The City seeks to overturn the results of the 2013 election that passed Prop. A and replace the current requirement for voter approval of Housing Element Updates (HEU) with a simple Council majority. These required updates represent the bulk of all upzoning in Encinitas.
Citing the failures of Measures T and U, the City claims that Prop. A interferes with its ability to comply with state housing law. Residents who voted against Measures T and U maintain that the City far exceeded State housing requirements in its desire to provide maximum profits to developers. Voters viewed these measures as gifts to developers and the reason for their majority No votes. Examples of these gifts included: low percentage of affordable housing; Prop. A nullification clauses; and greater building heights than necessary.
The City further alleges that it negotiated Measures T and U with HCD (Department of Housing and Community Development) yet despite claims of transparency failed both times to provide requested verification to the public of such negotiations through minutes, emails, and recordings. The City also maintains that it considered resident input in crafting Measures T and U; however, no proof of this input having been incorporated is evident in either plan.
Prop. A was a single issue Special Election with 12,873 people taking part in the vote. It is unclear from the lawsuit how many of the people who participated in the Prop. A, Measure T, and Measure U elections are named in the lawsuit.
Click the link to view the lawsuit: Complaint for Declaratory Relief
Mayor Blakespear has made it clear, she believe more building needs to take place in Encinitas, no matter what the citizens say!
ReplyDeleteRECALL BLAKESPEAR before it's too late!
Unbelievable. If citizens lawfully organize and qualify an initiative for the general ballot, they can be sued for obstructing special interest objectives? Sounds like a Trump tactic!
ReplyDeleteA Trump tactic? Who are you kidding. It is a typical socialist tactic. Who cares what the people, we (the ruling class) know what's better for the people. So just give us all the control and we will make sure we live like kings and the peons (us) live like the working class we are.
DeleteSocialist? You mean full-on banana republic dictator. Get your terms straight.
DeleteIt appears to be an empty slate of John Does.
ReplyDeleteIf anyone wants to step forward and claim to have an interest in defending Prop A, they become one of the named defendants.
Very unusual. They are asking for volunteers to be sued.
Time to recall or remove Catherine Blakespear from office. She is not fit for the job. We pay for a lawsuit, and the whole council went for it. In 2020 we can get rid of the Mayor, Tony Kranz, and Kellie Hinze, who all went along with this. Never in all of my years watching council meetings have I seen such a flagrant disregard for the voters. How will they even find who did or did not vote for these measures? Can they legally get into the voting data and ferret them out? This is possibly the most disgusting thing I have seen from any council.
ReplyDeleteRead the linked complaint. The lawsuit names "Preserve Proposition A," the group that sought to intervene (late) in the BIA lawsuit. This is exactly the opportunity the group sought -- to make sure that Prop A applied to future adoptions of Housing Elements (since the judge in the BIA suit refused to rule beyond the most recent Housing Element). And this is no surprise, as HCD made the Council address this issue as part of the Housing Element update, and the Council made clear it was going to pursue this Decl. Relief avenue. Why go through it all over again with a public vote that could never pass and another wasted million dollar lawsuit (and delay). I get it if you don't like the fact that state law preempts local initiatives, but take it up with the legislature, as it's out of the hands of the Council.
ReplyDelete-Marco Gonzalez
Sooo easily fixed the first time, Marco. Put a plan before voters that didn't bend over you know which way for developers. The barebones one that Barquist and even Kautz talked about before they were abruptly muzzled.
DeleteThe council brought the two No votes on themselves and should but won't blame themselves as the s*@t hits the fan.
It's no secret the council wanted Prop A gone from day one. Kranz said in a public meeting he wanted "to kill this thing" and that was prior to the 2013 vote. Barth was going to do a "soft city opposition" then went on to lie about the Coastal Commission "bifurcating" the town until a former Chair of the Coastal Commission exposed her in public.
Be honest for once about what really went down here and stop it with the state law crap, no one is buying that the city didn't cause this crapshow.
We're not interested in "the state," we're interested in how our so-called representatives cannot stop screwing us over because they think they know better/have special interests in their pockets.
The council and you as their every-ready cheerleader can just stuff it.
Marco didn't waste any time posting. It seems the BIA has him on retainer. I wonder how much that pays per year. Surely he knows the city learned nothing from the first loss. The city could have negotiated more vigorously within the law with HCD, but chose to present the same gift to developers for the second vote. Voters rejected it by even a bigger margin.
DeleteI've never represented the BIA. In fact, I've beat them in a number of suits throughout my career. I just get sick of all the uneducated nonsense on these anonymous blogs. People are too lazy to pay attention to what's actually going on and participate in a meaningful way. Instead they hide behind bullshit anonymity making grand proclamations of surprise when the Council held a hearing on this very subject and very transparently indicated how it would resolve the legalities of future Housing Element update votes.
