Friday, September 2, 2016

Teresa Barth's "Engage Encinitas" to push high-density development Measure T

Engage Encinitas:
Housing has been in the news a lot lately. Is it a crisis? What is affordable housing? Why don't developers build housing most people can afford? Can government help? Why does it matter? As part of its Citizens Academy series, Engage Encinitas invites you to dig deeper into the topic of housing in Encinitas.

The discussion is not intended to be a 'debate' about the Ballot Measure rather an opportunity to learn more about this complex topic.

Hear from a panel of experts who will discuss what's possible or probable, the regulatory challenges and the economic, environmental and social impacts to our city and the San Diego region.

The discussion will be moderated by USD Professor Norm Miller. Panelist will be:
Keith Harrison, Encinitas resident and real estate investor
Josh Lichtman, Resident and real estate professional
Stephen Russell, San Diego Housing Federation, Executive Director
Keith Harrison is a 101 commercial property owner who would get a huge financial windfall from Measure T's upzoning to high-density 3-story buildings. We don't know Josh Lichtman, but as a self-described "real estate professional," we're pretty sure he's going to be in favor of pushing more high-density development on Encinitas.  Stephen Russell's SDHF is a high-density-pushing front group backed by SANDAG, developers, and mortgage lenders.

Conspicuously absent from from Engage Encinitas' "opportunity to learn" are any neighbors and community members opposed to the high-density development agenda.

As for the "affordable housing" in the catch line?  Read the fine print. There's nothing affordable about Measure T's high-density luxury condos.

99 comments:

  1. So lets ask Barth -

    What do existing Encinitas residents get to gain by having more of a huntington beach style envirnment?

    Do we have less pollution?

    Less Water use?

    Less Crowded beaches?

    Less Traffic?

    So what as I raising a family of four near the beach gain from adding massive density to encinitas general plan?

    tell me Teresa, why is this in my best interest and why isn't Rancho Santa Fe or Del Mar doing the same?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Encinitas isn't DM or RSF. Just like C'bad isn't Encinitas.

      Delete
  2. Lets all cut through the bullshit.

    I will vote NO GROWTH IN ENCINITAS. I will vote for some other than Graham.

    Let all the pro-growth go to surrounding communities and lets let Encinitas be a diamond in the rough.

    The develpers are stiking with flames. Lets strike back to the suck asses like $tock$, Muir, Gas$par, and Graham.

    These tools are bought off by the BIS and will Sell out Encinitas and develop the shit out of it and it will look like huntington beach and have massive crowded beaches and roads.

    Vote no on Measure T

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Build a wall!!


      (Under 25 feet of course)

      Delete
    2. Do Build anything. Enjoy what we have!

      Delete
    3. Muir has voted against developers more then Kranz, Blakespear or any of the other candidates.

      If I'm wrong, please identify the vote! Otherwise, your making shit up!

      Delete
    4. Deconstruction of 9:20:

      Sentence 1: Make shit up. Set the expectation that the shit you made up is assumed to be true.

      Sentence 2: Proudly challenge others to do hours of work to disprove the shit it took you 5 seconds to make up.

      Sentence 3: Accuse others of making shit up.

      Brilliant.

      New rule: make a claim; offer evidence to support your claim; cite sources.

      Also, not a rule, but extra credit points if you learn the difference between "your" and "you're."

      Delete
    5. Barth is a traitor to the community - her tenure as a council person was a failure and she adds to that legacy now.

      Delete
  3. sleep tight City Council,

    Your inability to lead a City Manager has lead to a drag race down every street.

    The problem has gotten worse since Karen Brust has become City Manager. I read she lived in Encinitas so I hope she cares, " Hopefully she has some capacity for change.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Burst lives in Olivenhain, no motor bikes with straight pipes there. I suggest you go and bang pots in front of her home until 10'pm nightly. She'll get the message quickly!!

      Delete
    2. 7:40 - I'm sorry but I have to correct you on that. Lone Jack is known informally as the "one way raceway"! Between the Maserati's, Ferrari's, Porches and good 'ole american muscle cars wanting to "open it up a bit in 2nd gear", and the little 4 wheel go carts dressed up as trucks, carts, wagons, and what have you, and the pocket rockets wanting to "drag a knee" and the harleys sitting in their driveways "warming up" and the ever so ubiquitous double dump trucks roaring when their full, and clanging when their empty, and the ambulances and fire trucks trying to locate fallen equestrians - naw - we have our share of "noise ordinance violations"!!! I mean come on, what do you think it's like living out here - peaceful?!?!?!?!

