The San Diego County "League of Conservation Voters" had only $947.67 on hand as of June, so we are likely to learn in subsequent filings that this mailer was funded by a large contribution from developers.
Resident Denise Martin debunks Marco's mailer at City Council here, beginning at about minute 12.
Looks like CLG is greenwashing themselves by taking over an inactive organization. What a sham!
ReplyDeleteNext up, who is behind "Public Safety Advocates" at 330 Encinitas Blvd #101, an apparently anonymous PAC.
It appears to be an active organization: www.lcvsd.org
DeletePublic Safety Advocates is one of Stocks PACs. He had another mailer in this election cycle.
DeleteOne of my partners is president of League of Conservation Voters San Diego. They do good work, but I have absolutely nothing to do with that organization.
DeleteIf any of you Anonymous yahoos want to come by and discuss the work we're doing on stormwater enforcement, water recycling, greenhouse gas emissions reductions, anti-sprawl, endangered species protection, coastal armoring, or a plethora of other environmental issues, I'd be more than happy to put our alleged "greenwashing" activities up against your own!
He sure seems to be on the losing side of everything. I know in the conservation world whenever his name comes up, eyes roll. Probably why he reps developers now. Does he have any victories oustside of exploiting enviromental laws to line his own pockets? Was it him that won the desert rose appeal?
ReplyDeleteThis will be the non profit he uses to once again line his pockets for his unethical pursuit of your tax dollars. All in the BS name of "affordable housing." He is the low of the low, makes whip-lash lawyers look good.
ReplyDeleteWell said, thank you.
DeletePretty pathetic that you all throw these bombs, yet hide behind your "anonymous" shields.
DeleteHis language is nearly identical to that used by the City. Don't think for a moment he is not partnering actively with the City to push the Measure T monstrosity.
ReplyDeleteTo Marco's benefit: wide-open doors to "by-right" construction at a level never imagined in Encinitas. He can't wait to push through a David Meyer project.
On the City's side: having someone willing to do their dirty work in pushing Measure T. The council's hands are ostensibly clean as they're not on record as campaigning for T.
This clown is as bad as Meyers. Greedy, self-serving hit man.
ReplyDeleteBoth he and our council members will say anything to take control from residents.
DeleteThe voter's guide (for those who bother to read the doorstop) states plainly that one of its goals is to "constrain Prop A." In other words, muzzle residents.
Just to be clear, one of my partners is the current president of San Diego League of Conservation Voters. I have nothing to do with that group, and nothing to do with their mailer.
DeleteT must pass to maintain the salaries and pensions. VOTE NO.
ReplyDeleteJust curious, how much does the city get from condos vs. Single family homes? What about sales tax and hotel tax?
DeletePathetic. How bout that white goose building by Potato shack, Huntington Beach here we come if T passes.
ReplyDeleteMore to show what a shameful, phony, manipulative deal Measure T is.
ReplyDeleteEvery council member and every candidate but Brandenburg supports the Measure T insult to Encinitas voters and other residents.
If voters know the truth, T will go down hard.
Help ensure it goes down hard by letting your neighbors know. There can't be any "ifs" in this election.
DeleteSend them to: www.encinitassaveourcity.com for researched facts and supporting proof.
Combat the council's "I heard...I was told...I understood...." fed to them by "staff."
If we all spread the word, we will prevail.
Looks like he weasled in on the scam. Campaign for T, if it loses we will give you a nice fat settlement, just sue. Then that settlement will open the door to sue other cities.
ReplyDeleteNo way should we settle, less affordable housing has resulted from the law, fact. What damages has affordable housing suffered as a result of no update? Plus, many other laws to challenge the affordable housing law. If the city settles, we sue the city. Get them under oath and let the discovery begin.
What an unethical, slimely little kook he is.
Get rid of Sabine - he misrepresents the city.
DeleteActually, I have no interest in a settlement should I have to sue the City if Measure T fails. I think we need a court to decide once and for all whether state housing law preempts local ballot box planning. And for the record, as bad as density bonus is at providing meaningful affordable housing, it has nonetheless resulted in more affordable being built in Encinitas than in a lot of other cities in the last few years.
DeleteAn ironic inaccuracy is that local media persist in calling Marco an "environmental attorney."
ReplyDeleteShould be "maggot ambulance chasing parasite".
DeleteI think it is sad that Manhattan Pizza is closing! A new landowner obviously wants to develop multi-story crap to replace a beloved business that adds to the quality of life of residents. This is just the beginning.
