Wednesday, October 26, 2016

Peter Stern on Measure T

Coast News op-ed:
Councilmember Lisa Shaffer has written that if Measure T fails, the city will be sued again. While her opinion is pure speculation, two things are unarguably true: first, by putting Measure T on the ballot, Encinitas will have satisfied the Building Industry Association (BIA) settlement agreement and tried to enact an updated housing element.

Second, should Measure T fail, the Order to develop a housing element would still stand. The City would start over to (hopefully) create a housing element that voters can pass: one that guarantees low-income housing, keeps building heights 30 feet and doesn’t transfer powers to an unelected official (including 230 pages of developer-friendly “policy changes” the State does not require).

Shaffer’s conjecture that a court will take over Encinitas’ housing or planning department(s) is absurdly exaggerated. In the Pleasanton case, that City had capped the total number of houses that could be built — a violation of State law. Conversly, Encinitas has no housing cap. Threats that the State will “send in a judge” are groundless. California State Housing & Community Development (HCD) Deputy Director Campora has assured us that the State will never sue a city over not passing a housing element update.

Lawsuits might come from developers, but why does Encinitas get sued? Because we settle quickly, pay off developers, and even change our codes to suit them. It’s time we take back our city before we lose it to developers' interests.

69 comments:

  1. Molon Labe. Let's just wait and see how these Cultural Marxist STATISTS will force these homes into our neighborhoods. Shill Marco Gonzalez lives in an ungated community off Requeza, we can all show up with pitchforks in front of his home each day and ensure that the voice of the people is heard and that the will of the people is known. Same with David Myers or anyone that wants to force these Cultural Marxist and socialist edicts down our throats and attempt to destroy our traditional neighborhoods. KEEP THE CHANGE.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is "Cultural Marxist" even a defined term?????

      Delete
    2. Feel free to protest at my office; our neighborhood is private property, so probably not the best place for it.

      I have watched this process play out, and not one VIABLE plan was put forward by the stream of NIMBYs to comply with state housing law. I know you all want to speculate on my intentions, and I'm more than happy to sit down with anyone and discuss them), but the reality is that I don't believe new housing will ruin our community, just like it didn't ruin us when you first moved here.

      Delete
    3. Hey Marco, it's not the residents' responsibility to develop a viable plan. It's the city's responsibility. The city has spent millions of dollars and many years and failed miserably. The city could have developed a plan that satisfied residents and the state, but it sought to satisfy developers and other special interests instead. That's the root of the problem. Cut the transparent BS and assign blame where it belongs.

      Delete
    4. 11:07 nails it.

      Delete
    5. Yes, that's High School Debate 101; attack your opponents by claiming they don't have a viable plan. The City, including its consultants and staff, along with Council, haven't come up with a viable plan that would achieve affordable housing mandates.

      Marco, you are resorting to name-calling by labeling us as NIMBY's, a term created by developers and employed by Jerome Stocks, and others who push excessive density, which would line the pockets of special interests at existing residents'great expense.

      I heard Peter Stern on KPBS radio this afternoon; he makes a lot of sense. A real plan could be formulated by existing residents. Catherine Blakespear, also briefly interviewed, along with Marco Gonzales on KPBS radio, stated there have been over 140 public meetings? Is she counting every Council Meeting over how many years in which the housing element update was discussed?

      Again, part of any palatable plan must include a re-counting of existing affordable housing potential, including counting existing and potential affordable units, which are ALREADY allowed by right in all residential zones in Encinitas. Also, the population projections superimposed on us by SANDAG are off and need to be reassessed.

      Marco, in his interview, used false logic to say there are only two choices. But that is incorrect. There is more than one way to comply with the law. The intention of the laws are to create ACTUAL affordable housing, not higher density to satisfy real estate interests, lobbyists and politicians.

      Delete
  2. Peter Stern for City Council. I am going to write in my vote for Mr. Stern. Existing City Council are clueless for listening to clueless City Managers and City Attorney who don't know )(*t.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, the new city manger is worthless and Sabine is like a cancerous growth that hasn't been removed.

      Delete
    2. Personally, I think we should have a full time attorney and it should be Peter Stern. He seems to know a lot more than our contracted city attorney.