      - The Sculpin

      Delete
    3. Part of your comment reads like a found poem.

      Delete
  4. Enrage Encinitas alright!

    ReplyDelete
  5. It's a good day when you get to laugh out loud in surprise twice before the coffee-maker finishes; first reading in the Coast News that Kathleen Lees was 'stunned' when Kristin Gaspar couldn't change her schedule to accommodate Lees' Town Council trap, no doubt aided by her 'onset' husband Dennis who is blogging in Escondido; OR, that Teresa Barthspear is acting as a political 'body-bag' for Loser Lisa. Thank you ladies, it's a good day!!! Keep it up, please!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Another betrayal by Barth.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Barth's legacy continues to sink - she is no better than $tock$. Everyone has their price.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Teresa, please just go away. We know you can do it. Others have, who knew better. Follow their example.

    Why would any citizen, with the least amount of knowledge about this urban densification scheme, scam, expect to learn a thing at a forum that you have anything to do with?

    Why would any citizen care a wit about your assembled panel of characters who stand to benefit handsomely, if this disaster were allowed to be passed?

    Why would any citizen want to give Manjeet sole, souless, power to approve projects without council or public review?

    Please go away. You are only relevant in your own mind. Any trust is long gone. Please go away.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Vote NO on Measure T.

    It is a scam and will help the developers line their pockets while we lose our city.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The panel is three pro-development, pro-T people, and the moderator is on their side.

    "Norm Miller is the Hahn Chair of Real Estate Finance in the Burnham-Moores Center for Real Estate, part of the School of Business Administration at the University of San Diego."

    The discussion is not a "learning opportunity." It's propaganda.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I could support this forum if it had an even balance, with strong representatives for and against. I think the Encinitas Forward page has that balance. This panel, unfortunately, does not.

    There is no value for me in a group think rally on either side of the issue.

    This is useless, and I don't think it will change any minds.

    ReplyDelete
  12. will any public funds be spent on this propaganda? Can't wait for a judge from Sacarmento to see what blatant coruption looks like when this turd is flushed come November.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I love the creative minds around here when it comes to accurately describing some plans put forward by the city and certain individuals who think they are still relevant.

    Up Yours Encinitas Hosing Plan.

    Enrage Encinitas.

    Both of these better represent the vast majority of the publics opinion, minus a very few who have their own reasons and look to benefit in their own small minded ways.

    No on T is our only choice to save what we have left worth saving. Keep Encinitas from becoming HB or any number of other lost city's who let their elected reps sell them out.

    Here is a rewarding statement from a developer recently who has chosen to work within our current zoning. When he was thanked for building some homes on a coming project within current zoning, no waivers, no increased density, his reply was as follows: "this community is well known for fighting increased density projects and he and his company don't want any part of that struggle. He has a couple of other small properties here in Encinitas that he is building homes on and all of them are within our current zoning.

    He gives us all hope that whatever little we can do, has an effect. Instead of being known for slimy Meyer and his kind, we do have an effect on some builders with a conscience. For those others, nothing will satisfy them.

    Meyer is already suing our city again, after he was paid off a few weeks ago, about specifically what, I don't know, but the last closed session before the city council meeting, guess who was the topic? Yep. Another suit brought by Meyer. Too bad malicious prosecution can't be used or something a kin to it, to get him to stop.

    Our city decides to pay him off and for what? The next suit is here already. What a piece of work David Meyer is.

    No on Measure T.

    ReplyDelete
  14. It's Meyer suits, not from State, that the City refers to when it says Measure T will avoid expensive lawsuits. The State has said repeatedly it will not sue over not passing a Housing Element Update. The private organization the BIA, on the other hand, hasn't met a project they won't sue over.

    On what planet does a single, greedy developer get to call the shots??

    Not on this one. NO on T.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Donate to a campaign and the city will pay you back with rubber stamp zoning. Prop. A comes into play, just sue, we will settle.. Think about it. The city folk want the lawsuits to scare us into a yes vote. Sabine can make some extra money. The planners can be overpaid eitherway. Why would you not settle with your buddy/owner? Those controlling the purse strings are in bed with Meyer, Encinitas citizens are being hustled.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 8:23,

      Let's assume you are right.