Delete-Marco
6:14 PM
DeleteThat is horse manure. The BIA wrote their demands to HCD which include The demand to do away with Prop A. Then, with HCD as the water carrier for the BIA, repeated those demands to the Council and Mayor.
So how much were you paid to get the Santa Fe density bonus approved with no front yards and little side yards. Plus, one small house will be torn down and the other house on the lot that is designated as the low income will only be cosmetically updated not build from the ground up as required by law. Polly parrot says - It's the law, it's the law.
I think you're mixing up two different projects (Santa Fe and Bonita).
Delete-Marco
The city's strategy all along worked flawlessly, from their point of view of kowtowing to every developers project to come along.
ReplyDeletePresent a guaranteed to fail housing element update, have it go before the right judge without the public being able to explain why we keep voting against the sell out housing plan, and voila, neuter Prop A.
What a disgusting abomination of the publics trust. As much as we would like to recall them all, voting them out next year will have to suffice.
All three of them need to sent packing if anything is to change. Anything less, will change nothing.
Sue the residents? If they pursue this action, it will be to their downfall, and deservedly so.
Un freaking believable! Council, poke that bear and there will be hell to pay.
Definitely a setup by the council. They know exactly what they were doing to get us to this point.
DeleteWonder what Measure Z would be with no voter approval required. I don't.
I'm Spartacus!
ReplyDeleteI voted for Prop A. I went to farmers' markets and passed out pro-Prop A literature. I stood on street corners and waved pro-Prop A signs.
When I started reading the City Sues Citizens entry above, I thought it must be a sophisticated joke. But it's real!
Far, far, far beyond belief. If anybody had any doubts about where the council's loyalties lie, those doubts are now buried.
Since when do we live in a society that ignores the results of three elections and retaliates against those who win? One of the hallmarks of American elections has always been the peaceful acceptance of the final count. This is a sad day for Encinitas.
ReplyDeleteSince when do we live in a society that ignores the results of elections and retaliates against those who win? One of the hallmarks of American elections has always been the peaceful acceptance of the final count. This is a sad time for America.
ReplyDeleteYa'll slippin'
https://i.etsystatic.com/18995963/r/il/6000bb/1704959322/il_570xN.1704959322_madl.jpg
excuse me if I don't click on your weird link.
DeleteMarco,
ReplyDeleteIf this declaratory relief succeeds, is there anything preventing Son of Prop A ballot initiative (same or similar)?
The devil's in the details. To the extent a local initiative precludes compliance with state housing law, it will be similarly preempted. There is only so much land use you can do from the ballot box. - Marco
DeleteAll land use is done from the ballot box, but not the one you are referring to. This is a state created problem that has been created by the elected leaders of the state. With the power of the state laws behind you, you shit all over the local communities and force discordant development under the guise of affordable housing.
Delete"Devil's in the details"...Kranz'$ favorite line. Attempt to kick down the road something they know will never happen and have no intention of even helping make happen.
DeleteIt was Tony Kranz's house where the first Prop. A meeting took place. I realize he has backed away from it, but it is quite ironic. As far as the Mayor, her family owns a lot of land around areas where she should have ethically recused herself. For example her family owns the land that Las Olas uses for parking. Yet she didn't recuse herself from the bike "whatever" she wants on 101. Nor did she recuse herself from the transition road to make it permanent. If the City had used city owned land to begin with in the Housing Element, we would have never come to where we are now. The piece called L7 is owned by the city, but the residents fought and won for it to be taken off. Instead the City picked 2 small streets on Clark in Leucadia to be a part of the HEU. Some Mayors fought for their cities to get lower RHNA numbers. Not Blakespear. Here is the real problem. Unless we have 3 citizens who are willing to run for Mayor, and City Council in both Kranz's district and Hinze's district, nothing will change. If one looks back at how may 5-0 votes there have been in the last year, in fact probably 2 years ( I didn't check 2018) it tells you something. No council that I can remember has ever been so non-controversial in their own minds. Why do they always agree on everything you might want to ask? I have my theories but I really don't know, so I won't say what I really think. You can all think for yourselves. And if you look at who always defends this council it will usually be a commissioner, Marco, her campaign manager, Scott Chatfield, the Verdus (who have a PAC just for local stuff) and perhaps a few others. To find this out just go to her weekly newsletter that she posts on the City website and see who likes it. That will tell you a lot. The reality is most people aren't paying attention, as they have lives, jobs, kids, mortgages, etc. So, unless you want to see the same Council in 2020, someone better step up and run. In the meantime, you can go to the next Council meeting and bring a sign saying " I am Jane or John Doe" Let's see how many people we can get to pack the Council Chambers and use oral communication time to share your thoughts and feelings. I'm appalled by this move to sue citizens. I don't give a damn what anyone says. This never had to come to this. There were good housing plans that were ignored. Why is the other question?
