Covering civic issues, news, and the secret life of Encinitas
Tuesday, February 13, 2018
Housing issues on tomorrow's council agenda
Lots of housing issues on tomorrow's agenda, including accessory units, low-income requirements for developers, and an update from the housing element task force.
Staff will push hard for the minimal amount of affordability required and the council will take their marching orders from staff.
No doubt the BIA dude will be perched in the back room for insurance to throw hand signals at staff lest they forget momentarily who they're working for. Not for residents and not for the low income earners, either.
Both of you are wrong, Catherine, Tony, and then rest of the brain trust own this plan. Look back at the start of this effort, they excluded staff and consultants to minimize controversy. They ended up picking the only consultant to submit a response. Of course they ended up increasing the contract by $200k.
If you don't think BIA interests aren't leaning on them, you're living in a fool's paradise. Just because developers are not physically at the table does not mean they're not trying to influence,
Blakespear is super tight with Marco Gonzalez, who has fallen nicely in line with the BIA part line. Do you really think he isn't whispering in Blakespear's ear?
And Tony has been quite resistant to attempts to require a higher percent of affordability and any other ideas that threaten developer profits. He's not going to bite the hand that feeds.
Watch closely at the task force meetings. If the new plan turns out better for residents than the Measure T monstrosity it will only because of extreme public pressure, not City political will.
I don’t like the law, but we’d have chaos if we could pick and choose what laws we want to obey and not obey.
City Council is doing what they are required to do. The vote was pretty close last time. All it takes is one in 20 voters switching from no to yes to pass a housing element. Last time the prop included a lot more unit growth potential that the law required. If they just cut that down it will likely pass.
And FYI, I own my home, and live within a couple hundred yards of one of the sites likely to be upzoned.
8:11, read back over your two conflicting statements: "City Council is doing what it is required to do" - this is what they claimed on Measure T - and "last time the prop included a lot more growth potential [than] the law required."
Your second statement is what got the city in trouble on Measure T and it failed by a lot more than a 20-vote swing. In fact, it failed by a much wider margin than Prop A passed with.
Let's see if the Council can figure out how to take the next vote to voters minus the developer-pushed goodies.
I was at the meetings. Council thought they would have discression to add, subtract, or swap parcels from the competing plans after HCD’s initial review. They were wrong, and were forced to put one of the HCD-plans onto the ballot as-is. That’s why the last HEU prop was fat.
The new one will also have to be over the min, as HCD will not let us assume 100% of approved unit capacity will be constructed. But I’m expecting the buffer to be significantly smaller this time. If not, I’ll also vote no.
What I said was, if 1 out of every 20 voters (5%) flips to yes, then it will pass.
Measure T was "fat" with developer gifts that had nothing to do with the equally-bloated "buffer."
You seem to think you have a logical reason for the 2,979 "max cap" units number in the fine print that even Council members acted surprised to see.
No, the buffer was purely developer/staff-driven with no valid excuse for the huge total number of units they tried to sell residents under their "It's the law" lie.
Staff sat mum every time the buffer was discussed. If your scenario were true, staff would have explained themselves. They did not.
There is no making excuses for the greed-driven Measure T. What remains to be seen is whether Blakespear and Kranz manage to locate their spines and fend off the special interests they're used to listening to.
Marco has volunteered to give his time to the city at no charge to overturn both A and T. He has said this on 2 occasions now. Watch for it. As far as the housing element, no city has been sued by the State for not complying. It is the BIA that has sued only.No one has yet defined how we can have affordable housing in this city. Now we also have districts, which adds a whole new layer of B.S. I say we should still fight it, as is Poway, Huntington Beach and several other cities. Blakespear's comments that we would spend millions being the test case is B.S. We are not Palmdale. We have a population of around 60,000, and a case could be made for we are not large enough. Marin is making this case right now. And Malibu, where the attorney is from, is exempt. We don't have a large Latino population in our city, and districting is about having a diverse population representing us at the Council level. We have also had 2 Latina City Council members. We spend around 4 million dollars for a lifeguard tower at Moonlight. Surely fighting districting is a better way to use our money? And, the map #16, drawn by a sitting council member, making sure everyone had a district is pure B.S.