      Convince us that voting no will
      make a difference.

      If we get sued (and we will), and the city doesn't fight, what will the outcome be?

      Delete
    2. 10:05- Right now it would be hard to know what the outcome will be. Density Bonus, and issues having to do with it, are being hotly contested in Sacramento. Brown did not sign the bill helping out the builders during this last session of the State Assembly and Representatives. He is being pushed hard by many cities to do away with DB, as it isn't working. There have been a lot of articles about it in the LA Times especially. Not sure about the UT. So, perhaps with enough cities saying "ENOUGH!" we might actually have a fighting chance at showing Meyer the door. Just a thought.

      Delete
    3. 12:10,

      The legislature let the bill expanding density bonus die because it's an election year.

      It will be back next year.

      There is no chance density bonus will be repealed or restricted. If anything, it will be expanded.

      Delete
    4. Good Morning Enc,

      Is this AB 2501, the bill that Councilperson Blakespear spoke against in Sacramento?

      Does anyone know how this affects rounding on density?

      Delete
    5. Voting no means a special election for any zoning change.

      Delete
    6. The comment below says AB 2501 actually passed. I may have been thinking of the state override of local zoning that died for this legislative session.

      Either way, the legislature is moving in the direction of more density, not less.

      Delete
  16. People should attend and walk out during the propaganda presentation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. People should attend and BANG POTS from beginning to the end..

      Delete
  17. 10:05 - sending a resounding vote of rejection could - should - get the council to strip the developer dream-laden crap from the 230 pages of policy changes and give us an honest number the majority of voters can get behind. And one that includes a requirement, not hope, that a percent of the high density be truly affordable.

    Let the City get the message that rolling over for Meyer/his ilk is only going to grow opposition to Measure T, not convince anyone to vote for it. Too late this round. Figure it out, Council!

    ReplyDelete
  18. About a year ago, a report from the Legislative Analyst's Office titled "California's High Housing Costs, Causes and Consequences" stated in the report's executive summary:

    "More Private Housing Construction in Coastal Urban Areas. We advise the Legislature to change policies to facilitate significantly more private home and apartment building in California’s coastal urban areas. ..."

    This past week the legislature passed Assembly Bill 2501 reducing the conditions a city can make a density bonus project meet and confirming that all rounding calculations, including net acreage, be rounded up. This is a bill that the city registered its opposition and Blakespear testified against it in a Senate hearing. The bill passed 34 to 3 (with 2 votes not recorded) in the Senate and 74 to 4 (with 2 votes not recorded) in the Assembly. The Governor indicated his support for it in May.

    I'm no fan of density bonus. While Encinitas isn't the only city pushing back on higher density, it appears one of the more prominent. This has not gone unnoticed in Sacramento. I don't think Encinitas gets a lot of sympathy from the legislature.

    This continued attitude of no solutions of any kind, except counting granny flats, is counter productive. You can pass all the propositions you want but they will never trump state statutes.

    We need to be proactive so we can control the solution and protect Encinitas' charm as much as possible. Remaining in denial isn't going to work.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, desperate Council member. Could be Tony, could be Lisa. Both actively post here.

      Whoever you are, take a break from spouting the party line, think beyond what you've been told to say by "expert staff," and come up with an honest plan.

      The initial includion of the 4/5 supermajority to restore council power was the first and most obvious tipoff that the city had it in for residents. Talk about showing (and overplaying) your hand. It was all downhill for the city from there.

      Delete
    2. 11:28 AM

      You’re welcome desperate resident (I assume you are a resident). Sorry, I'm not a council member or one of the "expert staff". That would make it easy for you so you could dismiss the argument out of hand because it came from "one of them". Stay in denial if you want.

      The 4/5 supermajority provision in the general plan was adopted December 1991, less than 2 years after the general plan was adopted. So you’re saying the city has had it in for the residents for almost 25 years? By the way, do you remember voting on the general plan? Of course not because it was adopted by the then city council and never put to a vote.

      Talk about spouting the party line, you must be hogging the kool-aid.

      Delete
    3. 12:34, 11:28's reference is to a draft of the HEU that killed Prop A and restored upzoning decisions to a super-majority of the council.

