in density that will meet its RHNA numbers will have to be placed on a ballot. However, whether it's voters or the city council, they can't frustrate state statutes. Since Encinitas has been out of compliance for so long, I doubt a judge will let the city start over.

      Delete
    5. 7:12 Density does not equal affordability per the HUD/HCD definitions. If T passes and dense mixed use buildings go up, the only affordable housing that might result is whatever density bonus and/or inclusionary produces. The overwhelming majority of units would be market rate.

      One of the huge problems with T is that it does not fulfill the purpose of the state law by requiring affordable housing.

      T winds up being a gift to developers and relatively few property owners. It doesn't serve very low and low income people.

      Delete
    6. 10:03 AM

      "Density does not equal affordability per the HUD/HCD definitions."

      The requirement to zone land at a minimum of 30 units per acre is in the state statute for cities like Encinitas.

      Delete
    7. 11:44 The point is it doesn't necessitate affordable housing per the HUD/HCD definitions. The law doesn't produce the intended results. Density does not equal affordability.

      Delete
    8. 12:54 PM

      The law only says that cities must provide available land at 30/acre. Maybe you'd rather have the law require the city to actually provide the units.

      Delete
    9. 2:24 You're not breaking new ground. Anybody who's paying attention knows the law requires only upzoning to permit 30 units per acre, not the buildings themselves.

      If that zoning is provided, the buildings will follow, just as they did where Special Plans permitted them.

      Delete
  12. The 4/5 clause went beyond restoring the 4/5 supermajority on upzoning to a simple majority of the quorum present.

    3/5 or 2/3 could remove the public upzoning vote guaranteed by Prop A (and our original General Plan). This power grab was just fine with Shaffer.

    Her newsletter is nothing more than a developer shill's rag.

    ReplyDelete
  13. If this is what academia does to common sense I will steer kids to avoid higher education.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Higher education is good as long as the student stays grounded in reality. That requires working in the real world. Academics become isolated and insulated by working only in academia surrounded by their own kind. It's an unreal environment that's mutually reinforced.

      Delete
    2. Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.

      Delete
    3. 1:20 this is what liberalism, feminism, socialism and communism do to common sense. Shaffer, Alinsky, Warren, Clinton, Barth-

      Delete
    4. 3:33- those who can't teach run and get elected to council and screw over the lives of thousands of people with idiot ideas. God help us...

      Delete
    5. 7:13 neglected to throw in freeing the slaves.

      I'm everything he describes and think Shaffer is ridiculous and dangerous. Spare us your irrelevant knee-jerk commentary and help fight T, 7:13. Anything less and you're just taking up valuable breathing space.

      Delete
    6. 9:10. Abraham Lincoln and the republican party ended slavery.

      The democratic party started the KKK and Jim Crow.

      Delete
    7. 12:50 The Republican and Democratic parties of the Civil War era are not the R and D parties of today. You're making a specious argument.

      Delete
    8. 1:02. Abraham Lincoln joined the Republican Party before being elected President. Lincoln warned southern Democrats that emancipation must happen, and secession was not going to happen.

      Lincoln and the Republican Party were joined by Northern and Southern Democrats who, like the Republican Party, wanted emancipation.

      The Republican Party. Led by Lincoln, followe'd through and emancipation occurred.

      Those are the facts.

      Sadly, hate filled democrats continued to oppose civil rights and equality.

      Longtime Democratic Senator Byrd, who has endorsed both Hillary and Bill Clinton, was a KKK member.

      Al Gore's father, as a member of the Senate, opposed civil rights legislation.

      Many would prefer citizens not know American history.

      Delete
    9. 6:17 Your cherry picking reveals you are a nutcase not worth a discussion.

      Delete
    10. 7:21

      I speak the truth. You know this. As you can'take refute the facts, you have chosen name calling.

      Delete
    11. Trump is coming for your guns.

      Delete
    12. 11:29. Actually Trump supports the second ammendment. His policies can be read at www.donaldjtrump.com

      Hillary does want to take away second amendment rights.

      Hillary/Shaffer/Barth and Elon Musk do want to take away our cars so they can control our freedoms in the future.

      Delete
  14. Liar Lisa apparently is able to promote the plan and refute the publics concerns, whereas the council as a whole is not allowed. How convenient.

    We can expect the same from every single candidate, as they desperately try to sell this stinker. Not going to happen. Ok, so the council cannot counteract the truth that the public has found, but each candidate can. How convenient.

    Let's not forget the $200,000 last ditch effort by staff and council to sell this that will be included in the ballot mailing. This is OUR money.

    When the plan goes down in flames, they all should pay this back and the $4 to $5 million already spent should too.

    Just imagine the first council meeting after the election when none of them will have a place to hide. I don't envy any of them, but they have brought this on themselves by allowing Manjeet and staff to run roughshod over their duties to represent their constituents. They do not.

    Taxation without representation is what we have had and will have for the next two years and longer.

    No on Measure T!

    No to any who support this sell out hosing plan.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So you're either voting for Brandenburg, or not voting at all.

      Delete
    2. 2:07 PM

      "Let's not forget the $200,000 last ditch effort by staff and council to sell this that will be included in the ballot mailing. This is OUR money."

      But the $700,000 plus spent defending lawsuits isn't our money? How much more will we spend if Measure T is defeated?

      Delete
    3. "Millions for defense, but not 1 cent for tribute." After this thing gets defeated we should throw out the miscreants and work to get a housing plan that actually produces affordable housing. That may be more painful than Measure T, it will involve lower cost infill residences, and goes against Proposition A which hasn't worked to stop the density bonus projects anyway. So the real issue is how should our city proceed.

      Delete
    4. Density bonus is a separate law from a housing element update (Measure T).

      Prop A restored our right to vote on increases in density and height, and cannot override the State density bonus law. It was not intended to stop density bonus projects.

      Can we do better than Measure T if we want to provide truly affordable housing? Heck yeah!

      NO on T!

      Delete
    5. 2:54 we defended nothing! We rolled over on command and wrote checks to David Meyer. No day in court, not once.

      No case law on rejecting Meadure T, so the city's fearmongering is just that. On this, Brandenburg is right: you won't find a judge alive who will overturn the will of the people. The BIA won't. David Meyer won't.

