A development consultant has asked a Superior Court judge to enforce a provision of a lawsuit settlement with the city of Encinitas that would require them to adopt an affordable housing plan without a public vote.The city's most recent July 6 meeting was cancelled and rescheduled to August 10.
DCM Properties, the namesake company of development consultant David C. Meyer, recently filed the motion to enforce the settlement between the firm and Encinitas, which stemmed from a 2016 lawsuit over, among other things, the city’s lack of an approved housing element.
A hearing on the motion is scheduled for 1:30 p.m. Sept. 8 in Judge Earl Maas’s courtroom.
[...]
[The city's housing task force] recommended a consultant to work with the city on the revised proposal, but recently has canceled meetings.
This was the final straw for his client, Abasto said.
“When was the last time they had a meeting?” Abasto asked. “They aren’t moving at an expedited pace. We believe this process is a sham.
Thursday, July 13, 2017
Cancelled task force meetings bring back developer lawsuit
Coast News:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blame the perpetually "overworked" staff for why this can't get done on time. Delays are SOP at city hall.
ReplyDeleteThat said, a one-month setback hardly constitutes reason to sue...unless you're the rapacious Meyer.
Bloodsucker. The City is moving as fast as it can under the State notification requirements. The primary issue that the consultant is studying is whether a Housing Element that complies with HCD requirements can be accomplished on the sites already included in the PEIR and within the height requirements of the City code. DCM is trying to write the law to allow them to rape our City.
ReplyDeleteYou liberal looks are for everything liberal unless you go straight nimby.....lol
ReplyDeleteKooks
ReplyDeleteGet it straight the first time, you stinking shill.
DeleteWe prefer "Cardiff Komintern" or "Pipes Politburo".......
DeleteBlame the state of commiefornia for your nimby issues
DeleteEven worse... liberal kooks for everything conservative that go straight corrupt developers.
ReplyDeleteIm the only one allowed to not make no incense up in hur. Get off my peek barney.
You can thank Liz and Paul Ecke III for this one.
ReplyDeleteThey enable this tool to do such bullshit.
Remember it takes money to make money on the backs of other people. I don't think granddad Ecke would be to stoked at the greedy shit of the spoiled grandkids selling out hometown.
Sad but true.
From everything I've heard, grandpappy would have been right there with them.
DeleteEckes have no interest in curbing little Davy.
Amen to that. Its up the people to stand up the evil developers.
ReplyDeleteMake profit on our quality of life.
any Council candidate supporting growth has my thumbs down.
The desert is full.
Meyer is a cancer on this community. Pure greed drives this despicable person.
ReplyDeleteCancelling a single planned meeting hardly makes this a sham. The consultant has to look at each property, determine how many units could fit within the constraints, and how they they would count. The developers and owners must think there is something to the two story option. At two stories, their property values won't increase as much. They want a gift from the tax payers and think they are entitled to a three story gift. This is about their greed. Developers have determined state mandates that may create affordable housing in inland and urban areas, just make them rich is coastal areas.
ReplyDeleteMeyer uses the Trump philosophy - sue to cover your tracks or bully people with the corrupted legal system. The city council folded to him last time - good work Sabine; the Eckes will give you extra caviar at the next Christmas party.
DeleteI pay a dollar the eckes take a dime.
ReplyDeleteThat's why servers put poop in the food of which they dine.
Keep pooping where you eat and expect to get some in your mouth David. No one likes you here poop breath.
The city should appropriate the portion of the golf course in front of the Meyer mansion and build an affordable housing project. He will then move to RSF. Problem solved.
ReplyDeleteThe Cabezon
Excellent idea! You should be on the planning commission!
DeleteAgree with 2:19. Time for the Eckes, Meyers, Gaspars to be threatened with high-density crap like they like to do to the rest of us.
DeleteThat's two of us on the PC. We need one more to make it happen.
If Meyer's contention was that the city council promised a resolution, it should be unenforceable. The housing proposal faced a public vote, with an unknown outcome. How could a "promise" on an unknown element be considered binding? The city council should have been restrained from wording that could be construed as being accommodating to the special interests.