      Delete
    3. I also would love to see Peter Stern run for office here in Encinitas. He did apply for the Planning Commission one time, at least, but of course Council passed him by for someone whose strings they could pull.

      Delete
  3. "...one that guarantees low-income housing..." - That sounds great but how does that happen?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 8:58, guess you're new here so we'll go through this again.

      Per the State, cities can require 25% (in some cases, higher) affordable units be built in order to approve a project.

      Some Planning Commission members, including Chairman O'Grady, pushed Manjeet and Mike to add a 25% requirement into the Housing Element Update (Measure T). Tasha, having swallowed copious amounts of staff Kool-Aid, objected and stuck a pin in the proposal.

      It sounds great, it can happen. But our Planning Dept., followed mindlessly by some Planning Commissioners and the entire Council, won't support it. Why not? You'd have to ask them.

      Delete
    2. 9:09, But how would increasing the inclusionary requirement to 25% "guarantee" low-income housing any more than the existing 10% inclusionary requirement? In other words, if "guarantee" refers to the fact that Measure T housing units can only be built if affordable units are included (pursuant to our inclusionary housing ordinance), then Measure T does "guarantee" affordable housing. You seem to be saying that the inclusionary percentage should just be increased? That sounds great too, but at what point does that actually yield less affordable housing because the required subsidy discourages new housing units from being built? Is the problem that new housing developments don't include their fair-share of affordable units, or that the vast majority of homes in Encinitas were built when there was no inclusionary requirement? I don't know what the perfect inclusionary percentage is but I wonder if we would be having this debate if 10% of all of Encinitas homes were affordable.

      Delete
    3. Absolutely NOTHING is guaranteed and 'affordable housing' is about is completely unconstitutional. If someone cannot afford to live here there literally millions of towns across America where it is 10 to 20 times cheaper to live. NO ONE should have access to the nicest climate in the world if they cannot afford it. If you are retired and emotionally feel guilty because you've have a cushy life and want to share your earnings with poor people, please do it on your own or with our charity but only a socialist statist gtovernment is in the business of redeistriubuting the wealth to unfathered househoolds...disgraceful to keep this utopian democratic plantation welfre model going....purge the Marxist Kool Aid from your system you old hippies (Shaffer/Barth/Skiljian/Blakespear's mom to name a few) as your grandkids need you to hold the line on not 'giving it all away.'

      Delete
    4. 10:22 - no, the inclusionary 10% may get traded to another site (Iris Apts) and never built as the standalone home promised. The developer may also elect to pay the in-lieu fee (set very low) that entices the developer to buy his way out of building the affordable unit and then selling it instead for full market rate.

      The 25% in Measure T could not get weaseled out from under. That's the difference.

      Delete
    5. The 25% affordable housing rate could be do-able. Then more ACTUAL affordable units would have to be included in new-build developments.

      The Moonlight Lofts bought their "inclusionary" units through credits. Monies paid went to ALREADY EXISTING AND ALREADY COUNTED (supposedly already counted) affordable units at the Boathouses property. The inclusionary housing fund was raided to the tune of $181,000 that went to the developers who created the Encinitas Preservation Association, which bought the Boathouses Property, through tax deductible donations, and with the City's subsidizing over 50% of the purchase price. Will we citizens ever see a "museum" in one of the boathouses?

      When there is a density bonus project, then actual affordable units must be built. I'm not sure if they always have to be on-site of the development project. But inclusionary housing for non DB projects, DON"T have to include affordable housing on-site, or anywhere in the city. The money can simply go into the City's inclusinonary housing fund, to be raided when Council decides to give another perk to developers.

      Many so-called infill projects eliminate what has been traditional affordable housing, such as the project on Hermes. In fact, that was Marco's false argument. He said that to comply with State law, there would either be infill development or sprawl, so its either more housing along transportation corridors, such as along the railroad, or eliminating our rural farms. As I said before, you are ignoring the possibility that if actual affordable housing were counted, and actual population projections were corrected, the government authorities could find we have adequate affordable housing potential already for the number of jobs available here.

      Delete
  4. Stern says "The City would start over. . ." The problem is, we've already started over 3 or 4 times. If our legal system allows for an infinite loop of restarts, it represents a loophole for perpetual non-compliance without consequences. At some point, the courts will determine that we've had enough bites at the apple, and exit the restart cycle to an alternative track that imposes a compliant solution with certainty. The question of whether a judge will interrupt the cycle now, or allow one more restart is an open one. We won't know when our chances have run out until they have.

