I will repeat what I advocated before. The City should enact Measure T as originally adopted by the Council (and yes, rejected by the voters) in order to stop the financial impact of the increasing number of lawsuits. Let the Prop A folks sue in order to get the court to proceed with its determination of whether Prop A or state law has precedence. Keep working on finding a strategy that the voters will approve and put in on a future ballot regardless, since we want a measure that is publicly supported, but in the meantime, let the measure go into effect and come into compliance with state law.Not sure why Shaffer would rather side with developers and make the residents sue than side with residents and have the developers sue. If the city did a mass upzoning a la Measure T, there would be a flurry of permit filings for large luxury condo projects with inadequate parking. And permit approvals could be irreversible regardless of the eventual outcome of resident lawsuits.
Why not let the task force work to come up with a plan that is less destructive to Encinitas' community character and that, unlike Measure T, actually provides some affordable housing?
Good points, EU.
ReplyDeleteShaffer has never been for the residents.
She should leave town.
Liar Lisa's relevance to our community is zero. She should just stfu and go away. Or at least go away from voicing any opinions relating to our community in any way.
ReplyDeleteSpare us anymore of your opinions of what the city should do. She was an ice queen on the dais and off. Her short time in the mayors seat showed how close she was to the worst of all council members and rivaled "his lowness" for being ready to cut speakers off the second the bell rung.
Thanks you Catherine for allowing a little latitude and not being rude like Lisa and Jerome was.
Good riddance Lisa from our council.
Good riddance Lisa, from any position of power other than your unwanted mouthing off about what the city should do when the voters clearly spoke about the giveaway to developers that came with Measure T.
Prop A now and forever. Lisa you can ************************************** Fill in the blanks for yourself.
Oh, and not to leave out this so-called ethics professor. Where were her personal ethics when it came to lying to Francine Busby about Julie Graboi? Apparently she could teach it, but could not live it.
Where were her ethics? Non-existant is where. What a piece of work and now she thinks she should be listened to? Not a snowballs chance is hell, Liar Lisa. stfu.
Lisa and Marco are made for each other and have publicly stated the same thing. The council should ignore the voters and approve a measure that was voted down by a significant margin by the residents.
DeleteWhere is the democracy in doing so? Where are her ethics? Missing in action. If only she was missing in action with her unwanted opinions. Disgusting behavior from her is nothing new.
Put a sock in it, why don't you, Liar Lisa?
Had Shaffer any real ethics she would have said "We, the Council, will be looking the other way while staff inserts into Measure T every non-state-required thing a developer could hope for and we'll try selling it to voters under the guise of State law."
ReplyDeleteInstead she continues to advocate for over 200 pages of developer dreams not required by the state, no additional affordable housing, and a 2,000-unit "buffer" on top of the original 1,100 low/very-low units assigned to us.
Her refusal to deal with reality and inability to admit she's wrong is far, far off the charts.
She had no problem lying to residents on measure T and handing us over 200 pages of a developer dream list
ReplyDeleteand claiming "it's the law." when, had she had any real ethics, would have said "we the council will be looking the other way while staff inserts every non-state-required thing a developer could ever want under the guise of state law," she would be acting ethically.
otherwise...no
Sincerely hope Blakespear has keener observations now about this woman she not too long ago called "an intellectual powerhouse."
ReplyDeleteLisa's inability to let the facts interfere with her story is not something to admire or emulate.
Ms. Blakespear's Facebook posting is warped... she clearly does not believe that elected officials should represent the people. OK, one cannot represent everyone but when there is a popular vote for a measure, politicians should try to implement that measure. Her suggestion to go contrary to the vote is undemocratic and non-representational. The people fund this City - politicians should represent the people. 101....
ReplyDeleteYou mean Ms. Shaffer. Lisa thinks she knows better. That never ends well.
DeleteYes....ms Shaffer...
DeleteNo Shaffer fans here. Rightly so!
ReplyDeleteOnly fan on her Facebook page is Marco. 'Nuff said.