ReplyDeleteThe Coastal Act doesn’t require that the Commissioners vote to change an LCP based upon the demands of the Building Industry Association of San Diego (BIA). Yet, that is what happened.
ReplyDeleteA January 18, 2019 demand letter by a representative of the BIA was sent to the state Housing and Community Development agency (HCD). In the BIA letter these demands to HCD were to change the city’s General Plan, Municipal Code, Specific Plans, and the LCP. These changes would financially benefit the members of the building industries.
A February 4, 2019 demand letter from HCD was then sent to the City of Encinitas with these BIA demands. However, the HCD letter didn’t disclose that information.
The Coastal Commissioners certified the Encinitas LCP amendments WITHOUT the knowledge that their votes would financially benefit developers and property owners. The San Diego staff in the Coastal Commission office should have alerted the Commissioners about the financial benefit they were conferring on developers and property owners.
There were emails where a developer, David Meyer, was trying to buy up older Clark Avenue properties that will be up zoned to 30 units with the Commissioners' approval. A small neighborhood of older homes will be destroyed for the financial benefit of the new developer/owner.
There is also the case of the developer who brought an already approved tentative map that required the restoration of wetlands as a condition of approval. The City Council has up zoned this property to 30 units per acre. The developer and new owner of the property wrote that he wouldn't restore the wetlands with the new zoning. This is how the Coastal Commission staff protect wetlands? This is how the Coastal Commissioners protect wetlands?
Attorney Marco Gonzalez worked a deal behind the scenes with the San Diego Coastal Commission office and Encinitas planning to get his client a change in the LCP that will financially benefit his client.
Did the judges on each of the lawsuits against the city know about these nasty actions by the developers and sanctioned by the Council and Mayor?
Density Bonus developments - Channel Island subdivision between Saxony and Quail Gardens. For those buyers in this subdivision - did you know that if the developer, David Meyer had followed the municipal code, each property would be at least 17,424 square feet. Because he used the state density bonus law, he was able to reduce the size of the lots to build more houses. Some property owners may be very happy with a 9,379 square foot lot instead of a 17,424 square foot lot they thought they were paying for at $2 million.
ReplyDeletePeople spent $2 million on a lot they thought was 17,424 square feet? You're confused, 11:48 PM.
DeleteNope, not confused. The buyers knew the zoning was R-3 and with midrange density required building of 2.5 houses per acre. The buyers should be owners of 17,424 square foot lots. Alas, they were taken by a smart developer, the density bonus law, and the planning department. Buyer beware. The buyers can pull up the tentative map on the city website.
DeleteNext up - another buyer beware density bonus subdivision with advertising of "estate size lots" and 141 square feet (10 by 14) of outdoor living space for only $1.5 million. Included is a landslide in the subdivision that isn't revealed to the buyers. What a bargain!!!!! HA!
So a buyer gets two lots instead of one? Great deal!
Delete10:52 AM
DeleteHaha. The buyers in the Saxony/Quail Gardens subdivision got one half a lot for the price of a full lot. Buyers beware! The smart developer got you!
I think that 7:22 is talking about the Desert Rose Project that is now called Loden in Olivenhain. This is a project that Gonzalez helped to usher through after almost 10 years.
DeleteI've read the responses. Not one of you place the blame on the leftist run California government that created the entire mess with forced low income housing. Not one of you. You get what you get by voting.
ReplyDelete4:59 What low income housing? Do you actually think that the BIA is a leftist group?
DeleteThe city could have gone to court to nullify prop A. The purpose of suing citizens is to discourage any future opposition and to recover court and attorney fees.
DeleteIntimidation thug style. No wonder the mayor and her bff get along so well, their end$ justify their means.
Delete8:17, I wrote California is run by leftists and I threw in the word voting. I don't know how to make it more clear.
DeleteThe leftits that run California have been suing the City of Encinitas for lack of low income housing. By voting in leftist govenments, this is what you get. It then dribbles down to Prop A. Cheeseus you people, try and follow the downstream, it always goes down, never up.
Keep voting for the leftists and this is what you get.
THINK
We need to recall the entire city council. The city council has voted to sue the electorate. Unbelievable.
ReplyDeleteSeig Heil, city counsel!
DeleteIs it possible to create a class-action defense, with the class being all voters who voted for Prop A, or against either U or T?
ReplyDeleteEncinitas v Majority of Voters?