    The path ahead is pretty clear to me.

    After researching a coastal selection of the over 400 HCD-approved housing elements, it's obvious that they are all broadly similar. They all increase density. They all create incentives for infill density. They all upzone to R30 (or more!). They all increase heights. They all reduce setbacks. They all make policy changes to encourage denser infill (streamlining permits and approvals, reducing parking requirements, relaxing setbacks, etc.). Why? Because the state housing law is specifically written to remove obstacles to dense infill development of the type that costs less than a single family detached home with a dedicated yard.

    These things you'll find in every single approved coastal housing element are deal breakers with the voters. Period. The Venn Diagram of what voters will accept, and what the law requires looks like two circles that do not overlap. There will never be a housing element that satisfies both state law (HCD), and voters. Ain't gonna happen. No how. No Way. Never never never. Bet the ranch on it.

    And so, here's a little preview of the road ahead.

    We will vote down Measure T. And then we will get sued by the developers. And they will win. And we will pay them handsomely from the funds we could have used to pave roads, or hire cops, or keep our parks clean. And a court will either say (1.) we can have one last chance at crafting a housing element that voters will approve, or (2.) we'll be forced to exit the infinite loop of restarts and failures, and placed onto rails that lead only to acceptance of a complaint housing element that looks an awful lot like Measure T (because they all do).

    In deciding between options 1 and 2 above, a judge will have to assess whether another restart is likely to lead to a successful outcome with both voters and HCD. He'll probably ask the City to weigh in on that, and the City is likely to admit that a restart is unlikely to result in a successful outcome.

    Yadda, yadda, yadda.

    After this failure at the ballot, or the next one, we'll be put on rails to compliance.

    Vote yes or no. Either way, we're going to the same place.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One final thought:

      The No on T group might become victims of their own success.

      As a court considers whether to allow yet another restart, they will have to look at the probability that a restart will succeed on a future ballot.

      If Measure T goes down by 1-2 % of the vote, then it's more likely that restarting can lead to modest reforms that can swing enough voters to win on a future ballot. But if Measure T is voted down by a vote margin of >6%, then it becomes much less likely that a restart will result in success.

      So, the more successful the No on T crowd is this time around, the less likely we are to get another reboot.

      No on T should hope for a win, but a small one.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. 9:46am is a big part of the problem. See how the left attacks and vilifies anyone that calls out their deceit? Anyone opposed to measure T can take a page out of the Saul Alinsky 'Rules for Radicals' and the ADL and target these 'developers' just like they did in Carlsbad and vilify them, peacefully protest outside their homes and residences, watch their every move and then socially coerce (force) people to Boycott/Divest/Sanction anyone or business that associates with these parasitic pariahs. All this take's is a little belly fire and some courage, don't be weak, meek and useless ESPECIALLY if you have kids that you'd like to see move back here someday.

      Imagine a peaceful protest in front of 'Coast Law Group' on PCH, then watching every case they are involved in and then naming those that hire this hit team for other purposes and including them in the campaign to basically run these parasitic attorney's pout of town. When the developers try and bring in some out-of-town attorneys, the same can be done for these shills. Find some backbone people and let's not forget what one of our founding fathers shared with us:
      "I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical."

      Delete
    4. 10:40 accuses 9:46 of villifying and attacking without support (who was attacked, exactly? please quote directly from 9:46 where you see the attacks).

      Then 10:40 suggests that we should all attack and vilify people.

      Have I got that right?

      Delete
    5. 9:46 is Marco. That's some of the same exact language he used in his interview on KPBS radio.

      Delete
  5. I'm pretty confident state housing law preempts local governments' abilities to subject housing element updates to public vote. Once that is proved in court, it'll be up to the City Council to approve a compliant plan. I expect that will look a lot like Measure T, but I could see a new council arguing they should have the ability to take another crack at it in light of a clear inapplicability of Prop A to the issue.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Marco- Maybe you can answer a question. If I am correct, the Coastal Commission says the height limit of a building can only be 30 feet. Half of the City of Encinitas is within the Coastal Commissions purview. Measure T says the height of a building can go as high as 48 feet. Some of the sites in the HEU are in the Coastal Commission purview. So, my question is " is the city going to try to get around the Coastal Commission? And if so, doesn't that gut what the Coastal Commission's mission is all about? Thanks for a response.