      Indeed, the city tipped its hand, squandered any trust residents might have retained and probably ensured Measure T's defeat.

      Drunk on power and self-interest, city staff and council forget they work for the majority of the public.

      Delete
    4. The 4/5 supermajority "in the public benefit" power grab was done behind closed doors. Sounds like you're good with that, 12:34. 'Nuff said.

      Delete
    5. 2:14 PM

      You're getting to vote on it aren't you. So no, the HEU is not killing Prop A. Prop A is still in force. Any language that allowed the council to add more sites in the future was removed. subsequent rezonings still will have to be voted on.

      "city staff and council forget they work for the majority of the public."

      By the way, the majority of registered voters, let alone the public, didn't vote on Prop A. Who knows what the majority think.

      2:22 PM

      So two planning commission meetings and four council meetings is your idea of "behind close doors"? I see your problem.

      Delete
    6. 4:32 The point is the Prop A killers were in the HEU. If community activists hadn't discovered and exposed them, they would have been in the final version.

      In our system, we go with the choices of the majority or plurality of those who vote. A majority of voters passed Prop A in a June election. Five City Council members were against it. The opposition spent ~$100K to defeat it.

      That's a good indication of what the majority thinks.

      Delete
    7. Here's a thought:

      How's bout we vote on what's actually in it, not what was in an early draft.

      Delete
    8. Here is a thought...
      Not once in the process has the current regime come up with anything acceptable and has over reached every step of the way. Then a city lecture led by three people who stand to profit from measure toilet.

      How about a Prop B. If the city fails to put together a plan that passes then they are all fired in planning. A citizen led committee would be in charge of the rehiring. A citizen led committee will be in charge of what goes into the special election plan. Dont take any applications for upzoning permits for six months until the results of special election. T fails, B passes and the state will hopefully let us have one last shot before getting involved. If the state does get involved, we sue the state.

      Delete
    9. 6:30 PM

      "That's a good indication of what the majority thinks."

      While no one is denying that Prop A got the most votes, only 17% of registered voters voted for Prop A. Since voters wanting change are usually more motivated to turn out at a special election, you can't extrapolate that 17% represent the majority, especially since 15% voted no.

      Delete
    10. 10:50 Since 2010, the only contraindication of what the majority thinks is Gaspar's election.

      Delete
  19. A new council and mayor, a lawsuit filed, some heads roll in city staff, the new council is actually able to write a new measure and set a special election, and the vote is in favor. That's some bit of wishful thinking. I like it!

    How much crap can be removed and how long would it take them to do it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Select all, delete. Gee, I dunno. Four seconds tops?

      An honest plan is what we need. It's the only thing I'll vote for.

      Delete
    2. So it gets voted down, the BIA sues Encinitas, the city ends up settling and paying the BIA's legal fees, then the Prop A supporters sue the city for not complying with the right-to-vote amendment. Then the lawyers get even richer.

      Delete
    3. The city can't be sued because of the way the voters vote. When Measure T fails the City will have to get to work on a new HEU. Perhaps next time they can come up with something that guarantees affordable housing without so many giveaways to BIA interests.

      Delete
    4. Exactly, 1:53. The City cannot be sued for the result of a popular vote. That the Council absurdly agreed last summer to guarantee the outcome of the election is not the residents' problem.

      Who makes deals like that? Someone getting very, very bad legal advice.

      Delete
    5. The legal advise is always bad but is expensive as well. Wonder why he has stuck around for so long? Perhaps in on the hustle? Who authorizes city settlements? What have those people received from the plaintiff?

      Let them sue the city until it is broke and nobody wants live here any more. Rather be run down than run over.

      Delete
    6. 1:53 PM

      It will be up to the judge how the city will proceed if the HEU fails in November. Given how long the city has been out of compliance, there's no guarantee the judge will allow the city to start over.

      2:26 PM

      "That the Council absurdly agreed last summer to guarantee the outcome of the election ..."

      The city didn't guarantee the outcome of the election. They committed to get it on the November ballot which they've done.

      4:11 PM

      "Who authorizes city settlements?" The city council.

      Delete
    7. 4:39 On the other hand, there's no guarantee the judge won't let the city start over.

      Delete
    8. The City Council settles with the developers and fights the residents. Tells it all.