      Unlike you, I do not believe David Meyer threats should determine how we run our town. I'm funny that way.

      Delete
    6. Full disclosure: A judge overturned the will of the people in Pleasanton.

      But we should still vote NO on T.

      Our situation does not duplicate Pleasanton's.

      Delete
    7. 3:41 PM

      "2:54 we defended nothing!"

      Yes we did. You just can't accept being on the losing side. The council realized that the chance of prevailing was very slim so they settled. Pleasanton spent over $2M to find that out.

      Yes, there is case law that applies here. Specifically, the state supreme court saying that no local ordinance (even passed by an initiative) can frustrate state law. Given that Encinitas has been out of compliance for many years, a defeat in November would likely bring judicial intervention.

      That's not fearmongering, that's reality.

      Delete
    8. We rolled over immediately and defended nothing. Neither the BIA nor Meyer went before a judge, so 6:39, quite simply put: you are a liar.

      The deputy director of HCD (Housing and Community Development), aka "the State" disagrees with you on "judicial intervention," so once again: you are a liar. Now, that is reality.

      Delete
    9. 8:03 PM

      You are woefully ignorant of how the law works. Any lawsuit is assigned to a judge who manages the progress of the suit all the way to trial if need be. The various parties file briefs, meet with the judge, etc. If you're trying to say that the lawsuits never went to trial then that would be correct. However, it's not unusual for lawsuits to be settled prior to going to trial.

      The state statute allows any aggrieved party to file a lawsuit against the city for being out of compliance. HCD isn't going to, although the state attorney's office has joined some lawsuits. The BIA and DCM lawsuits are merely taking advantage of what the law allows.

      The current settlements are still under court supervision to ensure that both parties (but really the city) fulfill the terms of the settlement. If not then the matter will wind up back in court and a judge will determine how to proceed.

      I'm sorry you can't accept that.

      Delete
    10. And you are ignorant of how the BIA and Meyer suits played out. There was zero "management" by a judge. No meeting with a judge. Case assignment as a matter of boilerplate process means nothing more than that: boilerplate process, not agreement with the plaintiffs. You confuse process with progress.

      A fast payment of our tax money to the BIA and Meyer. What both are "merely taking advantage of" the sad fact that our council sees Meyer stomping their way and all turn tail, period.

      I get that you are purposefully or out of ignorance playing shill for David Meyer.

      Delete
    11. 8:56 AM

      "I get that you are purposefully or out of ignorance playing shill for David Meyer."

      Nice try. I could care less for Meyer. If you ever get arrested be sure to never plea bargain. I'm sure you'll step up and make a major contribution to the city's defense fund if we find ourselves spending $2M on a losing case like Pleasonton.

      Delete
    12. Annnnd Pleasanton has been repeatedly shown not to be the same situation as we have here.

      Our own special counsel Kautz said our position against Meyer was "defensible." Our council elected to turn tail.

      Pathetic try.

      Delete
    13. 9:38 AM

      'Our own special counsel Kautz said our position against Meyer was "defensible."'

      Yes, in open session. What was said in closed session is another matter. Pleasanton, while not exactly the same, still is relevant to Encinitas (see above). However, until the vote it's all speculation. If Measure T passes we will never know.

      Delete
    14. Pleasanton is not "not exactly the same," it is distinctly different. Interesting you now back down from making the case that the Pleasanton decision would apply here.

      Excuse me if I don't trust the black box that is closed session. Not a single statement coming out of the city or Kautz contradicts what she said in open session. If anything you'd think she'd be more conservative in front of the public.

      Delete
    15. 10:21 AM

      You flatter yourself thinking I backed down. Are the two cases exact. No, I never said they were. Is the Pleasanton case relevant to our situation? Definitely.

      Closed session is where the attorneys give honest opinions (hopefully) about the strength of a case both the strength of their position and the strength of the opposition's position. You'll notice that Kautz didn't say in open session how strong the city's position was.

      The attorney basically sits down with the client to review the their strengths and weaknesses and whether they want to risk (i.e dollars) defending (or prosecuting) a case. This usually gets repeated at each stage of the case.

      "Excuse me if I don't trust the black box that is closed session." Have you never hired an attorney? This is the equivalent of you meeting with your attorney. It's confidential.

      Delete
    16. 9:19 If you could care less for David Meyer then please do go ahead and care less for him.

      Delete
    17. And open session is where consulting attorneys are not transparent and DON"T GIVE HONEST OPINIONS to the public, who is footing their bill?

      Delete
  15. In the end it doesn't really matter how you vote, so everyone should just chill out and vote how you want.

    Eventually, the city will be brought into compliance with state law, either through our own action or the actions of the courts.

    Both a yes and no vote lead to the same destination. A yes vote rips the band aid off quickly. A no vote is a slower, more painful method, but years from now when we look back we'll see all the passion and energy invested in this debate was ultimately wasted.

    Let's stop talking and vote.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A NO vote leads to a new plan. Whether the City decides not to eff up the next one is up to the Council.

      Yes/no very obviously do not end up the same place.

      Vote NO on T. We can do better and we must demand we do better.

      Delete
    2. 8:05, There are literally hundreds of examples of HCD certified housing elements, and they all look pretty similar to measure T.

      If there was a magical solution as you imagine, it would have been discovered by now.

      Show me the approved Housing element of another city that you think represents what would pass here.

      Delete
    3. There are many that look nothing like Measure T, too. Many that look just like what residents have been begging our Measure T to look like so we could actually vote for the thing.

      The Dep Dir of HCD said at the December forum that many cities require 25% affordable housing. Not Measure T.

      NO on T.

      Delete
    4. "Many that look just like what residents have been begging our Measure T to look like"

      Hallelujah! And praise be to the deity or energy of your choice.

      You have solved the problem!

      Bring us the example!

      Tell us more of these many examples, and name them! Don't be shy or delay another moment, for our community character is at stake.

      Delete
    5. Examples have been brought, ad nauseum, both before the city, planning staff, and the planning commission. Get on the horn and call "the state" and they'll name 10 cities off the tops of their heads.

      Don't be so lazy. At least grab a bag of chips and binge watch some council meetings where the HEU was the topic of discussion, put your fat feet up, and learn something.