ReplyDeleteNot in rezoned Measure T
DeleteThe Hawaiian restaurant gets the boot too. These businesses are in a historical building, but it is doubtful that will keep it from being razed. Goodbye to the ambiance of old town Encinitas.
DeleteNot if you vote NO on T, not goodbye!
DeleteAgain, not in rezone areas. Control fearmongerer. This is change under prop A plan.
DeleteSaying not in rezone is weak. 7-11 and along 101 is in rezone and these adjoining properties will get gobbled up for additional use like expanded parking etc. It's called a snowball effect. Think clearly.
Delete7:28 You don't know what you're talking about, but it doesn't matter because Measure T will not pass.
Delete7:28,
DeleteIf what you say is true, then why would the owners kick out paying tenants to begin a project now, just before the Measure T vote?
If there is a "snowball effect" that would drive up the value of adjacent parcels, then wouldn't the new owners sit tight with rent checks coming in from the tenants until they find out if they won the real estate lottery? Stopping rental income and investing money in the property now would both lose money.
If this snowballing effect is true then many more than a few property owners stand to gain through all of this. I don't think this is what 728 wants to say. Most measure T opponents will say that the housing plan will make nearby property values drop. I'm guessing that 728 doesn't know anything, or if so, then he or she is just creating problems for the rest of us. Maybe 728 should be quiet until after the election.
DeleteI think they are trying to say the damage from T will grow and spread in several ways. Simply vote no on this.
DeleteActually, when no affordable hosing gets built then look for another round of up-zoning in 5 years. Clean up the property, raise the rent, in five years double your money plus. Gaspar probably already met with the buyer. Dr. Ice and Elevation probably did too.
DeleteHow can we get on this list? http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-state-auditor-program-20161023-snap-story.html
ReplyDeleteI miss Julie, where is she? She should be running away with this election!
ReplyDeleteNo groboi... Thanks.
DeleteSo Coastal Group supports turning Encinitas more into Huntington Beach. Thats a Shame.
ReplyDeleteI've thought about this for awhile. Marco's point is that objecting to higher densities is an elitest position that in practice discriminates against those without the means to live here, which in his view means minorities. ( Is that fair Marco? ). I can sympathize with this in the abstract, but it seems to me that zoning is properly used both to preserve as well as to include. It boils down to how much you think the community we have now deserves to be preserved, not only for its own residents, but as a regional resource, versus how necessary it is to support an expanding population by opening ourselves up to higher density. Clearly, some environments deserve to be preserved. For example, we wouldn't think of allowing R30 zoning in the midst of the Botanical Park. On the other hand, my current feeling is that while planning has put in a good effort, the approach is still too broad brush. I've yet to hear a convincing argument for why they chose to allocate zoning to accommodate over 1900 units when our RHNA requirement is in the neighborhood of 1090.
ReplyDeleteIt's "at least 1,987" vs. 1,093 housing units.
Delete6:49,it's a "max cap" 2,979 units per Mike Strong and city docs they really don't like to show voters.
Delete2,979 plus 35% density bonus on top.
The City has chosen to accommodate between 3,000 units when our RHNA requirement is 1,093. That's a 173% "buffer."
There is no convincing argument for that kind of excess.
I believe objecting to higher densities is an elitist practice that discriminates against everyone who would benefit from a greater supply of diverse housing stock (minorities, older, younger, first time buyers, renters, etc.). I agree zoning is both to preserve and provide, which is why we go through the public process of figuring out where to put the density (and why I argue it belongs along transit/transportation corridors). All the talk about how many units are possible under the proposed rezones is only part of the discussion; how many of those will actually get built? We have to accommodate just over a thousand new units, but I don't believe anyone expects that to happen before 2021, even if T passes. Housing Elements are living documents, so we will revisit at the end of this cycle.
DeleteIf I understand you, you are arguing that, ignoring the question of the affect on affordability, higher density in and of itself provides a social benefit. That may be true in an environment of scarcity, but that must be balanced against what is lost through providing those higher densities, both to residents and the region as a whole. So, we disagree on the value of what would be lost. As for the issue of the actual unit allocation, your argument sounds a lot like, "well, we'll get it right next time, so let's err on the side of generosity now". Given our history, why should we believe that developers would allow a claw-back of these allocations? I would think that would spark an entirely new wave of lawsuits from the same parties, yourself included, who are threatening to sue the city now.