DeleteOMG, Shaffer and Barth were the one's that got us into this mess!!! I would like Shaffer to apoligize and then make her recommendation. It would be more crediable.
ReplyDeleteWhat say you Ms. Shaffer?
My guess is she would say 10:10 means ones, apologize and credible.
DeleteAnd about that she would be right, which is unusual for her.
You lose your credibility if you can't even get the simple shit right.
Shaffer-lololollll lololollll lololollll lololollll lols lololollll. Thanks for the laugh. The ultimate maroon. A complete embarrassment, yet the complete representation of the idiot voters of this town. Pathetic.
ReplyDeleteYou got it half right, 6:10.
DeleteThe voters were taken in by her. However, they then woke up to the fact that she was doing everything BUT representing them with her "I know best" arrogance and blind reliance on a sneaky staff.
She would not stand a chance at reelection. Word's out.
Yep, Lisa was a pretty good con artist, and I fell for it. Said she supported Prop A, then was against. I do believe that's what's called a L-I-E.
DeleteIt's becoming obvious that this issue has nothing to do with affordable housing. This is about building more taxable units so that the unsustainable government culture can be maintained.
ReplyDeleteBingo, 8:49. And the Council has no problem letting staff run amok in the name of taxable units, no matter what it does to this town.
DeleteSo many stand to profit. The list includes: developers in general, developers who sue the city, "environmental" attorneys, city pension recipients, staff, council campaigns...who'd I miss?
8:54 AM
DeleteA new player not from Encinitas but involved in the housing element. The student of Marxist philosophy and possible San Diego City Council hopeful.
Could you be more obtuse? Who?
Delete8:47 PM
DeleteThe person is involved in the last housing element lawsuit against the city.
You're posting anonymously 9:22, why too paranoid to speak plainly? I'm not into games. OAO.
Delete“Encinitas hides under a guise of protecting community character and the environment, but the city’s real goal is evident: keep out the working class people of color,” Rafael Bautista, president of Tenants United, told The Coast News."
DeleteReal estate interests, which is pretty much the same. The city funded main- street organizations are stacked with them.
ReplyDeleteMaybe her and Dumanis can go start their own communist country where the will of the people is ignored.
ReplyDeleteTalk about sour grapes! Shaffer is still very angry that she was outsmarted by the opponents of Measure T and the public that supported them. It's the city council that should stop the financial hemorrhaging by not signing settlement agreements and paying off developers who sue.
ReplyDeleteThere was no provision in Measure T to create more affordable housing other than that already provided for under inclusionary housing. A great deal for developers, but a bad deal for those in need of affordable housing. Low and very low income people can't afford luxury condos.
That isn't tied to measure T, Council can adopt an affordable housing fee or increase inclusionary requirements at any time.
DeleteThe city refused to increase the percent of affordability in Measure T, which - hello! - was supposed to have as its goal to provide affordable housing.
DeleteThe city showed its developer-owned hand by refusing to do as other cities have done and require 25% affordable - or higher.
Shaffer is a narcissist and they never think they are wrong. She still calls her Former Deputy Mayor, Lisa Shaffer. Why she thinks her opinion is worth listening to in and of itself shows her true colors. She is willing to violate the law, as Measure T won. And 1:01 is absolutely right. Of course, they bulldozed us by giving us a 200 plus page document to read. Most of us are not attorneys. I think it could have been done in a 3 page report sent tot he public. If anyone wanted to see all of the legal stuff they could have requested it, and it should then have been made free to those who wanted to wade through it. I think the 200 page document that was sent to every household was a complete waste of money and I cannot help but wonder if it was done intentionally to punish people who liked Measure T. They thought they would spend our money and then we would go along with them. Speculation only.
ReplyDeleteGuess you meant Prop A won. Measure T lost. In both cases, Shaffer worked against residents and apparently can't recover from either defeat.
DeleteThe 200-page public notice was required by Prop A , and thank goodness! Without this disclosure the Council would have happily said "trust us and vote yes on T." Without this in-your-face monstrosity, many residents might have done just that.