      Delete
    6. Here's a good start: "The California Supreme Court that cities have the right to make developers build a portion of their projects for low- and moderate-income folks."

      http://www.laweekly.com/news/yes-we-can-make-developers-build-housing-for-the-poor-5692043

      Delete
    7. words, articles, but no names?

      Why are you hiding the answers to the important question?

      It seems cruel to have the solution to the problem and tease us with it, but not produce it.

      Torture us no more. Name the cities with approved housing elements that "look just like what residents have been begging our Measure T to look like."

      Delete
    8. Hahaha. You are easily tortured. I told you to put your feet up and put your feed on. No hiding, but no spoon-feeding, either.

      I've done the work - clearly, you have not. And something tells me you would find a way to take the city's position anyway.

      Here's a clue: Manjeet Ranu said 34 other cities are likewise out of compliance and are not being sued by the State. He was silent on the question of developer lawsuits. You'll find his info on the city website. Annnnd...GO!

      Delete
    9. Heeeeey . . .

      Wait a minute . . .

      I honestly thought you were our savior. Our knight in shining armor. The hero who had solved all our problems by finding the magical housing elements of other cities that both satisfied HCD, and "look just like what residents have been begging our Measure T to look like."

      But now that you seem unwilling to share the names of those cities, I'm starting to suspect that you don't have any magical answers at all.

      Let me tell you how shocked and disappointed I am: very.

      Delete
    10. You are so snarky, 12:17. Do you enjoy reading your own baiting, posts? The burden of proof is on you, not those of us who don't buy into your and the city's BS.

      Delete
  16. So these lots may or may not ever be developed but is that not the same reason given for the granny flat program not being accepted by the state?

    The state law clearly promotes owner occupied options. In Encinitas it is all for the big developers. Bring in the state, it wont be worse then what Measure T is.

    Can't wait to hear that ruling. The city will claim NIMBYism but the evidence will clearly show a very cozy and exclusive relationship with certain developers. The city officials will be an embarrassment when all the facts are laid out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Some of them will be, some won't.

      Delete
    2. Actually, "the state" does accept granny flats. No doubt you got that non-fact from a council member too lazy to do his/her own homework, who got it from a staff "expert."

      Our problem is our city has refused to do an inventory.

      And while I agree Measure T is the worst case, "the state" won't come in. This is according to said state rep.

      Delete
    3. 8:49, So you are betting that we can ignore state law forever without consequences? That there is no point when the state will compell compliance with state law? That Sacto will simply throw up their hands and say "oh well?"

      Think about what that would mean.

      If other cities saw Encinitas getting away with blatantly ignoring state housing law, other cities would surely follow suit, and the law would be effectively repealed, without an act of the legislature. Sensing an opportunity, cities would probably start testing other state laws, too, by ignoring them.

      Do you really think Sacto is going to let that happen, or do you think they'll make an example of us to maintain order?

      The State won't bring suit. They will let private parties do that part, but they will surely pile on and provide support for the plaintiffs. And we won't have a leg to stand on. Fighting hard doesn't matter in an open and shut case.

      Delete
    4. The State said it will ask us to go back and redo our plan. The State says it has flexibility and would allow counting of granny flats. The State said it would accept a lot of things we're not doing to would mitigate the negative impacts upzoning that no one, including the State, denies we would experience.

      "Sacto" told us what it will accept and work with. We are ignoring that in favor of heavily developer-biased handouts the State does not ask for or even hint at.

      So yes, that leaves David Meyer to bring suit, but he is no front for the State. In fact, the State said at the December forum that "some developers abuse the law." It's a pity you didn't attend that event, as you would have heard the facts from the horse's mouth.

      If you think David Meyer should run this town, by all means write him in for council and get rid of the other four. He has no "open and shut case" and no one else you'll notice is "piling on." I'm sure they are watching with great interest as the council pays him time and again to go away.

      You'll notice he is not suing other cities for the same laws as Encinitas has. The BIA isn't, either. Why do you think that is?

      No, Meyer is simply used to getting his way here and has found a council willing to give him what he wants, no questions asked.

      No on T. We can do better.

      Delete
    5. So the state will punish the citizens when all their input has been ignored,which is well documented, and give the corrupt special interest exactly what they want? We have done nothing wrong and the only result with state intervention will be blame cast solely on stafff and elected sell outs. So much smoke that a criminal investigation should be launched, the citizens should insist.

      Other posters like to talk about not being compliance with the law but fail to mention that we have our won local officials who have a problem with the law in relation to T. The Brown act, disclosure laws, measure campiagning, publishing lies, and most likely corruption and bribery.

      Sacto will throw up their hands in disgust then throw a book.

      Futhermore, this law needs to be challenged in state supreme court. It conflicts CEQA and other laws. Google it. We need leadship in this town, not losers with their hand out looking for freebies and the easiest way out.

      Delete
    6. Like I said, vote how you want. Believe what you want. It doesn't matter.

      Whatever the outcome of the vote, by 2019, we will have an HCD approved housing element that looks more or less identical to measure T.

      Who wants to bet against that outcome?

      Delete
    7. Ooooh you "know something," eh? If you're referring to the city's deal it made last summer with the BIA that it will adopt this HEU despite the outcome of the public vote, I'm not shaking in my boots.

      Again, no judge will overturn the will of the voters. No judge will do it so David Meyer can run our city.

      Your "in the know" threats are stupid.

      Delete
    8. No inside information. Only common sense.

      You don't get to overrule state law at the local level.

      You can get away with it for a while, but sooner or later we'll be brought into compliance.

      Many here are acting like passengers on a long flight who have convinced themselves that Gravity looks longer exists and the plane will fly indefinitely.

      Delete
    9. 9:36 AM

      "The State says it has flexibility and would allow counting of granny flats." Only when we have shown a track record of providing them. Since we haven't yet established that track record on any large scale, we won't get much credit for this RHNA cycle.

      Delete
    10. The one that actually passes will include things like low interest rate loans for owner occupied small scale upzoning as well as the same incentives developers get. JUST Like other cities have done, which is the opposite of what Encinitas is proposing.

