On NBC 7:
"Really the disappointment came from the campaign against it. The folks who were behind it were found to be using some misleading factual information. And, you know it's not terribly hard to get people to vote against growth in a city like Encinitas, but I felt like they took the rhetoric to a new level. They used a lot of just misinformation and lies and half-truths to scare people into believing that the plan was something that it really wasn't."Gonzalez gave no specifics about what the alleged "misinformation and lies and half-truths" were, or who "found" opponents "to be using some misleading factual information."
NBC 7 interviewed Gonzalez and Measure T supporter Catherine Blakespear at length, apparently making no effort to get the No on T side of the story. Measure T opponents have offered to work with the city to come up with a plan that complies with state law and, unlike Measure T, actually contains affordable housing.
Thats rich, coming from the Dark Knight of Encinitas. He revels in crapping in his own yard.
ReplyDeleteIt appears the NBC channel is just as compromised as the Voice of San Diego has been, by listening to only one side.
The city told its citizens all along that this plan was too complicated for us to understand and we should just accept it, as it. The simpletons are not us.
The city refused to listen and got what they deserved. We will now create a plan that is palatable and that HCD will have nary a problem with. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
And rich, considering the Yes on T whoppers that originated from Marco's office.
ReplyDeleteHe needs to watch it...a slander suit could be right around the bend....
A slander suit 8:43? Please explain who might bring such suit and what the allegations might be.
ReplyDeleteWhat is misleading "factual" information? The facts came from the city. The city's facts were misleading?
ReplyDeleteThe city lied to residents? For shame, Catherine.
There's data, opinion, lies, and facts all confused here. What is clear is that this lawyer (lier?) wants something different than what the voting majority wants. Probably the job of a court of law is to sort it all out.
ReplyDeleteThat's exactly what Lisa Shaffer said in her last newsletter. And there, again, she's indirectly quoting Marco.
Delete9:07, what the hell is there to sort out? What are you talking about?
ReplyDeleteExactly, nothing to sort out. The vote was the vote. Marco thinks he's going to somehow convince a judge to overturn an election.
DeleteMore productive would be for Catherine and Co. to hop to and present an honest plan to the voters and pass the thing.
"Honest" is the operative word here...add in special interest gimmes from the building industry and she'll be sent back to square one every time.
Does she know a "special interest" when she sees it? Doubtful.
DeleteThat she went to that interview with Marco is telling.
Yes, disappointing. Marco seems to be a publicity hog. He hasn't supported any of his opinions with facts, here. I also disagree that it's the job of a court of law to "sort it all out." Judges are not and should not act as dictators.
DeleteMarco wants us to hire him, plain and simple. He says hs employees cannot afford to live in Encinitas. First, most of his attorneys to live in Encinitas. He lives is a huge home. Maybe he can take in some of his employees. They may not be able to buy here, but I know personally most of them rent here. He is not sincere.
ReplyDeleteYes. He made it sound like passing and implementing Measure T would have immediately led to affordable housing. He is way too smart to believe that. It's an outright lie. He knows very well it would have led to high priced condos.
DeleteSince your life is based on argument, how bout the idea if you ruin Encinitas it won't be nice for residents or visitors. Marco you drive here and you can see the traffic situation, these "non affordable housing" clusters, especially where the city chose to potentially place many of them, was just plain dumb and unacceptable. I worked to stop it and I can sleep at night happily. And you? Is your conscience getting you yet?
ReplyDeleteMarco is Marco. He wants publicity. Just getting his name in the news to promote the CLG. He has a $20,000 a month nut to crack in rent each month so he needs to keep churning the water for clients. Ignore him and he will go away.
ReplyDeleteIt's the City that needs to ignore him. Or at least stop cultivating and quoting him.
DeleteLisa Shaffer, in her post election newsletter, is still indirectly quoting Marco, saying the public will never accept any updated housing element that increases density in the name of affordable housing.
DeleteMarco has made it his business to intervene with a lot of things he should probably stay out of. What makes me sad is or newly elected Mayor is going along with him. He scares me.