DeleteWrong fight. Just lining their pockets (history there) and will reap what they sow. Encinitas is too special for this bs and that is inclusive of everyone getting to enjoy our beach town since we are not Huntington Beach.
ReplyDeleteI don't get it... Patrick Murphy, Gus Vina, Jeff Murphy, and Mike Strong are no longer working here. How are they getting paid? What serves them to do the work and then leave when things get close to pay out? Saying that this is a conspiracy so that staff gets paid is just ridiculous. I don't support Measure T, but stop saying stupid things...
Delete3:19 PM
ReplyDeletePlanning is upzoning at least 101 acres for 3000 units.
Ask planning for their list - not the map.
And that's 3,000 BEFORE density bonus - that'll add another 35% for a whopping 4,100 high-density units.
DeleteAnd let's face it: what developer is going to leave money on the table? Shaffer's claim that R30 is enough to make developers happy and they won't go for the max R41 with density bonus is bo-o-o-gus.
I suspect there is a disingenuous taint on both sides. Those supporting measure T are fully aware that it does nothing for affordability. On the other hand, many who oppose it, among which I include myself at this point, don't want higher density regardless of its abstract social benefit. The fact that this is being driven in large part by the specter of future lawsuits by individuals and organizations who in the past have shown little interest in anything other than themselves is repugnant, but predictable. I don't expect appeasing them on this count will earn us any future consideration from them.
ReplyDeleteI would take high density if it produced truly affordable housing. Not the kind that Lisa thinks her kids should live in, but affordable in the usually-understood sense of the word.
Delete3:58 is right in that there will be no end to developer lawsuits no matter what. All we are doing is training them to come back for more. At what point do we stop letting them write our code for us? Time to put up the hand, hard.
4:10- I'm with you. If I knew there was truly affordable housing in Measure T, I would vote for it in a heartbeat. Marco knows that there is no affordable housing in it as well. Therefore, his argument about discrimination is spurious at best. He lives in a huge home in Encinitas and he can afford it. Good for him. But, I'll bet a lot of money that I don't have, that the people who he is thinking are being discriminated against, could never afford this town. There is only so much land and there are a lot of people who would love to live at the beach, and Encinitas in general. Is it fair? Maybe not. But, it is true. Every beach city in California has higher property values than inland cities. Not all can live here. That is the way it is.
ReplyDeleteIt's easy to sue when you're an attorney. Just ask Cory Briggs, who sues the City of San Diego all of the time. Marco is our Cory Briggs, and he is proud of it. Sometimes, lawsuits do help put things back in order, but in this case, all it does is get them rich and the rest of us can go to hell in his mind. Of course, I can't read his mind, but that would be my guess. He wasn't always like this, but something changed. Who knows what? In fact, the whole Coast Law Group is not the same as it used to be. One of their attorney is the President of the League of Conservation Voters, so it isn't just Marco in this case. Kind of sad that developers get away with so much, costing us so much, when 34 other cities in Calif. don't have an HEU in place either. And, they haven't been sued by the State of Calif. We are on the State's radar because of people like David Meyers, and Marco Gonzalez. Not because we are any more out of compliance than the other 34 cities.
While I'm sympathetic to a degree to the social benefit of having a heterogeneous mix of people in a community, I have to admit that for me, a large part of my concern with Measure T is based on aesthetics. One phrase quoted by Bruce Ehlers at the recent forum on Measure T held at the Encinitas Library sticks with me. He was quoting an unnamed "founding father ( or mother ) " of Encinitas who said that "you have to have a 50-year vision of what you want Encinitas to be". That resonates with me. Maybe you can't get all of it, but once compromised, it's unlikely you're going to get any of it back. Walking downtown through a corridor of 38 ft structures would be qualitatively different than what it's like right now. Less open sky, more enclosed, more noise. A lot of what makes Encinitas special is our connection with the physical environment here, and to the extent that you disrupt that with structures, well-intended or not, you lose a bit of what makes this community special. By way of analogy, the beach is special, the woods and mountains are special, and should be shared an enjoyed by all, however, if in the process of expanding access, you destroy what made it special in the first place, what have you accomplished? I'd like to entrust those aesthetic concerns to those whom we've elected to office, but sadly I can't. Each incremental step towards more crowding creates a new normal, and moves us farther from what we remember. Some of that is inevitable, and some of it is not. While I would certainly credit the people involved with good intentions, I don't think the impulse behind the current plan was sufficiently infused with a sense of what is truly of value in this place, and once lost, may be impossible to recover.