      Other cities do not have an plan that only offers incentives to large developers. Others cities plans respect setbacks and height restrictions. Some cities that are also run by developers do have these approved plans in place but that by no means is the standard.

      Ultimately, the ideal plan involves some large scale development but that should be used to balance out the number of accessory units owner occupied upzoning can add.

      Delete
    11. We have a track record of large three story multi family buildings? Encintas chooses not to count them. Reality is that I look at my immediate area and see four uncounted people living "affordably" in Cardiff. Two of which Encinitas actually considers illegal.

      Delete
    12. 12:15,

      You want my tax dollars to subsidize your accessory unit construction?

      No thanks.

      Delete
    13. You want your tax dollars to continue working for Meyer?

      Delete
    14. To 11:31 - wake me up when you have something more solid than developer shill speak to offer. You offer nothing of substance, kind of like the city's ballot argument. Hm.

      Delete
  17. Lolololllll, once again Shaffer proves my dogs turds are smarter than she is, lololollll...

    ReplyDelete
  18. All this coming from a woman that has spent her life commuting to and from work somewhere. Such a hypocrite.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I really wish she were running again so she would lose, and then she would see she lost her perceived mandate long ago. And that many people who voted for her no longer want to hear anything she has to say.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Keep in mind that the great majority of voters have no knowledge of T let alone its details. They'll vote on hearsay, what little they might glean from available sources of information, and how the ballot summary sounds.

    That's why it's important for opponents to get the truth about T out.

    ReplyDelete
  21. There are currently 34 cities in California out of compliance with the State law. The State has said it will not step in, as they don't have the resources.None of the other cities seems to have people like Meyers or Harwood willing to push and sue. Maybe there is an environmental reason we can use to get around T? Don't expect the Coastal Commission to save us, as 5 of those commissioners are being individually sued by some people we have, right here in this city. See Encinitas Votes, or the LA Times for more. Or, if I have a chance, I will post it here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No consequences!

      Ever!

      Hooray!

      Delete
    2. Isn't that a little misleading? If I recall, aren't most all of these cities' non-compliance a result of not updating a previously filed plan? I thought we were one of the few (only?) cities that never filed an original plan to begin with. I think that's the rub......

      - The Sculpin

      Delete
    3. While everybody here has focused on developers filing the lawsuits (BIA & DCM) in the Bay Area it's affordable housing advocates that have been filing (and winning) the lawsuits. Pleasanton and Menlo Park are just two examples.

      Delete
    4. OMG Sculpin, could you be more uninformed?? This is a Housing Element UPDATE. As in: we've had an approved Housing Element, not an approved UPDATE. You thought wrong.

      Delete
    5. Annnd Pleasanton is not comparable, discussed and closed that discussion.

      Menlo Park? Care to get into the details and how it relates to Encinitas, 6:04?

      Delete
    6. 6:04 - Thank you for correcting me, so I looked into it further. Yes, the city has a housing element. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it last approved in 1992? Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it supposed to be updated every 5 years? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure your library does not contain any reference books or guides that were published in 1992 - it's kinda like not having a reference book or guide at all! So allow me to make my point differently. There are 34 cities out of compliance now for not updating their previously filed update - how many have waited so long as to render their element obsolete? No wonder we're a ripe target for lawsuits..... oh, please correct me if I haven't got this thing right....

      - The Sculpin

      Delete
    7. 11:16 AM

      Actually, the city has never had a HCD approved housing element. Back a few years HCD approval wasn't as onerous so the city could claim that they were in compliance. It even went to court which decided the city, according to its evaluation, was compliant. In effect it was self-certification.

      That's no longer true. The courts give great weight to HCD approval. Absent that approval it opens the city to lawsuits as we've already seen.

      Delete
    8. Sculpin is right. We are unique and the most out of compliant city in the state. That is a testament to staffs incompetence and elected council doing the opposite of their campaign once in office. Developers stack the ballot with step-and-fetch idiots and we elect them. We are subject to lawsuits because settlement is a given when it is agreed to before the lawsuit is even filed. Most cities put up some resistence while ours just gives them what they what in exchange for campaign donations, kitchens, and god knows what else.

      Delete
    9. 12:19 is on the right track, but the explanation is shallow and simplistic. The situation is not such a straightforward quid pro quo. Portraying it that way is like blaming everything on Stocks.

      Delete
    10. Oh for heaven's sake, sculpin is a city apologist who never misses a chance to spout the city's party line.

      The most of out of compliant in the state? Where does he get that from? There are several that never had a Housing Element pass, let alone an Update.

      As usual, he's shilling for developers. Ignore him.

      Delete
    11. 12:04's "great weight to lawsuits" would be our own, darling David Meyer who never met a bag of cement he didn't want to pour for profit.

      Time to put up the hand to the greedy dude. How much is enough, David??

      Delete
    12. 7:07 PM

      "There are several that never had a Housing Element pass, let alone an Update."

      Name them.

      Delete
    13. 7:10 PM

      I'm 12:04 and I'm not David Meyer. The successful lawsuits against cities in the Bay Area were by affordable housing advocates not developers.

      Delete
  22. WC Time to take out the trashy 2:52pm, again. Thanks WC for being here. You are so needed.

    ReplyDelete
  23. A no vote leads to a new plan.

    And if that one is voted down, we'll go back to the drawing board and make another one.

    And when that one fails to pass, we will make an even better one.

    Of course, that one will also fail, so . . .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not necessarily fail. Cut out the BS developer giveaways the State is not requiring and use a real number, not an inflated "buffered" one and then we'll talk.

      Delete
  24. I don't appreciate how Shaffer keeps calling those of us who disagree with her faulty logic, and the faulty logic of Prop T, "naysayers." Over and over she uses that phrase to label us in a degrading manner.

    I am surely voting No on T. One thing that people aren't addressing is that even if this monstrosity did pass (heaven forbid), if affordable housing isn't actually built on the "by proxy" parcels that enable a so-called certified (through the State) housing element update, then those "missing" affordable units must be added to the next cycle, in eight years. So it would be an endless cycle of upzoning and densification in the name of affordable housing, which, by and large, would NOT be built. What would be built is for-profit, dense, mixed-use projects, also filled with commuters, as there are NOT that many white collar jobs in Encinitas. We are primarily a "bedroom community," and, unlike Carlsbad, we don't have industrial parks. Most of the available jobs are service jobs at all the new bars and alcohol serving establishments popping up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We are "naysayers" and, according to Barth, "obstructionists." How quickly they forget who put them in office. How quickly they forget they once agreed with us - or is that, pretended to agree with us?