ReplyDeleteSome Council, staff,and city attorney are in on it. Marco wants to be in on it. Council has no problem giving away the city for as little as a gas oven. Meyer tickles their taint for a few bucks, gets dirt and whatever he wants from the cheap sellouts that work for you. Every immoral wannabe aristocratic family has a Meyer. The Eckes just got a really bad one. Any half wit attorney not named marco could squash Meyer if there was the slightest bit of gumption in the city ranks.
Delete9:02 nailed it. Doesn't help that Blakespear has a schoolgirl crush on Marco.
DeleteMeyer the pariah. An affordable housing advocate? BS!
ReplyDeleteI love the idea of putting affordable housing in the golf course area right infront of Meyers and Liz Ecke. That would be classic.
ReplyDeleteI may just run for City Council to help make that happen.
I also believe in Karma. If the Eckes (led by pony boy DM) shit on Encinitas. Expect shit coming back to you as well. Reap the whirlwind - Karma.
Yeah.
DeleteLet's burn down our own town just to piss off one family. Sounds like you've really thought this plan through.
Wrong. This one family's bratty grandkids are letting their bastard developer moron ruin our town. Real in the creep or get the hell out.
DeleteWe will not let our town be sold out by David Meyers and the Ecke spoiled grandkids.
The low income rhna housing units could easily be put on the golf course in front of Meyer's and Eckes houses. Close to Meyer's house a multilevel parking and an expansive playground for the many families in the apartment complexes. Remember, views are not protected. Perhaps a little bodega where Meyer and his new neighbors can gather and drink craft beer.
ReplyDeleteThe house adjacent to the David Meyer/Liz Ecke house belongs to Chris Calkins, the Ecke lawyer and leader of Carltas, the Ecke investment arm. It would be a two-for-one to site affordable housing there and satisfy the city's RHNA requirement.
ReplyDeleteUh. Dumbass, this would make their land way more valuable. They'd sell out instantly, or develop the land themselves at high density, make a fortune, and buy a private island somewhere.
DeleteAnd leave? It would be sooooo worth it.
DeleteAnd hire a team of workers to take shifts laughing 24-7 at how stupid the citizens of Encinitas were.
DeleteThat sounds like a plan for Meyer and his henchman Andreen. Right up their alley. And right up yours, 1:37.
DeleteAnd then their neighbors land becomes more valuable, it gets developed and their neighbors land gets more valuable, they sell, it gets developed and their neighbors land gets more valuable.
DeletePresto Huntington Beacho.
2:34pm... exactly.
DeleteThats why we need to push back on Meyer/Ecke Brats.
They are selling out the town and before you know it, Encinitas will be Nuevo Huntington Beach .
Grande for Ecke pocketbooks. No bueno for locals who dont like HB.
Two stories/30 feet and 20 units per acre?
ReplyDeleteI was told on these very pages that there would be no adverse consequences to voting down the HEU.
ReplyDeleteLooks like that was BS.
These pages are archived so find those comments and tell us where they are.
ReplyDeleteKindly point out the EU archive search feature.
DeleteSearch This Blog at left near the top.
DeleteNot on a mobile browser.
Delete4:11 — Get a real computer or go to the library.
DeleteQuoting T. Barth in her newsletter today: "during the Prop. T campaign I often heard people who opposed the Housing Element say the city won't get sued....well I think this is the 3rd lawsuit."
ReplyDeleteMeasure T opponents said HCD wouldn't sue the city, which it hasn't. The assurance didn't apply to any entity but HCD.
Barth knows better, but it would not suit her agenda to admit there's a huge difference between the state threatening to sue vs. a for-profit individual.
DeleteBarth/Shaffer/Blakespear either can't or won't get through their heads that rapacious developers and their for-sale attorney, filing frivolous lawsuits, should not be determining how Encinitas grows.
They pretend all lawsuits valid, no matter the source. They forget they are working for residents, not David Meyer and not Marco Gonzalez.
Let's acknowledge that Meyer and Gonzalez are residents. But their views are not the majority's views.
DeleteIt would be nice if certain council members shared your opinion, 2:01. Right nice.