ReplyDeleteI don't think rezoned areas of Measure T make it so you can't go to the beach. If anything, maybe you can afford to love closer to it....
DeleteIf you think three story development will destroy the city, then you should have never moved here. You already know that areas of this city has allowed three story development for 20 years.
7:43- And that is why Prop. A came into being. Prop. A and Measure T are incompatible. So if T passes, another lawsuit, this time by citizens, will be added to the list of pending lawsuits. When will this end? Shall we just roll over and let the developers have their way with our city? Do we have no say in how we would like to live? There IS NOT AFFORDABLE housing in Measure T, so what is the point?
DeleteI guess the point is that we don't want to keep getting sued, but as you point out, I doubt passing Measure T inoculates us until the next point where a developer's desires bump up against Prop. A. As much as I wish them the best, if we can afford 10 million for a jewel like Pacific View, then surely we can afford to stand up against interests which would degrade the entire city if it served their bottom line.
DeleteExactly right, 8:17. Measure T inoculates us against nothing.
DeleteThe developers are never satisfied. And as you point out on our finances that "are in fine shape" according to the Council, if we can afford a $3M lifeguard tower, we can take a stand for once in our lives against developers.
Like bullies, they go away if you don't bow down every time.
The quickest way to ruin a good thing is to make it popular.
ReplyDeleteToo late - builders like Rincon are actively approaching homeowners with lots that are zoned for stuffing homes into the space. The city is green-lighting these projects without little more than the ridiculous "eclectic" check. Which means put a shed roof and an additional offset on a track home and you're good to build. These homes do nothing for this community - crap construction, increase parking problems, and offer nothing regarding T or affordability. T is a sham - Council talks about affordability but the real intent is to remove the public from the discussion. Council wants to be able to issue wholesale approval to this build-out.
ReplyDeleteDon't make it later - vote NO to opening Pandora's Box.
Delete231 pages of "policy changes" weren't written for nothing.
Bringing this down so folks see it:
ReplyDeleteTo 6:49 - It's a "max cap" of 2,979 units per Mike Strong and city docs they really don't like to show voters. The 1,987 is a red herring "min cap" number that downplays the by-right zoning increases we'll be giving developers.
2,979 plus 35% density bonus on top.
The City has chosen to accommodate between 3,000 units when our RHNA requirement is 1,093. That's a 173% "buffer."
There is no convincing argument for that kind of excess.
During the Measure T forum, Kurt Groesclose offered the explanation that if properties upzoned by T were subsequently re-developed at less than their Measure T zoning allocation, we would lose credit for the full allocation. For the moment, let's just grant the unlikely possibility that NO developer takes advantage of the density bonus allowances. Our original RHNA requirement was 1093 and our minimum allocation is 1987. 1093/1987 = 0.55. Did the planning department assume that only 55% of the Measure T parcels would be developed? That seems like being held up at lunch for $50 and offering the culprit $100 if he promises to leave you alone on the schoolyard.
DeleteOr like paying $10 million for Pacific View when it was appraised at $4.5 mil.
Delete9.26...
DeleteI believe the city is looking ahead to the future. We have been told that this is a planning cycle and we will have to make sure that we have enough units, sometime again in the future, say 2025 or so. It is possible that the upzoning is large enough so the city has enough units both now and in the future.
1021, actually city will only get half credit for mixed use sites in future years. Didn't apply to rezone program this time around, but will next round. If you do the math, it becomes a necessary buffer.
DeleteIf you work for the city, you get to stay up late posting red herring comments.
Delete9:26 through 10:33 talking to himself.
Thanks 10:21 and 10:33. Many would argue that the population figures which triggered our current RHNA allocations were unrealistically high. Why then should the city allocate parcels for future population expansion based on current estimates which may themselves be flawed?
Delete10:21. Can you be more explicit? What is a rezone program. What effect would it have had had the city applied for it? Can you supply the math? something with 1987 on the right-hand side of the "=" sign? Thanks ahead of time.
The T doc says upzoning creates “an opportunity for at least 1,987 units that are allowed by-right.”
ReplyDeleteSo you can fill in whatever number you like above 1,987.
The T doc lies by omission.
DeleteAre we surprised? No.
I see a maximum in the documents...not easy to find in the phone book doc that was sent out, but very easy to find online. There is a minimum and a maximum. Table includes property info and actually describes which sites are likely to redevelop based on land value. Not all sites, like how some here claim. Some are probably longer term. Also, the table indicates that some sites are fairly small, which are ineligible for density bonuses. Small sites on the 101 wont work for density bonus unless bundled with other sites. Lumberyard will never redevelop...