ReplyDeletePillory Marco in the town square. Uh, wait, we don't have a town square. How about the little courtyard near H Street in the Lumberyard shopping center? He could do a convenient perp walk from his office.
ReplyDeleteI voted NO on T, not to simply tweak it, but to start over. If I get anything less, I will feel BETRAYED by the NO on T leaders who told me we need a whole NEW PLAN!!!
ReplyDeleteI know of no NO folks who think there's anything in the current plan that's salvageable.
DeleteBut something tells me you did not vote "NO."
I don't know. I don't agree completely with 234...but I don't think it the place of one or two people from the "NO" camp to represent all the reasons why we voted no. I like Bruce and all, but a "no" means "no."
DeleteAlso, it probably best to keep our heads low, guys. No sense on poking the bear. Regardless of Marco's intentions - I don't see more value to being anything more than silent right now. Gloating won't do anything.
A commenter on this blog a while back was questioning Bruce's motives at a PC hearing...
DeleteHe may not represent everyone, but at least someone on our side is sitting at the table.
Bob Bonde's attempt to sit at the table with the CBHMG effort was a joke. He was placed at the little kids table. Bruce, at least, has some intelligence.
What did Bruce say at PC that would make u question his motives ???
Delete2:46, you should know that the "No on T" opposition refused to meet alone or even in a small group with the City, requiring instead that completely open and publicly-noticed meetings be held. In no way do any of them think they represent the rest of the residents.
DeleteNo doubt Marco will spin this, as did Tasha and Lisa, as "a few" disgruntled "naysayers."
And Marco has no problem sticking his head up good and high and poking at the rest of us. He needs to be taken down many pegs. Acting out of fear of "poking the bear" will only encourage him.
Delete2:43,
DeleteThe city doesn't need your vote.
The objective will be to modify Measure A just enough to cause 1 in 10 No on A voters to flip to yes.
They can probably get it done with an additive requirement for affordable housing in the R30 zone (maybe 20%, vs. the 10 required in other zones). Also, some more stringent limits on building height.
Those mods would probably get it to pass.
R20 was acceptable to HCD. R30 was another developer gift that needs to come out.
DeleteAnd there's more - just read the policy changes and question what has to stay (and why) - and what doesn't.
Math says,
DeleteMeeting the same RHNA unit requirements with R20 means 50% more land rezoned than R30.
Really?? Do tell. Strong, Murphy, Ranu - none of them made that claim, 11:22. They all at one time or another said R20 would work, but no mention of 50% associated with it. What is your source?
DeleteAnd may I ask what you think the RHNA number is?
11:36:
DeleteTo satisfy 100 units of RHNA quota at 30 units/acre, 100/30=3.33 acres
To satisfy the same 100 units at 20 units/acre, 100/20=5 acres.
5/3.33=1.5
Did you really think that the same amount of land zoned R20 or R30 would both create the same unit potential? Holy crap our education system is failing.
I really think it would because the fine print of the plan the city counted on folks not reading said so.
DeletePut your simplistic math theories aside and go look at it. And when I say "it," I don't mean the printed 230+ pages. I mean the online version with attachments that show the same properties, at R30 and R20 with both acceptable to HCD.
And while we're on the topic, maybe you can answer this question: why are City PC and Council so loath to actually read the damned thing?
I had a chance to speak to Glen Campora and his subordinate at HCD regarding the lower density of 20 units per acre, and whether the HCD would accept the lower density in Encinitas case. What Mr. Campora told me was that Encinitas did in fact try to lobby for a lower density, but HCD did not accept it because the city could only proffer up one such example of a housing development with an affordable component with that density level in Encinitas: Iris Apartments. Combined with the limited amount of sites available in Encinitas, HCD concluded that the city wouldn't accomplish satisfying its RHNA requirements at the lower density. In short, the city is going to have a really tough road to hoe to submit a plan at 20 units per acre that passes muster with the HCD.
Delete"simplistic math theories"
DeleteLOL.
Uh, yeah....nice, but easily exposed fairy tale, 10:30. Again, the plan in writing (not your supposed "conversation") accepted by HCD - in writing, in case you missed that - is R20, but without uour false 50% funny math.