      Delete
    9. The city fights cases it can win, and settles when they are going to lose.

      There.

      Fixed it for you.

      Delete
    10. Gov. Code Title 7 Div. 1 Chapter 3

      Article 14 Actions or Proceedings.

      Section 65754

      In any action brought to challenge the validity of the general plan of any city, county, or city and county, or any mandatory element thereof, if the court, in a final judgment in favor of the plaintiff or petitioner, finds that the general plan or any mandatory element of the general plan does not substantially comply with the requirements of Article 5 (commencing with Section 65300):

      (a) The city, county, or city and county shall bring its general plan or relevant mandatory element or elements thereof into compliance with the requirements of Article 5 (commencing with Section 65300) within 120 days.

      Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision (b) of Section 65585, the planning agency of the city, county, or city and county shall submit a draft of its revised housing element or housing element amendment at least 45 days prior to its adoption to the Department of Housing and Community Development for its review, notifying the department that the element is subject to the review procedure set forth in this section.

      The department shall review the draft element or amendment and report its findings to the planning agency within 45 days of receipt of the draft. The legislative body shall consider the department’s findings prior to final adoption of the housing element or amendment if the department’s findings are reported to the planning agency within 45 days after the department receives that draft element or amendment.

      (b) The city or county, including the chartered cities specified in subdivision (d) of Section 65860, shall, in accordance with Section 65860, bring its zoning ordinance into consistency with its general plan or relevant mandatory element or elements thereof within 120 days after the general plan has been amended in accordance with subdivision (a).

      Delete
    11. That offers some clarity on how the DCM lawsuit will proceed.

      Delete
    12. As noted in the government code quoted above (11:29 AM), the law allows a judge to require Encinitas compliance within 120 days. I doubt the judge would allow the city to start over.

      Delete
  20. One thing that should be deleted from consideration, and deservedly so, is Barths Enrage Encinitas forums. Could they have been set up to be more partisan? Hardly.

    The inconsequence of any expectations that could come from this assemblage is nil. Don't waste your time on a one sided protagonist who has little relevancy, if even that. Appropriate justice would demand such a low turnout that the following forums[?], if any, would be cancelled.

    Please go away with your feeble attempts to be relevant. Maybe some day, you will wake the heck up, and see why there is resistance to any thing you could have to say, much less, have any influence over what the majority sees as a plan to urbanize our precious town.

    No, on Measure T, now and forever. How can Teresa justify any part of this shallow infill attempt?

    Cardiff Citizens, imagine your future business district in Teresa's mindset. Yes, you found a way to limit this to two stories in Cardiff, but your fellow citizens throughout the city will be subject to three and more.

    No on Measure T, now and forever. Fear mongering is what it is and all that it is. Our specialness is worth defending with every breath we take.

    No on Measure T, is our only voice. If any council member chose to defend us, they would hold a position of honor when our towns history is written.

    I can dream.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm having tee shirts printed with "The inconsequence of any expectations that could come from this assemblage is nil."

      Profound.

      Delete
    2. While you're at it, please explain what it means.

      Delete
    3. I can't. That's why it's profound. Like people who have Mandarin characters tattooed on without understanding the translation.

      Delete
    4. Profound? Absurd is more like it.

      Delete
  21. I was not aware that David Meyer ever actually brought any of his various cases to court before a judge! It was my understanding that for the past 10 years or so, that every time he has THREATED to sue, that the various councils have made out of court settlements to pay off Meyer.

    If hard evidence of quid pro quo between Meyer and a council member past or present could be found of the type that sunk Dan Dalager, what actions could take place?

    One of the greatest frustrations that I hear is that the entire legal process has never taken place with this particular person.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gaspar and Muir are definitely pro-Meyer types. Sabine has probably been bought off a long time ago too. Meyer/Eckes have owned the city councils since the city's inception - most favoritism are backroom deals; thus probably difficult to get hard evidence of cronyism and
      accommodation. Is there possibility of it having occurred? Without a shred of doubt. $tock$ was a good bet to have swung deals, but was smarter than Dalager than to leave evidence.
      Small town politics - the money people call the shots.