      Delete
    2. And the sane approach is counting existing low income units that would easily meet the numbers, they do exist. But that doesn't make developers money. Or lawyers.

      Delete
    3. The Coastal Act does not include a 30 foot height cap.

      The brand new Hilton at Ponto is taller than 30 ft. It would not exist if if there was a cap.

      Delete
    4. 10:19 AM
      You seem to forget that residents are stakeholders entitled to decide on policies that affect them. Measure T isn't an update of the current housing element.

      Delete
  6. 'State housing law' appears to written by anti-American socialists in the 1970's as part of the Cultural Marxism penetration into all sectors of our culture here in California and this socialist 'housing for all' edict must be changed peacefully or painfully.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Keyboard Cliven Bundy.

      Delete
  7. 10:19 - "The State" told us at the December forum that it will be our partner and that they have flexibility in what they accept.

    Measure T is a developers' dream, no doubt there.

    Strip out the developer giveaways NOT required by the State and turn in an upzone number that isn't 1,900 units HIGHER than what the State already said it would accept and no problem. Add in truly-mandated affordable units and no problem.

    Really, truly, no problem.

    But the bloat in Measure T? Big problem.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The law has resulted in less actual affordable housing, much less. The law is in conflict enviromental laws, new and old. The allocation numbers are not accurate by admission of SANDAG. How should new state laws concerning granny flats and large projects be applied? A lot of construction in the state will come to a halt if it actually gets challenged. Some developer lawsuits would have to be put on hold until a verdict is reached, could be years.

    Any actual advocate of infill affordable housing should be concerned with the state law and not the vunerable cities. Forcing a city to build market rate housing in the name of affordable housing is a tough sell.

    Can the city just pay one big fee to get out of building actual affordable housing like developers? Can we re assign our allocation to Rancho Santa Fe?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We took all we could get and then some under Stocks. Shaffer ran on an "I'll push back on SANDAG allocations" platform, then did zilch.

      We may be stuck a certain number of units, but it is not the 2,979 the City isn't telling voters are in Measure T.

      And the City never explained why Jeff Murphy's 669 units ended up at 2,979.

      So...I and others against T suggest the City look up the word "honest" in the dictionary and apply it to the next upzone attempt.

      Delete
    2. There was no magic to it...The 669 units of Jeff Murphy is Prop A reversal. I think it was pretty well covered in his presentation. Restoring heights in the downtown area would be similar to Measure T for that area.

      Delete
    3. Restoring heights residents should have, but not we're not allowed to vote on, in the first place. Let's get that straight right now. Notes from input sessions on the Specific Plan showed residents wanted a 30', 2-story limit, but they were ignored. SOP.

      Murphy's presentation was about as sensical as Keith Harrison's 30-foot trellis ramblings. Hardly compelling, deceptive at best.

      The Council has been dead silent on the ever-changing Measure T upzone number. Here's the chronological history of high-density units:

      1) 1,033
      2) 853
      3) 669
      4) 1,033
      5) 1,093
      6) 1,987
      7) 2,979

      Anyone see a trend after Murphy got his hand slapped for getting the allocation reduced to 669?

      Vote NO on the sham that is Measure T.

      Delete
    4. Numbers 2 and 3 were the lowered numbers that Jeff Murphy negotiated with HCD; 669 was the new number until that moron who authored the petition got Prop A moving forward, then after Prop A passed, with all the property owners having lost their building-rights for 3 stories, it went up to 1033. Blame yourselves, don't blame Murphy. So delusional.

      Delete
  9. I am seeing No on T signs and Gaspar/Graham/Muir signs on prime commercial land on El Camino and Encinitas Blvd. Land not being up-zoned in T. They want a second chance to be up-zoned.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not true. Many signs appear on private property without the owners permission. Horvath tried that on my property and I removed her sign.

      Delete
    2. Horvath's been doing that. Weird.

      Delete
    3. Some of the signs are inside fencing. For example at the SE corner of Manchester and El Camino Real. That owner is trying everything to up-zone his property which is on the lagoon.