DeleteTheir motivation,and questionable ethics are in the minority as well. Gonzalez only shows up at meetings when he is PAID. Meyer shows up at meetings with plans to line his pockets.
ReplyDeleteYes, CB should not presume that we are on the losing side of every lawsuit. Prevailing against a govt. entity is challenging for a private individual or a private corporation.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the City promised to put the matter up to a vote, as now required by Prop A; presumably, we'll be voting again in 2020, on a more palatable plan?
The City can't promise what the results of an election would be. Meyer isn't suing on behalf of affordable housing advocates, but building industry (his own) profit-seeking interests.
Perhaps increased density could only be allowed for non-profit enterprises fulfilling a much higher percentage of affordable housing units than the current mandated 10%?
Our Task Force is working hard to come up with a housing plan that will satisfy the State and the opponents of Proposition T. I think they will have it on a special election sooner than 2020, probably even before the 2018 ballot. If Meyer and Gonzalez want to run the city they should run for office in 2018. If they can't get elected, they are losers.
ReplyDeleteThere was no Proposition T
DeleteProposition T (or Measure T if you prefer) was on the November 2016 ballot in Encinitas. Are you in another town?
DeletePropositions are put on ballot by the people, by gathering signatures.
DeleteMeasures are put on the ballot by vote of elected officials.
It matters.
What is that supposed to mean. Do you live in a different dimension?
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't be a bit surprised if Meyer was the person behind the hate text to Catherine Blakespear. Remember the clowns with Maggie? He wouldn't, of course, do it himself, and I doubt if it could even be traced back to him, but it does make e wonder.
ReplyDeleteThis meeting is a sham! Tony and Catherine have been playing Bruce all along. Bruce needs to put his foot down and say NO MORE. The people have spoken - TWICE!
ReplyDeleteUnless you are Trump you don't get to pick which laws to follow. California law is that each city must have a Housing Element that is certified by HCD. If you don't like this then go to another state. Bruce joined the Task Force voluntarily and their mission is to agree on a Housing Element, State law Trumps our Proposition A. Sorry about that.
Delete11:39 You're confused. Prop A doesn't govern the HEU. It requires voter approval to upzone, increase density or exceed specific building heights. If a proposed HEU suggests those, it invokes Prop A.
DeleteThe City Council appointed the HEU Task Force members.
California law gives a lot of power to the people, when we collect signatures and pass a special election proposition, such as Prop A.
DeleteEach city must have a certified housing element, but unfunded mandates cannot be forced on us, willy nilly. To achieve the actual number of affordable units being pushed by SANDAG and our own City Planners to accommodate Regional Housing numbers, this City would have to increase densities, citywide, by 50% to insure a 10% affordable rate. That increase in density won't work for our water, sewer and road infrastructures.
2:50,
DeleteYou are a veritable fountain of misinformation.
No, right now we have between 22K and 24K households. To reach the numbers supposedly required, we would have to have 10 times the number of affordable units, to reach the "one out of ten" mandates for in lieu fees, and density bonus. I guess that math is too hard for you. How many affordable units are being pushed? If it is 1200, that would mean an increase in density of 12,000 more units, to realize 10% affordable.
DeleteYou are a veritable fountain of obsession, misunderstanding and cyber bullying. You don't care if you are right, only seem to find pleasure in your constant character assassinations.
That's nice, dear.
Delete(pat pat)
Go away now. The normal daylight people are talking.
11:10am. You got owned by the late night person. Are you dumb or just not able to repond with facts? If you are dumb we can help but you have to want it. Willful ignorance can't be helped.
DeleteSuggestion T, Proposal T, Plan T, Allegation T, Mandate T, Scheme T, Idea T, Concept T.
ReplyDeleteI like your idea that a HE can be accomplished on existing sites and codes, but nothing in Encinitas is zoned at R-30 density and so Prop A requires a vote to increase density. That's the crux of the matter but also most likely an achievable HEU will also go over 30 feet and require something be done for parking, either underground or city parking structures. If HCD doesn't accept the concept it will not be compliant.
ReplyDelete11:39am. You got it. You are indeed a sorry individual, and your community recognizes your predilections. May the rot inside continue to fester unabated that drives such a mindset.