      Delete
  25. Council and staff tell us poor neophytes that the hosing plan is too complicated for our feeble minds to grasp and that we should accept without reservations what they are feeding us.

    I beg to differ.

    It couldn't be simpler. If staff running amuck cannot insure true affordable housing by mandating 25% to 50% be included in every density project, we have what we have and will continue to have. Give us a plan that provides more than market rate units and it might be tolerable. One of theses years.......

    Council is ultimately responsible for allowing Manjeet and his automatons to spend millions of OUR dollars on a doomed to fail plan that never has addressed this lack of providing low income housing.

    Not only is Manjeet the acting, ha, acting indeed?, planning director, he also has the title of Community Development Director. Why is he still here?

    Where has our new city manager been? Hiding in plain sight with nary a move to fix all that is broken.

    We deserve better. The myopic atmosphere at city hall needs a freshening and it doesn't appear to look any different with the upcoming election. Voting against certain candidates is about our only choice this time and that goes to the national discussion too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do not vote for any of them.

      Delete
  26. COUNCIL HAS MADE PROMISES IN THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE. THOSE PROMISES WILL BE USED FOR THE BASIS OF LAWSUITS AGAINST THE CITY.
    The voter is asked to be a party to the Council promises.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Shaffer should move and live in a dorm at UCSD and actually model the ethics that she tries to force on others in Encinitas! If it is so great to live in small quarters and walk to work, then try it yourself.

    She said that she bought her five-bedroom McMansion because she "liked the sidewalks." There's lots of nice pavement and cement around UCSD, and you could get to work very quicly, Shaffer.

    Using your own standards, is it right for you and Steve to live like this? If you insist on keeping a big house, why don't you open it up to some of the people who need a place to live?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Speaking of cement, why didn't she move to Carlsbad?

      Delete
  28. Shaffer has not realized that we live in a world where we depend on our cars.

    In her little fantasy world, she believes that everyone should be able to walk or bike to work, run errands by hopping on their bike or walking to a grocery store. This may be convenient for a very small percentage of people, but it does not work for most.

    Come visit OUR world Shaffer and you will be talking a different tune.

    I also think she needs to keep her comments and direction of how we should vote to herself. I don't appreciate her opinion and resent being told how I should vote.

    I am anxiously waiting for her time to be done on council. I can not stomach this woman much longer.

    VOTE NO ON MEASURE T.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The real point is that Shaffer partakes in all of the negative activities that she accuses other people of doing. She is a name caller, a hypocrite and she makes up falsehoods about other candidates. Her actions represent the worst of the worst in politics.

      Delete
    2. 4:42 is right. Shaffer lived in the driving world as her transportation to work that, as it happened, paid to keep a roof over her head.

      She just doesn't think others should have the same transportation/work/income arrangement. Weird.

      Delete
    3. 6:31- Shaffer is a political /socialist/academic elitist that feels she knows better than the working man. Her sustain for the working man in represented in her desires to raise taxes and then spend YOUR money on her pet projects. Her " Shut up and do as your told" opinion is more reflected in her " do as I say not as I do because I know what's best for peons like you". She can take her know it all self important arritude and stuff it up her anal cavity, sadly there's no room in there as its occupied by Marx, Stalin, Mao.

      Delete
    4. 2:49- You are full of right wing crap. She is just doing the bidding of the local Democratic Party which has been bought and payed for. Of course you have no problem at all when Republicans are bought and payed for. This has nothing to do with Stalin, Marx.ect. It is the bi-product of America's systematic bribery politics. I would bet that you supported the Citizens United ruling as a first amendment issue.

      Delete
    5. 8:20 - kindly note that 2:49 made no mention of democratic or Republican parties- you do.

      There is only the Uniparty in America. Our system of government from local, to state , to federal has been taken over by globalists.the Globalist include bankers, communists, socialists, feminists and plutocrats. The globalist uses race, gender and hate to try and divide the citizens. The globalist uses forced immigration as a weapon to change the racial and political of once free hosting nation states.

      There is no difference between Tom Peters and Darryl Issa. No difference between Paul Ryan and Nancy Pelosi,no difference between John McCain and Harry Reid, no difference between Bush,Clinton and Obama.

      At the end of the day they write laws and start wars that benefit their friends, cronies and elevate their personal power and control.

      At the local level we see this when all 5 council members sign their names to ballot statement lies. We see this when Barth and Shaffer reveal themselves to have the same disregard for residents, honesty and transparency as Jerome Stocks.

      There remain a few leaders seeking to represent the people. They want to enforce the laws we have to benefit citizens.

      You can't fix a rigged system by electing the people who rigged it. Or by being blind date to what they system really is.

      Lisa Shaffer and Lying Paul Ryan are ideological siblings pushing the same "we know better than you" globalist agenda.

      Delete
    6. 9:11 (ironic time stamp, eh? Did you do that on purpose?) The most prominent "I know better than you" adherent is the one person you fail to mention - Mr. Trump. He would like us to trust him blindly because he, and only he, knows better than anyone how to fix a rigged system that he has been a part of and has benefited greatly from (even tough he did have to sacrifice a bit). So I would add to your thesis that Mr. Trump is ever much the globalist that the others you mention are. He's just approaching it in a different way. He has no desire to repatriate his manufacturing operations, he has no desire to change the hiring practices of his enterprises as they relate to lower paid and unskilled labor, he has no desire to invest $1 more of capital in any project beyond the barest minimum (and by doing so minimizing his risk to practically nothing), and he has no desire to treat a contract, once signed, as the governing instrument of the deal. "You can't fix a rigged system by electing the people who rigged it" is a simpletons phrase, but it does beget the question - What does the rigged system look like under Mr. Trump? I mean, it's still going to be rigged, isn't it????

      - The Sculpin

      Delete
    7. 9:11 So what has changed in the last 150 years? Since you only cite "leftists" as your globalist enemies I assume that you would prefer a right wing , Fascist style government.
      You should lay off the Alex Jones for a few weeks.