      Delete
  10. No matter what the city does I will oppose it.
    No on T and any other proposal the city proposes.
    I also oppose low income housing, not everyone is supposed to live at the beach.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. At least you are honest about it.

      Thanks.

      Delete
  11. COE sending out parking survey, the results will be the city calling for parking meters all over the city.
    More revenue for the city to pay high salaries and pensions to sit around do nothing staff...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's Lisa's pet project. Won't you all ensure Lisa's legacy by putting in parking meters?

      Delete
  12. With all due respect, Peter Stern doesn't appear to be a land use attorney. There are many intricacies in California land use statutes that if you don't regularly follow them you'll look a little foolish. Case in point, Stern's statement that "Threats that the State will “send in a judge” are groundless. ... HCD Deputy Director Campora has assured us that the State will never sue a city over not passing a housing element update." shows he doesn't know how things work. Any land use practitioner would know that the housing element statute allows interested parties to sue the city for failure to follow the statute and receive expenses if they prevail. If any state agency was going to sue it would be the Attorney General as HCD has no capacity to sue cities or counties.

    Cities like Pleasanton and Menlo Park weren't sued by developers. They were sued by affordable housing advocates. Actually, the Attorney General did become a party to the Pleasanton case but did not initiate it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And 3:57 apparently doesn't believe HCD itself on the topic.

      Delete
    2. Marco has threatened to sue; I sure don't see him as an affordable housing advocate. He is jumping on the developer/real estate interest bandwagon, because that's where the money is.

      Apparently, by what he is saying, Marco feels that it's inevitable Encinitas, we citizens, will be forced to upzone citywide to appease a law that is being used by Gonzales and other "power brokers" for purposes other than for those, which these relevant sections of state law were allegedly created to address and rectify.

      There has to be a reasonable balance between social engineering through State Legislation and local control exercised through popular vote. You cannot make coastal housing less expensive by forcing higher density on us and eliminating parking. You cannot force people out of their cars. You can give incentives, but you can't operate from a bully platform," and expect to succeed in your stated goal of providing more affordable housing.

      Delete
  13. 3:57. With all respect you offer your opinion as fact, it is not. Sadly, you sound like a developer paid trolls sent to mislead and misinform. The public. You offered no facts to disprove the statements of Mr. Stern.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 4:06 PM

      "Sadly, you sound like a developer paid trolls sent to mislead and misinform."

      Sadly, that's standard operating procedure here. If you don't like a comment claim it's from a developer troll, which I'm not, so you can just ignore it.

      I did a search on Stern and it said he was in criminal and person injury practice. He was also demonstrating unfamiliarity with how things worked. There are many aspects of law just as there are many aspects of medicine which is why there are specialists. Besides, other than saying he is an attorney, I've never heard Mr. Stern claim any professional expertise. He's just speaking as a citizen who happens to be an attorney.

      Delete
    2. 4:30. Unfortunately, you again attack others with no facts. Mr Stern has demonstrated a thorough understanding of the process, and grap of the facts and issues. You have demonstrated only that you have an opinion. We know Mr. Stern is an attorney, a member of the California bar, and well versed in city matters as he has spoke at city meetings often. You on the other hand are a faceless, nameless entity presenting no qualifications of any kind.

      Delete
    3. 7:30 PM

      I actually do know what I'm talking about. I'm not trying to disparage Mr. Stein but to someone who does know the process and statutes, he hasn't demonstrated that he fully understands it no matter how well intention he is.

      But ultimately, if the measure fails, we will all learn just will happen. Will Encinitas lose development control until a spelled out process is agreed to as was the case in Pleasanton?

      Contrary what Mr. Stein wrote "Instead, trust the process and an independent and honest Judiciary that is not interested in commanding from the bench a power and authority (local zoning) that has historically belonged to local voters" the judge in the Pleasanton case did command from the bench as the statute allows him to do. The judge didn't write the plan just ordered the city to have a HCD certified HE by a specific date. He also invalidated the local initiative that prevented the city from meeting its RHNA obligation.

      And also contrary to what Mr. Stein wrote '... 230 pages of developer-friendly “policy changes” the State does not require', HCD does require the city to demonstrate in the HE policies that the city will follow to implement the statute requirements and even requires annual reports to HCD on the city's progress. Lack of progress will only make the following RHNA cycle (about 4 years away) even more onerous.