ReplyDeleteThe HEU can be accomplished without going over thirty feet or densely squeezing them at more than 20 or is it 25 ? units per acre. We don't need to allow 30 to make this happen.
The in lieu fee should be abandoned, unless it is equal to the other million dollar plus homes in any developers project. They have gotten away with a lot in the past that should have been rejected when they failed to provide the housing called for in their permit. Letting them band together and dump all the affordable housing in a single location on Vulcan should never be repeated.
If only we could build them in front of slimy Meyers' home and that goes for Chris Calkins' next door to him on the same hill.
5:41 Not a mindset. 11:39 cited the facts of Prop A and its relationship to the HEU. You don't understand either, and you sound irrational.
DeleteEither people misunderstand the in-lieu fee, or they don't give a rat's ass about affordable housing.
DeleteBuilding a unit helps one family. One.
In lieu fee money can be used to help many families find affordable housing. The money is used to subsidize rent to fill the gap between the market rate and what a lower income family can afford. It's not the whole rent payment. Sometimes it's only 20%.
As long as in lieu fees are high enough (financially equivalent to building the unit), they can help house more folks in existing apartment stock than building one unit with a covenant.
10:17 PM - the rat's ass?
DeleteYou should explain that by paying an in-lieu fee the developer gets out of building an economically integrated neighborhood as required by law. Instead, as a previous council approved the low income Iris apartments, the developer avoided responsibility for low income housing in his developments. Granted, this scam wasn't the in-lieu fee scam.
So, the city is subsiding how many low income families without a section 8? What happens when the one time in-lieu fees run out? Will the city put a parcel tax on every property owner to continue the subsidies?
The fee isn't high, and it applies once per 10 units built.
DeleteBuilding the affordable unit isn't permanent either. The covenant expires.
DeleteThe goal for the fee should be to create a healthy balance of affordable unit construction AND in lieu fees.
Not either or. Both.
11:04 PM
DeleteWrong, wrong when you use the word affordable. This is low income housing that MUST have a subsidy for the occupants. The deed restrictions or covenants on the low income housing are now 55 years.
A healthy balance - politician words from Sacramento.
There is a subsidy either way.
DeleteA deed restriction is a mechanism for a builder to accept less money than market rate for a unit they build. In effect, the difference between the affordable rate and the market rate is a subsidy funded by the builder.
An in lieu fee is also a subsidy funded by the builder. The city administers the distribution of the money to needy families to pay the difference between market rate and affordable limits.
Both forms of subsidy are funded by the builder, and both will expire or run out. Building a unit helps one family for a longer period of time. An in lieu fee can help more people for a shorter period of time.
As long as the fee is set appropriately, both can play an important role in the creation of affordable housing.
11:36AM You mean like the in lieu fee THE LOFTS guy did for the Boathouses. That sure helped a lot of people.
DeleteWhen Muir and Shaffer sponsored the affordable housing meeting at the library, the bottom line consensus was there can't be a significant number of affordable units built in Encinitas without subsidies of some kind. The gap between what low income people can afford to pay and what the units cost to build and maintain has to be filled. Habitat for Humanity filled that gap for the units they'll build at Urania and Leucadia Blvd. Unless that subsidy or something similar is provided, Encinitas will not satisfy its RHNA number with affordable housing.
DeleteYet the city continues to pretend otherwise and sell us market-rate housing as "affordable," all the while singing in unison "it's the law."
DeleteEncinitas is hardly the only city waking up to and rejecting the the State sham and developer scam.
11:36 But they haven't and they don't.
DeleteTraffic commissioner Brian Grover is on a BIA sub-council.
ReplyDeleteThe BIA has a lawsuit against the city. Why is this guy on a city commission?
Brian Grover, oh that environmental fascist who lives in a condo that his parents bought him in Leucadia on PCH. This is the liveral nut job that wants to force everyone to ride bicycles. I bet his parents bought him his fancy bikes too!
DeleteI bet his parents were waaaay more successful in life than yours were. They were able to buy their kid a condo, clearly, your parents sucked compared to his. Will you be buying your kids a condo? Some people win at life while other bitch about others success and hard work. The losers on this blog have an unhealthy, illogical obession with other peoples money. Your family failed at building wealth, deal with it. Or better yet, break your families losing tradition and do so well you can buy a fancy bike for yourself.