DeleteCity worker up late.
DeletePoint being: 2,979 will be the number to which developers are legally entitled, by right, to build.
DeleteDensity bonus or not, this number is 1,000 units above what the City has been telling residents. So much for transparency and ethics.
I don't know what you think you know, 10:30, but I'm not buying your fortune telling on what will/won't be developed.
10:30pm-
ReplyDeleteYou are clueless!. Of course, lumberyard will be redeveloped. There is great profit to be had by pumping in high density like huntington beach at the expense of existing residents.
That is why the sum bag developers do it. Pure profits. They care nothing about existing residents or character of our town.
There is always time to upzone encinitas in the future if we want. I don't like Huntington Beach and I voted No on T.
I hope you will too.
Sorry 6:58 - it is you who are clueless. Lumberyard is not at full occupancy and rents are not quite at market - hardly a redevelopment play in this cycle. We're headed towards another downturn - 2017 and 2018 are looking pretty lean - so maybe there will be a redevelopment play in 2020 or 2021? By then, we will have gone through 4 iterations of Measure T - all voted down.....and the circle of life continues.....
Delete- The Sculpin
Actually, people in the profession of developing, building leasing etc... have parsed At Home In Encinitas and even with State funding, its almost impossible to design, fund, build a residential area where a commercial 'open air' marketplace currently is located anywhere in Encinitas. of course all the political genius' on this website who still have the Golden Book series of Marx and Engels are running around misinforming their neighbors about what the passage of T would mean; whoever dreamt our futures would be spent half the time trying to outwit Uncle Sam into getting a break on their medical insurance and the other half keyboarding maxims on this website that are more fictional than Non.
DeleteWe now take an intermission from our normally recorded programming to give you the world premiere of the famous flamenco 'Donna and her West Blokes'; all entirely leash-trained.
Plus, for a humorist's break, don't miss Tasha in the Advocate, front row with an apple in her mouth at the Grand 'O' at Lazy Acres. Gotta love it!
Sculpin,
DeleteCurrent weak commercial leasing doesn't mean there wouldn't be lots of residential demand for 3-story mixed use. And all those new vacation rentals would certainly bring a lot more foot traffic to the stores and restaurants below.
It's not often I agree with anyone here, but 325 is right, even if EU should be sleeping. The fact is that developers and property owners look at opportunity cost. The cost is greater if sitting on unused and unleased property. Conversely, if there is strong lease rates, then there is a lower opportunity cost delta. And someone said that the lumberyard would never be built. I have to agree in the near term that there is little motivation to build there, or in most of the downtown for that matter. Those properties were built so long ago and have such strong lease rate command that I would expect such little land use speculation going on there. Property owners pay next to nothing to own the land.
DeleteNot 6:45, but admittedly someone from the same office. I agree with the same. I would also like to throw in that City Hall should redevelop. It is a nice piece of land and it has no sense of apace, currently. The huge concrete slab wall is an eyesore and doesn't serve anyone anything. In this case the city owns the land and could be motivated to partner with someone to build true affordable housing. City hall should be relocated. In regards to the ball on show, no one will build to 48 feet. You start throwing in different construction standards. Start getting real. No red balloons unless you send them up to 60 units per acre so you get the economies of scale to go with it. It always comes down to bottom line. I'd love to be involved with city halls redevelopment. It wont happen for a while because you would have to work with nctd and sandag because they want public parking there. Not worth the headache.
DeleteI'm not convinced there is a strong urban residential demand in Encinitas. Also, changing the "highest and best use" of a property is always very risky. The demand drivers have to be very, very strong. Very few projects are self-funded, so you have to sell a story to get the financing - another uphill battle. Many have predicted that Encinitas will turn into Huntington Beach if T passes. Hardly! The economic drivers of Encinitas are no where near the drivers of Huntington. Most commercial owners in Encinitas are very happy to sit still and collect their annuity payments. Very sleepy investment community. I just don't see the required appetite for the kind of risk/reward needed to pull something like this off. Case in point - much easier to sign new anchor tenants (Lazy Acres) then redevelop to a different use.
Delete- The Sculpin
Sculp, do you have a high-end crystal ball or just go simple with the Magic 8 Ball?
DeleteYour predictions, as usual, omit the very compelling greed factor.