Amen. Look up how Beverly Hills is getting away from building any affordable housing. By the way, who exactly were the socialists that created this mysterious "big brother-mandated" race baiting legislation?
Exactly, 8:24. The whole affordable housing scheme was cooked up by the BIA and sold to uninformed do gooders. Make no mistake, this is not socialism: it is capitalism at its worst.
BIA guys or Marco reading this... I know a few of you BIA guys very well, your wives plus brokerage will know everything If you sue Encinitas. It is not slander if it is true. Right Marco? Drugs, hookers, frequent visits to the PB rub and tug, settled harassment suits. Metoo will crush BIA like the roaches they are. Become a divorce lawyer Marco, you will make a killing. Email with details is written and ready for every major publication. Is having your career and personal life exposed worth a few bucks? I guess we will find out.
4:10- WOW! No I am interested. You cannot possibly have any information on everything you just said.And if you do, why not share it now? The BIA has sued us 3 times yet I don't see anything about what you are saying. Are you just blowing smoke or can you prove your words. I dare you to give us an example. This sounds like something Trump would say to scare people, and is his usually B.S.
Staff will propose shit again, City Council will swallow it, and the voters will vote no.
ReplyDeleteVoters don't like the taste of shit.
Staff will push hard for the minimal amount of affordability required and the council will take their marching orders from staff.
ReplyDeleteNo doubt the BIA dude will be perched in the back room for insurance to throw hand signals at staff lest they forget momentarily who they're working for. Not for residents and not for the low income earners, either.
Both of you are wrong, Catherine, Tony, and then rest of the brain trust own this plan. Look back at the start of this effort, they excluded staff and consultants to minimize controversy. They ended up picking the only consultant to submit a response. Of course they ended up increasing the contract by $200k.
ReplyDeleteIf you don't think BIA interests aren't leaning on them, you're living in a fool's paradise. Just because developers are not physically at the table does not mean they're not trying to influence,
DeleteBlakespear is super tight with Marco Gonzalez, who has fallen nicely in line with the BIA part line. Do you really think he isn't whispering in Blakespear's ear?
And Tony has been quite resistant to attempts to require a higher percent of affordability and any other ideas that threaten developer profits. He's not going to bite the hand that feeds.
Watch closely at the task force meetings. If the new plan turns out better for residents than the Measure T monstrosity it will only because of extreme public pressure, not City political will.
"BIA party line."
DeleteAs long as blame is placed squarely where it belongs. All those touting the "greatness" of Council, needs to own this one.
DeleteDevelopers own this town.
ReplyDeleteI don’t like the law, but we’d have chaos if we could pick and choose what laws we want to obey and not obey.
ReplyDeleteCity Council is doing what they are required to do. The vote was pretty close last time. All it takes is one in 20 voters switching from no to yes to pass a housing element. Last time the prop included a lot more unit growth potential that the law required. If they just cut that down it will likely pass.
And FYI, I own my home, and live within a couple hundred yards of one of the sites likely to be upzoned.
Attack away.
Fuck more affordable units— That’s pure Gov BS. Free Enterprise works.
ReplyDeleteConcentrate on minimizing upcoming.
Amen. Seconded.
DeleteBlakespear makes Stocks look like a no-growther!
ReplyDeleteAs much as I hate to say this and will difinitely have a little vomit in my mouth after saying it. I would perfer Stocks over Blakespear.
ReplyDeleteYou’re either nuts, or your memory has faded.
Delete8:11, read back over your two conflicting statements: "City Council is doing what it is required to do" - this is what they claimed on Measure T - and "last time the prop included a lot more growth potential [than] the law required."
ReplyDeleteYour second statement is what got the city in trouble on Measure T and it failed by a lot more than a 20-vote swing. In fact, it failed by a much wider margin than Prop A passed with.