      Delete
    8. 12:46 and sculpin, perhaps setting down your own bias and ideologies would be of benefit.

      There is no mention of candidate Trump in the post, yet that is all Sculpin is able to focus on- why?

      12:46 might take the time to read the post of 9:11 Bush is noted, Ryan is noted, Mcain is noted. The Uni Party is made up of globalist masquerading them selves in many names.

      Delete
    9. 9:11 & 3:19 - When a post includes this phrase "There remain a few leaders seeking to represent the people. They want to enforce the laws we have to benefit citizens" - it opens a door the size of an orange elephant. It's code speak. If that's not what you were implying, then what was it you were trying to say? Honestly, I thought you were making a point......my bad...

      - The Sculpin

      Delete
    10. I read the point being the government has been hijacked and is now under one party rule where the so called Democrats and the so called republicans are the Uniparty.

      It does explain why Congress voted an exemption to obamacare for themselves. It could explain why the congress voted not to pass strict insider trading laws on congressional members. It could explain. Why Congress has not passed a budget in 8 years.

      It also explains why Jerome Stocks and Teresa Barth both felt OK hiding information, misleading and outright misinforming when necessary.

      There have been a few leaders the past 30 years who have wanted to enforce our laws. They have been silenced, marginalized, ridiculed and in some instances myserteriosly died.

      Delete
    11. 9:56. You might look into a person named Senator Jeff Sessions. He seems to have some common sense ideas worth considering.

      I don't think believing it is important to enforce our current immigration laws is " code speak". I think enforcing our laws is not only good policy - it's the law.

      Code speak is trying to call something a new name to hide what it actually is. For instance "undocumented" is code speak for " illegal".

      Delete
    12. 11:07 - I find it hard to believe that such a dysfunctional body as Congress would be able to get its act together to do as you claim. So I disagree - the Uniparty theory really doesn't explain anything other than a random "connect the dots" exercise to arrive at a desired conclusion. I guess it's the same kind of thinking that believes a zoning change will result in an immediate financial windfall approaching the lottery.

      9:56 - our current immigration laws are being enforced. Any objective look at the overall immigration numbers will point that out. That it doesn't fit the narrative of the code speak "enforce our current immigration laws" is somewhat problematic for those who would rather focus on the sensational rather than the "in the trenches hard work" of enforcing the law.

      - The Sculpin

      Delete
    13. Sculpin

      Please join us in the present day. Our immigration laws are not enforced. It is a lie to claim they are. There are Angel Mom's, who have lost loved ones murdered by violent illegal immigrant criminals. This is fact. The Rememberence Project exists.

      It is OK for you to accept and admit you are a globalist, and you do not believe in protected borders and enforcing the rule of law equally.

      It is also OK for others to point out your beliefs and oppose them.

      The Uniparty theory is fact. One only need look at the so called affordable housing advocates sitting next to the BIA representative to see how theyou collude to work against residents as a unit, a team, a system.

      California does not have a housing shortage, it has unenforced borders and an illegal immigration policy.

      The illegalsecond have taken housing sto know away from legal citizens and helped escalate rents by an artifical illegal supply of renters.

      Funny, you don't deny that Democrat and Republican Congress members collude to write laws to benefit the. And their cronies- yet you turn a blind to their oneness as a ruling elite- the uni-party.

      Delete
    14. "The uniparty THEORY is FACT" the slightest bit of creditability you may have had just went out the window.

      Delete
    15. First off, a theory can not be fact. Second, developing policy based on the sensational is a recipe for disaster. Third, California does have a housing shortage, and it has absolutely nothing to do with "unenforced borders". The theory that an influx of illegals actually reduce the housing stock is absurd on its face. Fourth, D's and R's do not collude to do anything - unless you call gridlock doing something. Remember the old days when D's and R's got in a room together and hashed out their differences to pass legislation? If anything that was the time they were colluding. Not today.
      Fifth, yes, I am a globalist. After all, we live on a globe, not a flat piece of ground. So we'll agree to disagree; in this present day.

      - The Sculpin

      Delete
    16. 9:59 Yes, there are many who believe the Government of the USA is in fact run by a single party. Many of these who believe the government is run by a single party refer to the party as "The Uniparty".

      The above is factual, a google of the term "Uni-party" or "uniparty" will direct you to the theory. I conclude that yes, the theory os a fact, as there are many who believe ot to be true.

      It was once theorized the world was round, it was then proven true, it was then accepted as fact.

      Delete
  29. Ah yes, the questionable, no not even questionable really, ethics of the ethics professor. Classic. Thank you Lisa for leaving.

    Her opinion of any issue at this point is as irrelevant as she herself has become. See ya.

    ReplyDelete
  30. This question shows that the city's true intent with Measure T is to maximize development in Encinitas:

    If the RHNA number the city is required to upzone to meet is 1,093 units, and the 82 percent buffer to 1,987 units is only to ensure the 1,093 number is met, why does the proposed plan say the upzoning creates "an opportunity for at least 1,987 units."?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'll go you one better, 8:29. The fine print shows 1,987 as the "min cap." The max cap is 2,979.

      You won't find that 2,979 number on the ballot - guess it would be too transparent to admit that's the real units number we'd be triggering.

      Add density bonus on at another 35%.

      NO on T!

      Delete
    2. 9:31 AM

      The state won't allow the city to include the added potential units through density bonus. Also, because of Prop A the city has to include a buffer as not all properties will get developed with housing and going out to a vote to add more units is expensive. You may not like it but that is the situation.

      Delete
    3. 10:55, you are full of it like other developers and shills! I have personally seen (in writing) developers argue that they must maximize Density Bonus and also take over easements and neighboring property in order to "Make it pencil out."

      Delete
    4. 3:04 PM

      Where to start on your flight of fantasy. The city cannot facilitate a developer taking a neighboring property or easement. A developer will have to negotiate with any neighboring property owner without city involvement. A developer can request the abandonment of an easement by the city or other agency. If the easement is no longer needed that may happen. Actually, most of the development that have gone through recently have not maximized density bonus as they only build one or two affordable units at the low income level to get the minimum percentage increase starting at the maximum density (not mid-range). The developer doesn't have to develop at that density just as the developer didn't on Fulvia in Leucadia. I'm not a fan of density bonus, I just know the city has to follow it.