DeleteOh for gods sake 10:30, you did not.
DeleteWhat is that horrid stench adhering to Blakespear? Oh yea - she was in the same room with Gonzales.
ReplyDeleteI wish Marco would go after the big dogs like Rancho Santa Fe, Del Mar and Coronado and leave his "home" town at it current state of density.
ReplyDeleteWhy does he want to pack the Encinitas Surfline?
I don't get it?
He is no friend of surfers. That is for sure!
Newcomers don't surf as much as the locals who get driven out when older places get bulldozed.
DeleteMeasure T was a gift to developers - they thought they could ramrod their agenda past the public. Gonzales is just a whore for whatever lines his pocket.
ReplyDeleteHe's an attorney. Whoring out is the first class of the first year...
Delete3:33 Pm How true - maggots knawing at the underbelly of society.
DeleteGonzales is the typical bully type, who thinks he can force his opinion thru by legal bluster. He is nothing more than an unethical mercenary, ready to push any cause that lines his pockets. He thinks intimidation brings settlements, so he is just a shake down artist. A truly despicable personality type.
ReplyDeleteSo true and with a bit of sociopath thrown in balance out the aggression and hate.
Delete1:38- Gonzales helped take down Filner. How did that line his pockets?
ReplyDeleteGonzalez likes publicity, and got in front of the cameras to condemn Filner.
DeleteFilner pleaded guilty to criminal charges. I don't think Gonzalez was key to the case.
EU- You are right. But, because of Marco, Cory Briggs, and Donna Frey Filner didn't have a chance in hell. He called Allred just to make sure dear Peggy Shannon could have her say and get a free condo in a place where you can see the Bay and the ocean. Go figure.
DeleteI just looked at the vote count with what appears to be 100% of the count in, and Dave is ahead by 2300 votes. Please confirm, if anyone can.
ReplyDeleteFinally a vote we can believe. No more Gaspars in our city or our county.
WC, if you can confirm, please help us out. Thanks for going through this along with us.
No, looks like Gaspar still winning.
Deletehttp://www.sdvote.com/content/rov/electioninfo/transform.htm?paramVal1=county_sups.xsl
Wrong. Gaspar still ahead by 1247 votes as of Nov. 26:
Deletehttp://www.sdvote.com/content/rov/electioninfo/transform.htm?paramVal1=county_sups.xsl
There are still 60,000 ballots to count. Too close to call.
Thanks for the feedback. When I googled the county results ten minutes ago and scrolled down to the supe's race and saw 100% of the count was in with Dave 2300 votes ahead, I was tentatively elated.
ReplyDeleteWhy would that site say all the votes were in? It was supposed to be the latest.
Glad, I asked here on EU. Thanks. Hope can still spring eternal.
This blog has devolved into a perfect example of post-truth politics.
ReplyDelete9:23 AM Let's hear your truths, Aristotle.
DeleteAs of last night, Gas bag leads by less than 400 votes with about 51k votes to count.
DeleteI smell a recount....
Gaspar is likely going to win - the developers' money has bought them an open door to the developmental fate of the county.
ReplyDeleteMore jam-packed housing tracts in a region that has severe infrastructural overload. $$$ prevails again.
All the more important to stay informed and put the hand up at the ballot box. All the Randy Goodson sleight-of -hand BS cannot prevail over an informed electorate.
DeleteDevelopers need to wake up to a new day in which voters are good and suspicious.
developers love to profit at the expense of the existing residents and will always resist any conditions that cost the development money. Then they take their profits and live in areas with the tightest landuse design control in nation like Rancho Santa Fe and Del Mar.
ReplyDeleteI am for no growth in the Southwest desert. Populaton growth should be in places that have sustainable water supply. Plus population control - is the worlds biggest issue that very few even acknowledge.
No for new development and no for welfare for irresponsible child bearing people.
Unfortunately, both will continue unabated.
DeleteNice. I've got mine. Shoulda cut down on development the day before you arrived.
Delete