      So Pleasanton had to pay the litigants (not developers but affordable housing advocates) just under $2M for their trouble. If Encinitas finds itself in the same situation I'm sure you will offer to chip in to pay for it so that we residents who wanted to meet our obligations aren't stuck with it.

      Delete
    4. 7:30 PM (Oct. 26)

      "You have demonstrated only that you have an opinion. We know Mr. Stern is an attorney, a member of the California bar, and well versed in city matters as he has spoke at city meetings often."

      I looked up Peter Stern on the State Bar of California database and it doesn't show him as a member of the California Bar.

      Delete
  14. Sabine's not a land use attorney either, but he plays one in his overpaid life.

    Stern has researched Measure T and relevant case law thoroughly. Sabine is a know-nothing whose lack of expertise and extreme deference to David Meyer make him unfit to take our tax dollars.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 6:30 PM

      Which is why Sabine uses other law firms that do specialize in land use as does other cities, especially smaller cities which can only afford one city attorney.

      While a city attorney is expected to be familiar with government related law they are a general counsel and will hire specialists as needed.

      Delete
    2. And while we're at it, Marco's not a land-use attorney, either.

      Which is beside the point, really. Lawyers know how to research case law and understand consequences. Stern did research, even checked with other attorneys on interpretation, and Marco - well, we've seen him take any case and argue anything a developer wants him to - whether it's reasonable and winnable, or not.

      Delete
    3. Marco appeared to know what he was doing on Desert Rose no matter that the outcome was disagreeable.

      Delete
    4. Marco got lucky with that last judge. He was shot down by the first one. He knows how to bully and that apparently impresses some folks.

      Delete
    5. 9:53 PM

      Luck had nothing to do with it. It was a three panel appellate judges who issued the opinion. The superior court judge wasn't very familiar with CEQA.

      Delete
    6. Three judges signed off, but the one who authored the Desert Rose opinion is awful; he should retire.

      Delete
  15. From what I see, a criminal attorney's background is exactly what we need to protect citizens!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good point, 6:36!

      Delete
    2. Brainless political piñata whacking may feel good, but it won't win any court cases or resolve our compliance problem.

      Delete
    3. Keep drinking the city kool-aid, 7:13. Keep calling the outrageous power grabs and developer gifts in T "compliance," even though not required by the State.

      What's your favorite flavor?

      Delete
    4. You guys do realize the a developer friendly policy would be....

      "Build at three stories," nothing else to it.

      I have read half of the zoning standards and can tell you that developers have some serious regulations to contend with.

      I understand you want to throw things around to see what has traction, but the new design guidelines and zoning standards are not developer friendly if you consider the bigger picture. The are prescribing a specific outcome. I can understand that residents will have concerns about parking and height, but the regulations in sum are asking for the developers to do a lot... much more than just height and parking relief. The change in density is the big issue here for me anyway. If this ever were to pass by lawsuit or whatever, I'd hope that it wasn't a blanket giveaway and that there are 230 pages set up to control things.

      Delete
    5. What, exactly, is the "bigger picture" that needs:

      - reduced onsite parking requirements to enable more at-market units
      - lowered design standards to lower construction costs
      - smaller windows to enable lower building costs
      - reduced setbacks front, side, back to enable more at-market units
      - higher building lot coverage to enable more at-market units
      - minimized pedestrian access to enable more at-market units

      That's just off a couple of the 231 pages.

      The "specific outcome" of Measure T is clear: pave the way for developers to reap maximum profits at the expense of our community.

      Delete
    6. If the list above was numbered... I would say that 2, 3, 4, and 6 aren't what you claim it to be. They are not in the code.

      Delete
    7. They are most certainly going to be, of T passes, so I assume you're playing with words. Not in the code now, will be - that's what we're talking about. What will be.

      All are in the supplemental mailer and no, I'm not going to dig out the page references for you.

      Delete
  16. 48 feet??? are you kidding me!!! I ain't voting for anyone that supports measure T......

    ReplyDelete
  17. The future is urban..

    https://news.fastcompany.com/leaked-army-video-shows-a-future-of-urban-hellscapes-4023336

    ReplyDelete