      Delete
  31. Because it does create an opportunity for at least 1,987units. And this is "by right," which makes it almost impossible to take away or challenge. Environmental review has been done and design review has been reduced to a minimum. Add in Density Bonus of 35% and the 1987 units go to 2682 units.

    Ethics professor Shaffer is attempting to fool the public. Vote NO on Measure T.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The "opportunity" is for developers and lucky parcel owners to hit the lotto. There is zero low income required, so no benefit there.

      The real number is 2,979 (max cap referenced at 9:31) plus density bonus = 4,000+ units.

      And Shaffer has the gall to call worried residents "naysayers."

      Delete
    2. “By-right” means a voter-approved Measure T would “pre-empt local discretionary land use approvals of specified housing developments by having all such approvals be considered ‘ministerial’ actions, meaning eliminating opportunities for public review, project-level environmental review and restricting design review.”

      Delete
    3. 10:32 AM

      "By-right" means a development doesn't need a Use permit, not that it doesn't have to follow the normal process.

      Governor Brown proposed streamlining development that met certain criteria but the legislation died this year. The legislation would have made those projects ministerial.

      Delete
    4. 11:02

      http://www.spur.org/news/2016-06-02/governor-brown-s-solution-affordability-crisis-allow-new-housing-right

      CA Gov Code:

      (i) For purposes of this section and Section 65583, the phrase "use by right" shall mean that the local government's review of the
      owner-occupied or multifamily residential use may not require a conditional use permit, planned unit development permit, or other
      discretionary local government review or approval that would constitute a "project" for purposes of Division 13 (commencing with
      Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code. Any subdivision of the sites shall be subject to all laws, including, but not limited to,
      the local government ordinance implementing the Subdivision Map Act. A local ordinance may provide that "use by right" does not exempt the
      use from design review. However, that design review shall not constitute a "project" for purposes of Division 13 (commencing with
      Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code. Use by right for all rental multifamily residential housing shall be provided in
      accordance with subdivision (f) of Section 65589.5.

      Delete
    5. 3:02 PM

      You proved my point. A use requiring a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)can be denied no matter how well it's designed. The reviewing body can simply say that use isn't appropriate there. That's why it's call a Conditional Use Permit and the zoning code will indicate which uses are by-right and which uses require a CUP. Either way, a project must follow the regulatory requirements such as design review and coastal development permits. If it's a subdivision,for example, it still has to go to the planning commission.

      The statute's language you quoted basically means a city can't make design review into a de facto CUP.

      Delete
    6. "The rezoning program shall permit owner-
      occupied and rental multi-family residential use by right and permit at least 16 units per site."

      "The City will continue to apply Zoning
      Code regulations that allow accessory units (also known as second units or granny flats) by right in all single-family residential zones, in accordance with State law."

      "Pursuant to the State Employee Housing Act (Section 17000 et seq. of the Health and Safety Code), employee housing for agricultural workers consisting of no more than 36 beds in a group quarters or 12 units or spaces designed for use by a single family or household is permitted by right in a zoning district that permits agricultural uses by right. Therefore, for properties that permit agricultural uses by right, a local jurisdiction may not treat employee housing that meets the above criteria any differently than an agricultural use."

      "The City will amend the Zoning Code to permit emergency shelters by right without a discretionary review process in the Light Industrial (LI) and Business Park (BP) zones."

      "A 'P' in a cell indicates that a use is permitted by right."

      "Sites must be zoned to permit owner-occupied and rental multi-family housing by right."

      The city fails to define "by right."

      Delete
    7. 8:32 PM

      All of what you quoted doesn't contradict what I wrote at 7:25 PM. You fail to understand the distinction. By-right simply means no Conditional Use Permit, along with all the special criteria, is required. All the normal process requirements like a Citizen Participation Program meeting, design review, etc. are still in force.

      Delete
    8. The city fails to define "by right."

      What does it mean in the Measure T docs?

      9:41 is making assumptions. That's dangerous when it comes to city actions.

      Delete
    9. 11:31 AM

      "By Right" isn't an assumption. It's a legal term. Your paranoia has gotten the best of you.

      Delete
    10. 12:38 You're assuming a definition. You're assuming your definition is the city's definition. Evidently, you haven't dealt much with city staff, consultants and council. You're assuming they're upfront and honorable.

      Delete
    11. 3:09 PM

      Zoning in California includes uses that are by right and those that require a Conditional Use Permit. Every city and county uses that term. It's nothing new. It's been used for years. I'm sorry you fail to grasp that. It assumes nothing. It's a standard legal distinction that everyone but you understands.

      Delete
    12. 3:22 Oh, really? If what you assert is true, why are there alternative definitions:

      "... eligible housing proposals across the state would be approved 'by right,' meaning they would not be subject to case-by-case local approvals or review under the California Environmental Quality Act."

      Per Browns's failed law, by right would “pre-empt local discretionary land use approvals of specified housing developments by having all such approvals be considered ‘ministerial’ actions, meaning eliminating opportunities for public review, project-level environmental review and restricting design review.”

      The fact remains that the city of Encinitas did not define "by right" as used in its Measure T documents.

      Maybe you want to assume the authority of certifying the city's definition.

      Delete
    13. EU why does quoting from ordinances wind up in the (presumed) spam filter? Please put it back.

      Delete
    14. The city should have defined "by right" along with the other terms on page 70 here:

      http://www.athomeinencinitas.info/wp-content/uploads/BALLOT-MEASURE-PACKAGE-2016-77-Part-B-Pages-77-230-compressed.pdf

      Delete
    15. 4:41 PM

      My response to 10:54 AM has been deleted by EU. I guess EU doesn't want the truth to come out.

      There is no "by right" language on page 70 in the link you provided. It does show up on other pages.

      However, in the current municipal code zoning use matrix (30.09.010) which lists what uses are allowed in each zone the four options are allowed "by right", allowed with a major use permit, allow with a minor use permit, and uses that are prohibited (codes: P, C, Cm & X respectively). This nomenclature has been used since the city incorporated.