      Delete
    2. 4:02 PM

      Case Title: DCM PROPERTIES INC VS CITY OF ENCINITAS
      Case Number: 37-2016-00002342-CU-MC-NC
      Case Location: North County
      Case Type: Civil
      Date Filed: 01/25/2016

      Delete
    3. The parties settled the suit out of court.

      http://www.ci.encinitas.ca.us/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=7874

      If Measure T fails in November, the city will not have met the settlement, and the case will become active.

      Delete
    4. No lawsuit settlement can demand that people vote in a certain way. It does require that the city put it on the ballot, which they have done. If Measure T fails, then the city must start a new HEU process.

      If the city had come up with a reasonable HEU it would have been done and passed two years ago.

      Delete
    5. One of the bases of the suit is that the city is in violation of a state law that says it must have a compliant housing element.

      If Measure T fails, the city still won't have a compliant housing element. The suit will become active, go to court, and a judge will decide what comes next.

      Delete
    6. Or not. There's no case law on this. A judge is unlikely to reverse the outcome of an election and hand control of an entire city over to the BIA, according to several lawyers who have been consulted..

      But you can always dream, 8:56.

      Delete
    7. The only basis for a lawsuit after Measure T fails is if the city throws up its hands and refuses to work on a new HEU. Creating a HEU is a process that will continue after Measure T fails.

      Delete
    8. 1:13 "... a judge will decide what comes next." It's a general statement. Nobody knows which of several options the judge will choose.

      Delete
    9. 1:13 AM

      "A judge is unlikely to reverse the outcome of an election ..."

      When will you people stop fantasizing about a local initiative overruling state law. It can't. The state supreme court has made this perfectly clear. While the settlement can't guarantee an election outcome, if the HEU loses in November the city remains out of compliance and the parties go back to court.

      It will take at least six months to place the same HEU in a special election, not to mention the added cost with no guarantee it would pass. To revise the HEU for a special election would take at least a year given the requirements of public hearings, HCD review and election lead time.

      Given the many years the city has been out of compliance, I seriously doubt a judge would be willing to wait that long, especially with the outcome uncertain. That's not fear mongering, that's reality.

      Delete
    10. David Meyer, Ecke brother-in-law and Carltas, the Ecke investment arm, have always gotten what they wanted in Encintas. When Encinitas incorporated, the Ecke land was excluded. It wasn't until 1995 with the Development Agreement that the Ecke land was brought into the city. It was a tug-of-war between Carlsbad and Encintas. Carltas got everything thing they wanted -- zoning changes to build more than 800 housing units and a big shopping center on agriculturally zoned land and the city of Encinitas incorporated the land. Imagine if the land had gone to Carlsbad, then the David Meyer problem would be theirs.

      The Development Agreement expired last year, but many provisions go forward. The most important is the golf course deal and the Sales Tax Advance to help the project get started. The deal was set up to have the golf course revenue pay for the golf course land and repay the Sales Tax Advance. Unfortunately golf course revenues have been insufficient, so the city suspended the tax repayment for five years at the request of Carltas. Carltas still owes over $600,000. Watch in 2018, as the suspension expires. Will Carltas get a renewal? Of course, with City Attorney Sabine in the background urging Ecke support. Faces change on the council but Carltas always wins.

      Delete
    11. "Nobody knows which of several options the judge will choose."

      Delete
    12. Whenever I see Ecke, the vibe he projects is a strange mix of resentment and guilt.

      Delete
    13. 10:22 The lawsuit already exists. See 4:42 and 6:57.

      Delete
    14. I recall when there was a ballot initiative to remove the Ecke land from his promise to preserve some of it in perpetuity for having been allowed to develop the shopping center and housing tracts; Ecke had public events at his green houses where he cried poverty if he couldn't develop the land as he saw fit. He was arrogant and condescending - it irked him to have to put on this fake act before the peasants. He spent over $100K on his campaign vs about $10K opposed to his getting off the hook - he was trounced at the polls. There have been half-truths and distortions from this family - they have the trustworthiness quotient of Hillary Clinton. His resentment is not being allowed to get his way 100% of the time.

      Delete
    15. 1:47 PM

      Ecke had been downsizing local operations for a number of years with much of its growing operations moved to South America. Ecke wanted to create a biotech/ag center on their property to supplement their flower business. Whether or not you agree with it, the economics for a large agriculture operation here in Encinitas, or any where in developed north county, is no longer favorable. Why do you think so many greenhouses have disappeared.

      Delete
    16. 2:12, you didn't address 1:47's point.