Sad how we need to look over staff and council shoulders to make sure they're not screwing us over, isn't it?
Don't blame Prop A for the size and expense of the mailing. Had the city not tried to take this opportunity to give developers everything they ever wanted, lying "it's the law," the T booklet would have been a lot thinner.
Shaffer calls Shaffer?
DeleteAre you having a stroke, 2:58?
@4:33 - Prop A legal noticing requirements cost the City well over 100k.
DeleteNot worth it, since nearly all people didn't read it. Most people could deduce an opinion with a one-page summary. Such individual posts put on this blog intended to sway people one way or another.
The size alone of that book raised suspicions and reportedly decided many against T. And the opposition to T did a good job of pulling out and highlighting the developer-friendly crap, so folks didn't have to read it. A five-year-old could tell you the city really shot itself in the foot on that one.
DeleteAnd just who would write your one-page summary - "staff?" No, thanks. They proved once again they can't be trusted.
City has placed a suicide prevention sign at the rail road tracks of 101 and Leucadia Blvd.
ReplyDeleteQuestions:
Considering the last suicide at the location was over 4 months ago, what took so long??
Will we see signs up and down the rail road right of way??
Who made the decision to place the signs?? NCTD or COE??
Do they really think this will stop anyone from jumping in front of the train??
How many more must die??
Conclusion:
LOWER THE TRAIN INTO A TRENCH.
ENCINITAS flower capital, SUICIDE CENTER of north county.
Trump needs Shaffer in DC.
ReplyDeleteWant to solve affordable housing? Take the city owned golf course, which is operated by Calkan, and is losing money, and turn it into affordable housing. Problem solved. It would be interesting to see how Meyer would react, as he lives close to that course.
ReplyDeleteGood compromise: Make it a nine-hole course so the golfers can't be too pissed, let Meyer be the developer so he can make more bucks, have the city keep ownership of the land and give it a percentage in perpetuity, keep the housing within Prop A height and density limits. Affordable housing is not possible without subsidies of some kind. This nine-holer is a win-win all around.
DeleteSo no affordable housing, 12:51? If it can't be done, then why give Meyer another gift?
DeleteThat's a "win-win" only if you're full market-rate developer or city insider. Residents, not so much.
Improve your reading comprehension, 2:06. The city provides the land in return for a percentage of rents and sales in perpetuity, but keeps title.
DeleteMeyer is an affordable housing advocate, according to him. The housing he builds within Prop A mandates will be affordable because the near absence of land cost will make it so.
The city wins and meets it RHNA numbers, the renters and buyers win, and Meyer wins. Residents elsewhere in Encinitas win because they won't have unsightly three-story crap built everywhere.
At nine holes, the golf course will be cheaper to maintain and might break even.
Voters are simply not buying the market-rate "affordable" housing scam, no matter how you spin it.
DeleteThe city has said there's no money to buy land.
5:03 PM
Delete"return for a percentage of rents and sales" is not possible. The rents are for low and very low income. The city would have to subsidy every unit. The city and taxpayers would lose big time.
JFC, 5:29! Get some imagination! How does Habitat for Humanity do it? The city owns the land. That opens all kinds of possibilities and gives the city leverage.
Delete5:45 PM
DeleteOne time deal. Cities are required to build low income RHNA housing every 4 years. The next building cycle is in 2021.
The golf course does pay for itself.
And...the city still says no money for land. When Shaffer asked Habitat at her housing forum how they build affordable and was told "the city donates the land," Shaffer clammed up in a hurry.
DeleteThe only way to build enough affordable housing in Encinitas to meet the RHNA numbers now and in the future is to subsidize it. The economics don't work otherwise.
DeleteHalf the golf course is a whole lot of land. Plenty of room for affordable housing for many years to come.
I don't play golf and I don't have much use for the big Community Park. Why doesn't Encinitas convert all these places into shacks for people who can't afford real houses?
DeleteThe apartment complexes on what used to be half the golf course would be two stories and contain studio, one, two and three bedroom apartments.