Let's see if the Council can figure out how to take the next vote to voters minus the developer-pushed goodies.
No conflict.
DeleteI was at the meetings. Council thought they would have discression to add, subtract, or swap parcels from the competing plans after HCD’s initial review. They were wrong, and were forced to put one of the HCD-plans onto the ballot as-is. That’s why the last HEU prop was fat.
The new one will also have to be over the min, as HCD will not let us assume 100% of approved unit capacity will be constructed. But I’m expecting the buffer to be significantly smaller this time. If not, I’ll also vote no.
What I said was, if 1 out of every 20 voters (5%) flips to yes, then it will pass.
Measure T was "fat" with developer gifts that had nothing to do with the equally-bloated "buffer."
DeleteYou seem to think you have a logical reason for the 2,979 "max cap" units number in the fine print that even Council members acted surprised to see.
No, the buffer was purely developer/staff-driven with no valid excuse for the huge total number of units they tried to sell residents under their "It's the law" lie.
Staff sat mum every time the buffer was discussed. If your scenario were true, staff would have explained themselves. They did not.
There is no making excuses for the greed-driven Measure T. What remains to be seen is whether Blakespear and Kranz manage to locate their spines and fend off the special interests they're used to listening to.
That would be like picking between Trump and Clinton again!
ReplyDeleteMarco has volunteered to give his time to the city at no charge to overturn both A and T. He has said this on 2 occasions now. Watch for it. As far as the housing element, no city has been sued by the State for not complying. It is the BIA that has sued only.No one has yet defined how we can have affordable housing in this city. Now we also have districts, which adds a whole new layer of B.S. I say we should still fight it, as is Poway, Huntington Beach and several other cities. Blakespear's comments that we would spend millions being the test case is B.S. We are not Palmdale. We have a population of around 60,000, and a case could be made for we are not large enough. Marin is making this case right now. And Malibu, where the attorney is from, is exempt. We don't have a large Latino population in our city, and districting is about having a diverse population representing us at the Council level. We have also had 2 Latina City Council members. We spend around 4 million dollars for a lifeguard tower at Moonlight. Surely fighting districting is a better way to use our money? And, the map #16, drawn by a sitting council member, making sure everyone had a district is pure B.S.
ReplyDeleteSitting council member Tasha Boerner-Horvath, who lied by omission about having authored the very map she pushed to adopt.
DeleteShame on you Tasha, and don't be so sure that this story will go away.
Anyone else notice how quiet she's managed to make her usually-uncontrollable tongue lately?
Yes, I've noticed. She has buttoned her lip, which is a blessing. The meetings now go faster.
DeleteAmen. Look up how Beverly Hills is getting away from building any affordable housing. By the way, who exactly were the socialists that created this mysterious "big brother-mandated" race baiting legislation?
Delete7:52 You mean the socialist donors from the building industry?
DeleteExactly, 8:24. The whole affordable housing scheme was cooked up by the BIA and sold to uninformed do gooders. Make no mistake, this is not socialism: it is capitalism at its worst.
DeleteBIA guys or Marco reading this... I know a few of you BIA guys very well, your wives plus brokerage will know everything If you sue Encinitas. It is not slander if it is true. Right Marco? Drugs, hookers, frequent visits to the PB rub and tug, settled harassment suits. Metoo will crush BIA like the roaches they are. Become a divorce lawyer Marco, you will make a killing. Email with details is written and ready for every major publication. Is having your career and personal life exposed worth a few bucks? I guess we will find out.
ReplyDelete4:10- WOW! No I am interested. You cannot possibly have any information on everything you just said.And if you do, why not share it now? The BIA has sued us 3 times yet I don't see anything about what you are saying. Are you just blowing smoke or can you prove your words. I dare you to give us an example. This sounds like something Trump would say to scare people, and is his usually B.S.
ReplyDeleteActually, it sounds totally believable. True stories about our so-called leaders abound. There are instances with witnesses.
Delete