DeleteIf the BIA wins, Grover is grounds to throw out the results.
Good question. He appears to have a conflict of interests, and is already represented through bicycle clubs, many with out of city members. Many want enhanced bicycle lanes, but not at the expense of further clogging our circulation element, and not without studies of actual usage by bicyclists as commuters, not just recreational riders, primarily on weekends.
ReplyDeleteEvery lawsuit the city enters into, the city loses. Why?? Apparently our legal council is inadequate.
ReplyDeleteIs that the one that advises the city counsel?
DeleteNot true. The city won in court against one bat shit crazy person who thought it would be a good idea to threaten a judge.
DeleteNo names. Could be anyone.
Not true. The City won, temporarily, in name only, but that corrupt judge has been censured three times by the Judicial Council for ethics violations, and not abiding by the Rules of Court.
DeleteShe has since been moved out of North County jurisdiction. She was arrested for drunk driving, going the wrong way down a one-way street, in Escondido. She was a drunk, and a known liar. Neither she nor any other judge was actually threatened. She knows this. No one witnessed any threats, because there were none. Because a judge makes a statement in her order recusing herself from a case, does not make that statement true. There was a reason she chose to remove herself from the case; she had one of the defendants put in a chokehold, by deputy, acting as Bailiff, at City Hall, when the judge, without notice, inappropriately came to a deposition for a case before her in civil court. Her reason for directing the Deputy to do so: defendant took a single still photo of the judge, sitting at the conference table, next to where defendant was to sit to be deposed.
Lisa Schall should be removed from the bench. Only one other judge in California has been censured as many times, without being removed.
Ultimately, that case was settled, in defendants' favor. Only the city attorney made out, by being paid billable hours by the City, well over $100,000, closer to $200K. This was not paid by the defendants, who were never in violation, but were legal, all along. The drawn out litigation was a travesty, and was a case of the City enabling corruption and bullying, persecution that was never deserved. Think what you want, but you are the one who is crazy, and still obsessed, after all these years.
Thanks, Lynn.
DeleteYup. And how did that landmark US Supreme Court appeal go?
Delete10:37: you clearly pay no attention to writing style. Did you have an actual point to make, or do you just throw out a random name and call it a valid argument?
DeleteOh, 8:48, 2:19 is clearly Lynn's writing style unless it's you doing a great imitation.
DeleteSo, no point to make.
DeleteThe point has been made. You must have missed it.
DeleteSettlements don't go in one party's favor. By their very nature, they are a compromise.
DeleteThe city got the defendants to legalize their illegal unit to the satisfaction of code inspectors, which is all they wanted in the first place. The defendants could have done this years ago and saved this city and themselves a lot of wasted time and money.
People who don't crave attention would have done that.
The Marr story is old and settled. Snore.
DeleteLet's get back onto current events: the Eckes and the idiotic antics of one of their own.
The settlement was in the Marr's favor. The Marr's offered to allow inspection, before the case went to appeal, to demonstrate that the unit was not illegal, and was up to code effective when it was built, which was before defendants owned the property.
DeleteWhen you say a settlement is a compromise, you're correct, but settlements usually do favor one party over another. Defendants did not have to pay the City Attorney's outrageous legal fees, so the settlement went in their favor. They also didn't have to pay imaginary sewer hook up fees, or other BS fees, not specified in the settlement, for accessory units, fees which are now disallowed by state law, for everyone.
The City was wrong to raid defendants home, searching through cupboards and drawers, then losing (destroying) the videotape that they had the deputy sheriffs take, to document the execution of the bogus "warrant," to search for a unit illegal because of an alleged zoning violation, having more than one unit in a single family residential zones.
In Encinitas, a single accessory unit has been legal, allowed "by right" since 1993. Any alleged building code violations were not complained of, nor mentioned in the warrant, which was never properly executed or returned. The City Attorney was not held up to legal standards, and defendants never got their day in court through the City Attorney's bogus ex parte hearings, outside of Defendants' ability to answer, or to be heard.