      You can find this at:

      http://www.qcode.us/codes/encinitas/view.php?topic=30-30_09-30_09_010

      Delete
    16. 7:40 PM

      To 4:41 PM I see you meant that "by right" was not defined on the "Defined Terms" page which is page 65 of the document and page 70 in the PDF file. This doesn't affect whay I wrote above.

      Delete
    17. The city used the term "by right" six times in the Measure T documents but didn't define it. Many other terms were defined. The city should have defined its meaning of "by right" especially since there was a concurrent bill pending in the state legislature that used the term differently from 7:45's assumed definition.

      Delete
  32. At one time I posted on EU the 34 cities out of compliance. Maybe EU can go back and find it, as I don't need to do all the work. I got if off the State of Calif. website.

    ReplyDelete
  33. If you look at the bottom of the last page of the list of parcels to be upzoned, it says the 1987 units number is the minimum density (R-20). But the city is upzoning to R-30 which the same page says is 2979 units. Density Bonus of 35% raises the number of units to over 4000.

    The same page says the rezoned net acreage will be 101.53. Density Bonus is equivalent to R-41. Therefore, R-41 times 101.53 acres results in a number of over 4000 allowable units. The city calculates 6 daily auto trips per unit (ADTs). So the statement that there will be over 20,000 additional daily car trips is accurate and even conservative.

    Can we call Ethics Professor Shaffer a deceiver? You betcha! Vote No on Measure T.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 3:31 Where is the page you cite?

      Delete
  34. A few weeks ago the Encinitas Guerilla did a piece on the two most hated people in Encinitas. Using an academic approach fitting of Lisa Shaffer, I would challenge someone to count the numbers of negative comments about anyone on Encinitas Undercover, and the winner is unquestionably Lisa Shaffer.

    Shaffer, why do people hate you? Why is it that you have become a topic of derision and shame? Every time one of your former followers posts something from your disgusting newsletter, other people join in to mock you and to try to convince you that we do not agree with the favorable view that you have of yourself. Please stop telling us how great you are and all of the other lies that you come up with. You are the person with the greatest lack of awareness that we have ever had on Council.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What happened to all the commenters that insisted that Lisa was going to run again? They just knew her many statements about not seeking reelection was just a subterfuge. Where are their admissions that they were wrong? Sure, some thought her husband's mayoral interest was a sneaky way to maintain her involvement but he decided not to run. So let's hear from those who thought they knew better but were, in fact, dead wrong.

      Delete
    2. I have no problem to admit that I was wrong.
      I thought she would "reconsider" and run again. She obviously enjoys the limelight, being the self-appointed scribe to tell us all what happened at the council meeting the night before and why, not missing a chance to take personal digs at Gaspar and Muir.
      I also have said on this blog that I wish she would have run so she would suffer a crushing defeat in contrast to the enthusiasm she received four years ago. Only then would the proof of how deeply disappointed in her that so many of her voters feel be quantified. By not running again and not being defeated, she can convince herself that everyone loved her because she won in her only election. She will be factually correct, and in her head she will maintain an inflated sense of her importance.

      Delete
    3. 2:24 PM

      Congratulations for admitting it but I'm not sure your initial reasoning was very charitable. Isn't that fact that she won't be on the council anymore enough? Do you have a little Trump in you?

      Delete
    4. Yes, I am glad she will not be on council.
      But she is so arrogant that I would like her to have to face the reality that she is not as well-liked as she seems to think. She has burdened us with her I-know-better-than-all-of-you attitude for four years, that it would have been good for her to deal with the reality of a public refutation. I would have been amusing to hear her try to rationalize that away.

      Delete
    5. I voted for Lisa. She deserves every bit of crap slung at her. She betrayed most of those who voted for her almost instantly after her election (along with Kranz). She seems to be nothing but a stooge for the local Democratic organization and incapable of original thought.
      Don't vote for ANYBODY for council or mayor.

      Delete
    6. Can we just move on here?

      Delete
    7. The only meaningful contribution Shaffer has made is making Muir look stupid (not that he needed help). She called him out on his misstatements and reminded him that the topic he thought he was addressing had either moved on or was no longer the issue. I think Muir lives in another time zone - he has got to go. Four more years of this stooge is inconceivable!

      Delete
    8. That was Blakespear, not Shaffer, who called Muir out.

      Delete
    9. 3:15 you might check out the long list of people associated with Hillary Clinton have died under questionable circumstances. The most recent was a young Hillary Campaign person in DC.

      It seems the Clinton's are the ones who hold grudges. Maybe that is why so many people were forced to "donate" to the Clinton Global Foundation.

      Delete
    10. 1:53 Thanks for demonstrating the absurd, irrational thinking of Trump supporters.

      Delete
    11. 1:19 PM Then they both did. I watched a meeting where Shaffer chided Muir for his absence of awareness on the topic at hand.

      Delete
    12. 2:09 there is a long list of people who have crossed the Clinton's who have died strangely. I google a list found online, it's creepy.

      Hillary started the war in Libya, before Hillary's war Libya had the highest standard of living in Africa. Woman went to school and had free health care. Society was stable. After Hillary started her war woman are now forced to live under Islamic Sharia law, can not go to school,are subject to FGM and gays are thrown from buildings. You might support her bad decision making, I don't.

      Hillary thru the Clinton Foundation abused her position to line her pockets with profits thru pay for play policy making. You might support her corrupt abuse of power- I don't.

      Hillary set up an illegal server, allowed her server to be hacked by others, put American lives at risk, deleted emails when under order not to, and had her associates plead the 5th before congress. You might support this secrecy, I will support transparency.

      I don't know about this Uniparty concept to comment. I can say that last night Lester Holt did not ask Hillary a single question on these topics- not one. Maybe that is why so few people trust the networks.

      I can also say with certainty from those I know that wages for most our down, financial security is down, and many in our country are unemployed with diminished prospects- the economy is not recovering for most.

      Delete
  35. Yes, but it comes with gratitude. choke, choke, barf, barf

    Other candidates should refrain from using anything coming close to Lisa's sign off of "with gratitude" to show their own independence, at the very least.

    Think about it.

    This is meant as constructive and I hope it is taken that way from one who already has my vote.

    ReplyDelete