      You made another point in a snarky way.

      Delete
    17. 2:25 PM

      1:47 PM said "Ecke had public events at his green houses where he cried poverty if he couldn't develop the land" Well, they ended up selling the business and ranch. The economics weren't in their favor. The other disparaging remarks by 1:47 PM I'm ignoring because I"ve had no personal contact with the Eckes that allows me to properly address them.

      Delete
    18. 3:05 The Ecke property on Saxony was supposed to be zoned for agriculture in perpetuity. Ecke did a ballot initiative to get the zoning changed. The voters defeated it by a big margin. Consequently, Ecke sold the land to Leichtag as agricultural, and they've been trying to slip around that zoning ever since.

      Delete
    19. I disagree about Leichtag. They are a good neighbor of mine. An agricultural use can have offices.

      Delete
    20. Eckes were never in any economic peril - they just lost interest in the agricultural operations because they had land worth multi-millions. Ecke said that none of his kids were interested in the business aspects anyway. Leichtag is looking at a long term round about change in the "ag in perpetuity" aspect of the land purchase. They were applying for parcel size changes, which will lead to zoning modifications someday. They want to develop that land - this is their way of circumventing the land use restriction convenant.

      Delete
  22. I spotted Kranz's having a drink downtown with Meyer's the other night! But this is not the first time the two have been spotted together.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Huh? 8:49 saw Kranz's what with Meyer's what? Friend, neighbor, daughter, son, supporter, someone else? Please fill in the blanks.

      Delete
    2. Kranz let it slip at a council meeting he'd been meeting with Shea Homes on the controversial quail gardens project. He said he thought it looked good to him.

      Delete
    3. The special interests got to Kranz shortly after he was elected.

      Delete
    4. I saw Kranz's cat having a drink with Meyer's dog.

      Probably.

      Delete
    5. OK, 8:32, thanks for clearing that up!

      Delete
  23. Kranz is a politician and pro density. I will not be voting for him.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I like this topic.This site has lots of advantage.I found many interesting things from this site. It helps me in many ways.Thanks for sharing.

    Cardiff commercial legal solutions

    ReplyDelete
  25. 9:18pm last night, at last a solution. Thanks. That is worth reading over a few times for it to sink in.

    Adding a Prop B, with a citizens led committee, and of our choosing, not like the coopted so called 'stakeholders' group that consisted of real estate profiteers and other city funded main street groups.

    This community is THE stakeholder.

    If anyone thinks all the provisions for getting around Prop A have been removed, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

    No on Measure T.

    Don't give Manjeet sole power to approve projects, as long as he is still here, and why is he still here? He has repeatedly shown he can be trusted about as far as you can throw him. Go away. Find another community to manipulate. You are done here in the publics trust.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Muir's campaign signs now scar the landscape - DUMP MUIR! He is absolutely worthless on the council.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Would a write-in candidate (city council) have to had pulled papers to be eligible?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Dr. Lorri decided not to run for office or sue $tock$ - too bad. I guess I'll be leaving my ballot blank. Too bad there isn't a way to vote against a particular candidate, short of voting for their opposition.

    ReplyDelete
  29. So at tonight's "Engage Encinitas" forum, Teresa held court with an unbiased (yeah, right) panel.

    Keith Harrison was in fine form, spouting the usual impossible-to-follow commentary:

    "We confuse density with intensity." (Huh?)
    "The zoning under the boat houses is R52 (Double huh?)

    He followed these up with a truly arcane monologue about creating more affordable housing by lifting restrictions on developers so they won't want to invoke density bonus but will pay the in-lieu fees to "keep the powder dry."

    Seen exiting halfway through were Tasha, Lisa, and Lisa's hubby. It was clear Teresa's "Engage Encinitas" hostess duties were a front for the City to campaign for Measure T. It's a thin line she's walking there, as it's illegal for the City to engage in campaign activities on a ballot measure.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Yeah, and Lisa and Tasha sat in the front of the car and hubby was sent to the back seat. Poor schlub.

    ReplyDelete
  31. What? They didn't ride their bikes or walk to the T show?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course not! They have the same middle name in common: Hypocrite.

      The audience had its share of shills, including one self-identified builder who claimed "no one wants affordable housing." Well then, Measure T is tailor-made for him - which, of course, he knows.

      Delete