Worse than us?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2017/07/16/venice-beach-is-hot-place-to-live-so-why-is-its-housing-supply-shrinking.html
Whatever housing proposal is presented to the citizens, I will vote NOOOOOOO. I want the city to forever be in court spending monies they don't have.
ReplyDeleteStreets are crap and the city employees pensions are out of control. Better to be a broke down city by the sea than some over built crowded OC beach metropolis. Once it goes the way of the developer there is no going back. Would rather ride a horse to the beach on buckled roads than fight for parking and sit in traffic all day. We would be better off with out city staff and council. All bought and paid for and their only job goal is to keep that pension, campaign, and bribe money flowing.
DeleteSo yeah, vote no until the sham of a law goes away. I dont feel the threat of lawsuits should mean my tax dollars are available to the highest campaign contributor or pension hog.
Go for broke Encinitas, it is better than the alternative and less skin off your ass. Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. the rest go into government and do stupids things like pay millions for a run down property like it is on the ocean. Going broke is a bigger problem for them, we have the means to take care of ourselves around here anyways.
Instead of spending $24 Million PLUS on a streetscape that is to include five unwanted one-lane, three way intersection roundabouts, with no throughway cross-streets, due to the RR tracks, the City should use some city owned land, or purchase some land, and then offer some kind of incentives to get affordable housing built, near a bus line. Oceanside and other cities, I believe, including Del Mar, are actively providing affordable housing. It shouldn't be left up to developers, through the building industry, to force higher and higher densities on us, with only 10% of the new build being designated for affordable housing. That is not sustainable.
Delete$24 Million would go a long way toward providing more units. Also, all the State requires is a plan, for a housing element to be certified as updated. The units could simply be "in the works," with designated tracks of land earmarked.
Thanks, Lynn.
Delete5:16pm You seem to prefer to leave out certain convenient to you extenuating circumstances.
ReplyDeleteYour opinion is not valid when you pick and choose from what went on and why they were targeted to begin with.
A cabal of city employees went after them for their activism. Now that is the truth of the matter.
Even when the city made the deal with them, it was held up by the city for years out of spite. That is the inconvenient truth that you choose to ignore.
Mikey is that you? Or is it the crap master himself?
The truth is, the defendants either sued or pissed off every neighbor around them, and one of the neighbors saw an opportunity to screw them and took it.
DeleteNo conspiracy. Just karma.
Deal.
With.
It.
Keep it CRAPPY!!
DeleteDefendants never sued anyone, except to counter-sue a con-man who made a living by cheating folks. They were initially sued by a unethical developer who, by hook and crook, got a neighboring property, for a pittance.
DeleteThe neighbor never saw a penny, as she was put in a home. Her brother got power of attorney, and then dementia. In exchange for two lots, the brother, ten years younger, got the down payment for a race horse.
The developer, Signature Series, later went bankrupt, and cheated investors and vendors out of 7 million dollars through Federal bankruptcy court. Defendants had tried to warn the City that he was financially unstable. He eventually cheated his own son by taking out a loan using his son's identity, without his permission. Last we heard, Richard Larsen was being investigated by special counsel, a Deputy DA looking into economic crimes.
Many people lost their retirement savings by believing Richard Larsen's line of bull. This guy, Larsen, is the crook with whom past City Council cooperated in order to prosecute and persecute defendants, who were activists.
Maybe if you weren't trespassing on your neighbor's property and minding your own business on your own property?
DeleteNo. That would mean you accepted responsibility for something.
What a silly idea.
4:38- Activists?? More Craptivists.
Delete5:48pm It is you that is not dealing with the facts and the reaction of the city at the time, was solely out of retribution for the truth brought out of what the city was up to at the time. Karma indeed. You have no idea of the meaning or else choose to use it out of ignorance.
ReplyDeleteA neighbor was involved who was getting around codes without a worry because he knew who he knew. Karma indeed.
A bunch of their neighbors were pissed off at them alone for their activism that benefits all of us residents? Seriously?
My bs detector is calling you out.
5:50am. Thank you charley boy/man child for your astute contribution as per your usual.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYKyp1e_jYc
ReplyDelete