DeleteAs the landowner, the city would work with Meyer, Harrison and others to develop the complexes. The rents would be at HUD affordability rates. The developers and the city would work out the split.
Maybe some of the apartments could be sold on a basis similar to what Habitat for Humanity does. That would be a different split between the developers, the city and the buyers.
The construction would be progressive so it would continue to meet the RHNA numbers.
The golf course has a long, sordid record of cooking the books to make the place look solvent.
DeleteGolf is for pussies.
Meyer and Harrison would never participate. Their approach is to game the system, not build truly affordable housing. Just not their thing.
DeleteTheir bottom line is money. The golf course affordable housing plan would make them a lot of money in perpetuity.
DeleteApartment complex names: The Greens, The Fairway, The Back Nine, The Putter, The Sand Trap, The Hole in One, etc.
We need ways to remove/impeach councilmembers like Shaffer who seem to not understand the citizens/electorate needs.
ReplyDeleteShaffer isn't on the council anymore.
DeleteShe just acts like she is. And has a firm grip on Blakespear and Horvath, so we're not as rid of her as we imagine.
DeleteTake the money from streetscam and use it to buy/donate land.
ReplyDeleteThat money has already been taken and used for the great ecological wonder the PARK behind Vons.
DeleteAccording to activist groups like Tenants United, Prop A is racist, and any opposition to high-density low income housing in Encinitas is racist.
ReplyDeleteIt's funny to see Encinitas being attacked from the left. Smart move by the developers. Team up with progressive groups and play the race card. It will work. Nothing scares limousine liberals more than being called racists.
Maybe we can turn those 3 or 4 houses on the cliff above Swamis into low-income housing. Get a bunch of illegals from Guatemala in there too appease the progressives and developers.
Marco started that racist nonsense. Using bizarre logic accepted only by Meyer, Shaffer, and Blakespear, he accuses those demanding greater affordable housing provisions "racist."
DeleteDevelopers and big gov have teamed up from the beginning to push the bogus "affordable" meme to get the "left" to support this B.S..
DeleteThat statement from Marco showed what an idiot he really is. If the BS law degree from anyone with tuition money gets a degree law school was not enough to convince you then that public statement should. Really sad that our city even gives him the time of day. Shows how low Shaffer and Blankstares have set the bar for themselves and the city. That group is simply not capable of a thing that requires level two thinking. Willful ignorance or not, they suck.
DeleteThe state Legislature on Thursday approved a bill by Assemblyman Marc Levine that extends until 2028 special treatment for Marin County, San Rafael and Novato when it comes to meeting state requirements for zoning for affordable housing.
ReplyDeleteAdoption of the bill was considered a foregone conclusion because it was an item tied to passage of the state budget.
“It’s not a surprise,” said Diane Luther, advocacy manager for EAH Housing, an affordable housing developer based in San Rafael. “It feels like it was already decided even before it became public.”
In 2014, Levine succeeded in getting a law passed that for the purposes of state housing law changed the designation of Marin County, San Rafael and Novato from metropolitan to suburban until 2023.
The change was key, because one way for jurisdictions to demonstrate they are meeting a state requirement for zoning for low- and very-low-income housing is to use what is known as the state’s “default” density number. For metropolitan jurisdictions, the default density is 30 units per acre. For suburban jurisdictions, the default density is 20 units per acre. Affordable housing developers say low-income housing projects need more than 20 units per acre in order to be economically viable.
Now with passage of SB 106, Levine has extended Marin’s suburban designation until 2028.
“The suburban designation gives cities and counties more flexibility to zone land suitable for affordable housing that fits the suburban development of Marin,” Levine said in statement.
In 2014, Levine convinced some affordable housing developers, such as EAH Housing, to support the initial change by convincing them that something had to be done to head off a wildfire of opposition to multifamily housing development that was sweeping the county at the time.
(Read the rest at Marin Independent Journal)
Lived in Tiburon for a few years...
DeleteThere is no way the big money in Marin is going to let low income housing into their neighborhoods.