"Rezone it and they will build." No crystal or Magic 8 balls needed.
Philosophize all you want, greed trumps all.
And if T somehow passes and Randy Goodson gets his four corners upzone, don't come crying to this blog about the traffic on your side of town.
9:25 - my crystal ball consists of numbers. Pure and simple. Four corners will get developed - it's just a matter of when - and I won't be cryin' to nobody. That corner needs work anyway. But whether T passess or not will have no effect on the timing. Sure, it makes it easier from a regulatory standpoint, but the project still has to, well, to use a much bandied phrase around here, "pencil out".
DeleteIf the greed factor is all important, go sell drugs. Best risk/reward ratio out there.
- The Sculpin
Look no further than the BIA and Meyer for your greed factor.
Delete8:55 If so, why the new two-story buildings at I and 101, H and 101, Avocado and 101? If T passes, there will be three stories at F and 101; if T fails, that NW corner will go two stories.
ReplyDeleteEasy... Do you remember what was there before? And congratulations on getting redevelopment for the third time in 30 years. Pacific station included. Nowhere else will you have complete tear downs. Go ask a property owner.
Delete11:47 No, not easy. 8:55 wrote "Most commercial owners in Encinitas are very happy to sit still and collect their annuity payments. Very sleepy investment community. I just don't see the required appetite for the kind of risk/reward needed to pull something like this off."
DeleteThe developments 11:00 cited prove 8:55's point to be wrong, especially since those buildings are two stories, meaning less return on investment than T's three stories would allow.
Not sure you can compare the projects 11am cites with a complete redevelopment of the Lumberyard. It's like comparing a bungalo remodel with building a 15,000 sf estate on 5 acres - totally different beast!
DeleteI think 11am's implied but not intended concern for Pacific View's view corridor is humorous~
- The Sculpin
12:52 - I always shake my head at this sentiment: "...especially since those buildings are two stories, meaning less return on investment than T's three stories would allow.". Bigger is not always better, however, bigger is always different; everything changes - materials & labor, engineering, financing, expertise, and market. I would say that you prove my point - less ROI means less risk. It also might mean the project is not worth building.......
Delete- The Sculpin
8:55 said nothing about redeveloping the Lumberyard. And the 101 corners 11:00 cited have nothing to do with Pacific View, which is on 3rd between E and F.
DeleteGiven the value of the land, three stories provides more return on investment than two. That's why buildings in the specific plans are three stories, for example, Pac Station, six north of the corner of Phoebe and 101, and the monster apartment house on Garden View and Cantebria.
If what you assert made sense, everything would be one story.
We are sooooooo not on the same page - I'm throwing footballs, and you're catching baseballs - I stand by what I wrote....
Delete- The Sculpin
4:01 And you're completely wrong!
DeleteSculpin strikes out!
DeleteSculpin is in denial. Maybe the stable fumes have got to him.
DeleteI have a thought, it doesn't happen often.
ReplyDeleteAre we not unique in that we are bordered by two natural lagoons and half our coast is a marine preserve? What will increase density do to these state preserves?
Is it not true that the country nor the state have any long terms plans to add mass transit to our area? The 5 fwy is our only transportation corridor correct? The Coaster goes no where anybody wants to go and does not run often enough or late enough.
We should be looking to decrease density here. You cant force infill on us and then offer no plans for the infrastructure and threaten the health of state protected areas.
A couple side notes...
The Swamis Marine Preserve is a very important link in the chain of protected areas. San Elijo is special and one of the last natural lagoons in So Cal.
When the Hall property got graded we had a family of foxes move into the neighborhood for about a month. Pretty cool but sad, hope they made it over to San Elijo.
Ill run in 2018, Green Party, and spend millions fighting for decreased density in Encinitas. That is not elitist, it would be for the fishes man. .
By that rationale no one would build anywhere. No thanks, I like being able to visit Hawaii. I like being able to live here too. Point being that you grow in smart locations and don't disturb natural resources. We will continue to grow, San Diego. Just need to be smart about it and put it in the smart spots. No more winding road single family subdivisions. We need compact infill. Fyi...not saying measure t got it right. I am not endorsing anything until I read more. The days left are counting down! Go Encinitas voters!
Delete"Smart" locations? Give me a break. Without transit and public transportation plans now (not "at some later date" according to Tony K and Mike Strong) to go along with Measure T, I'll be voting no. Nothing intelligent about this greed-fueled monster iof a plan.
Delete