And in comparison Encinitas is far more accepting of low income people than Marin will ever be. And it shows if anyone were to do a demographic study of these communities: Tiburon vs Encinitas.
Mill Valley is pretty cool though
Encinitas has been and should continue to be suburban. Who decides these designations? Is Del Mar urban or suburban?
DeleteIf the city is within an MSA with more than 2M people (encinitas is), and has a population of more than 25k people (we do), we are considered "metropolitan," and have a default density of at least 30 units per acre.
DeleteSee table A here.
Look at the table posted at 1:02 PM.
DeleteOther cities larger than Encinitas only have a default density of 20 units per acre.
Start complaining to our state elected officials.
No. Start with our Council. They are supposed to represent us. We have a highly-paid lobbyist who acts at their direction. What has he done on our behalf?
Delete1:40 sounds like Shaffer, who routinely told residents "Go complain to the State."
1:47 PM
DeleteNot Shaffer. But, the last time the Council contacted our state representative, the Council screwed it up. Better the residents get some accurate information to the state representatives first.
The City owns the land that the golf course is on. It could be done if enough people stood up and demanded it.
ReplyDeleteThe Golf Course is a great idea... and you can add in El Camino Real and the box stores that will go the way of ghost towns if we do not do some planning!
DeleteInteresting that certain areas where alot of Sacramento politicians and donors own property is exempt from this B.S. I'm shocked I tell you!
Deletecabezon
The golf course is a stupid idea that would only satisfy the petty insecure jealousy of a few, directed at people who earn more money.
DeleteGosh, someone sounds nervous!
Delete3:03 Do you mean having a city golf course or building affordable housing on half of it?
Delete3:03pm Yes, the idea is a pipe dream to penalize certain individuals who are so deserving of being targeted and impacted in some small way like what their developments have on the rest of our community.
ReplyDeleteMeyer is piece of work and stains the Ecke name. Nothing will deter him in his pursuit to degrade our community while padding his bank account.
If only................... His day will come and there will be little sympathy from anyone around here. May the rot inside of him fester all the sooner.
He's not staining their name. If he were, he'd have been booted to the curb long ago. He makes them money. They like him and anyway, are hardly stainless themselves.
DeleteI'm having a problem with the reporting on this story. A good reporter should be listening to all points of view, weighing, and applying that weight. A disproportionate weight is being placed on Encinitas having potential class and race issues. "T" was voted down due to community character issues and because it would have led to high priced condos at the cost of community livability. It was never the case that "T" would have brought in people of a different class or race. That needs to be stated.
ReplyDeleteReporting of the story? It's Shaffer's post on her Facebook page. EU's comments say nothing about class or race.
DeleteTo be crystal clear: the only class or race references have come from Marco Gonzalez and David Meyer.
DeleteBoth accuse voters who opposed Measure T of being racist and against low-income people. The crazy part of their "argument" is it ignores the fact that voters rejected Measure T because of its lack of affordable housing guarantees. Meyer and other developers want to be free to build market-rate housing for maximum profit, and Marco is paid by developers.
Shaffer/Blakespear/Barth/Horvath apparently haven't figured this out.
Here's an example from Voice of SD and Coast News. It's the reporters job to question statements that are not factual. Otherwise, they perpetuate false narratives. The below was the last statement in the article.
Delete"Affordable housing advocates San Diego Tenants United also filed suit against the city in April, on behalf of residents who say they have struggled to find housing due to a lack of supply.
“Encinitas hides under a guise of protecting community character and the environment, but the city’s real goal is evident: keep out the working class people of color,” Rafael Bautista, president of Tenants United, told The Coast News."
http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/news/north-county-report-housing-struggles-continue-in-encinitas/
The VOSD reporters regularly turn to Meyer for "information" and to other sources who share his opinion to bolster his point of view.
Delete1:36, are you saying that both VOSD and the Coast News printed identical articles? You mentioned both, then quoted one.
VOSD quoted a quote from the Coast News. Here's the Coast News article they linked. Coast News is usually more balanced than this.
Deletehttp://www.thecoastnews.com/2017/04/21/encinitas-sued-again-over-housing-development/
Got it - thanks. CN is usually more balanced and author Aaron Burgin knows better - he's had this explained to him repeatedly by the anti-Measure T crowd. Not sure what's going on there.
DeleteThe issue of building "sffordable housing" that really isn't affordable is about three things: ego, power and money.
ReplyDeleteCome to think of it, almost every issue is about ego, power and money.
Ballad of the underachieving victim.
Delete3:39, your lack of perception is showing.
Delete3:39 Achievement should be a positive contribution, not just augmenting your personal bottom line at the expense of others. You fit the description of ego, power and money obsession.
Delete3:39's doors of perception are closed.
DeleteAn Aldous Huxley drug trip reference. How surprising for an underachiever.
DeleteTranslation: Duuuuuuuude. Like. Wow, man.
12:39,
DeleteI agree with you. You found a way to make the point intelligently, without whining.
Anonymously calling another anonymous person an underachiever says more about the accuser than the accused.
Delete3:39 PM I'd say you are more like a broken record.
ReplyDeleteShaffer - advocate of the special interests. Former academic state worker - akin to welfare for useless services. This woman is pathetic -the will of the people means nothing to this hack.
ReplyDeleteThis is dominance by legal chicanery. The wealthy overrule the majority by plying the legal system to implement their interests. It is all market dynamics - it has nothi8ng to do about "affordable' housing. In a capitalist system, affordable is what the market dictates. This is just over development by the greedy jerks like Meyer - he is what is wrong with America - greed. pure greed!~
ReplyDeleteAnd our gutless council pays him off every time. When they complain about lawsuits, they need look no further than themselves.
DeleteIf it's bad for Encinitas, it's good for Shaffer.
ReplyDeleteI'm curious-- there are a lot of comments about Schaffer getting something out of this, and being lined up against the will of the people.
ReplyDeleteSo, will she profit monetarily, or get jollies from being dictatorial, or what? What is her motivation?
She is probably still getting marching orders from the local Democratic party . To maintain the culture more tax revenue is needed. I'm a liberal and am extremely pissed off at the democratic "leadership".
DeleteShe thinks she knows better than anybody else and wants to force her way. It's a power trip.
ReplyDeleteAnd a personality flaw. Once she has her mind made up, the facts are mere annoyances. She absolutely cannot bear to lose, which seems to be how she views the will of the people going against her arrogant "I know what's best" belief system.
ReplyDeleteShe can't see that she is offending people and disrespecting them when she digs in like she did on Prop A, the rail trail, and now on Measure T.
She is like Barth in that she cannot recover from what she views as a personal injustice. The rest of us call it "democracy."
And the idiotic Leucadia Streetscape plan.
DeleteShaffer hates Leucadia and did nothing for that community nor the streetscape.
DeleteShaffer...go away.
She supported the idiotic Streetscape plan.
DeleteI agree she can't take losing even the smallest discussion point. That is why she wouldn't run again because she knows she would have been destroyed in the election, having quickly lost so much of her fragile, never deep support. That would have been too embarrassing for her, and cracked her self-illusionary sense of having a platform.
DeleteLiar Lisa became irrelevant while on the council and remains so. After betraying her original base without a thought, she only became worse.
ReplyDeleteThe one thing we can be thankful for from her, is that she left after one term and avoided the loss that was to come.
Now she feels impelled to offer an opinion on issues that nobody wants to have to suffer through. Insufferable about covers her continued interference in any of our local issues. Spare us your view of anything Lisa. Please go quietly into the night of the rest of your life. That would be a favor that this community could appreciate from the likes of you. Other past council members seemed to have realized their position of favor and not, after their time on the council, and stayed out. Please do the same Lisa.
7/25 9:50am here again. So it sounds like from the various responses, the answer is "jollies." Or possibly complying with Democrat Party wishes?
ReplyDelete9:50am Ego, blind and unabashed at that.
ReplyDelete