I'd broaden it. Many who voted against Prop A later said they were misled by mikey, who ran around saying "No means no to developers."
DeleteAnd the city doesn't say which way people had to have voted to be named in the suit. someone who liked U may still want to keep their right to vote next round. as someone already said it could get a lot worse with no resident vote needed.
Encinitas v Voters is more apt. they want Barths "obstructionists" OUT OF THE WAY.
This is not only harassment,it is ABUSE. It's also called "bullying". Many of us voted for you Catherine, and you Tony and this is how you repay us. Your mafia style of government will bite you in the ass.
ReplyDeleteincredibly gonzalez is complaining about bullying on EV. talk about the poster child calling the kettle black. when is he not in bully mode?
ReplyDeletePeople who have known him a long time compare him to Trump in terms of his paranoia, abusiveness towards others, his venal tendencies, and his narcissisms. I don't know him except for what I hear, see and read.
DeleteThose in the know, has Marco had a big personality change, or is this the real Marco who is coming out?
The burning question: What the hell is wrong with the guy?
DeleteHe behaves like a total wacko.
Marco ran a classic con job. He sued multiple cities over fireworks to forge a reputation as an "environmental" attorney. Then he sold his reputation to developers to help them with their projects. I hope he has found happiness with his money and power. I wonder what he sees in the mirror. What a pathetic way to live a life.
DeleteYou keyboard warriors sure talk a lot of shit anonymously. Come on by my office and sit down with me some day. I'm willing to bet you walk away with a different perspective. But, the reality is, you're just a bunch of ineffective cowards with no real desire for discourse or meaningful compromise. I'm an open book. You're the ones unwilling to put yourselves out there for what you believe. - Marco
DeleteI don’t always agree with Marco, but in this case he’s 100%.
DeleteDimwits who can’t compete with facts and reason, so they hide behind anonymity and act like punks.
You disagree with him, fine. Just don’t be a pussy ass bitch about it.
No bitch, just recognition that it would be a waste of time to meet with him. His reputation for throwing false claims at the wall to see if they'll stick is well known. No cowardice, just protective of my time.
DeletePlenty calling him out on EV with their names behind their posts, and yes, over here behind the protection of anonymity the posts are harsher. Many fear his relentless threats to sue anything that moves, so can you blame them?
He's worked to deserve his reputation. What do you and he expect should happen when he pulls his stunts??
care to put your name to that, 9:56? oh, the irony. the irony!
DeleteMarco, "Ineffective cowards?". You mean like the ones who got prop A passed? I would not be shocked if you were the one who came up with this asinine idea to sue 100 John Does.
DeleteMarco was raised by his angry feminized mom who raised two hate-filled kids. The apple never falls far from the tree. Marco amd his sister will spend the rest of their lives trying to get even with those they were raised to despise.
DeleteBlakespear just sent out a newsletter that did not mention that they are suing voters.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure how she would put a positive spin on this story.
She can't. Marco's attempts to spin for her on EV are pathetic.
DeleteIneffective coward see ineffective coward. You diagnosed perfectly!
DeleteHey, since Tony was the first person to have a Prop A meeting at his house, shouldn't he be the first guy "on the list"? Man, this sure brings back memories of the Hoover commie blacklisting of the 50s'. Encinitas rocks!!
ReplyDeleteTony Kranz does not own a home. He lives at his wife's parents home in Leucadia. Tony Kranz has never been able to make a living on his own and have never bought or sold a home in Encinitas. Tony Kranz is easy to control.
DeleteYeah put a "wanted" sign on his city hall mugshot. public enemy #1 then go down the line, though blakespear vies for the title.
ReplyDelete9:38 PM
ReplyDeleteThe BIA wrote their demands to HCD which include the demand to do away with Prop A. Then, with HCD as the water carrier for the BIA, repeated those demands to the Council and Mayor.
So how much were you paid to get the Santa Fe density bonus approved with no front yards and little side yards. Plus, one small house will be torn down and the other house on the lot that is designated as the low income will only be cosmetically updated not build from the ground up as required by law. Polly parrot says - It's the law, it's the law.
Our Mayor is the Developers' Whore.
ReplyDeleteAnyone but Blakespear in 2020.
Marco, I'm posting as anonymous but I will reveal my name: It is John Doe.
ReplyDeleteYou spelled Pussy Ass Bitch wrong.
DeleteI knew something looked funny about that...missing the hyphen between Pussy and Ass, I believe?
DeleteSigned,
John Doe
Marco is a diversion to the real cancer here, and that's out very own city council and staff. -Jane Doe
ReplyDeleteGood point. He's the city's mouthpiece so responses go to him, but head of snake is council and fangs are the mayor.
DeleteI remember when Marco and Lorena were the campaign managers for Donna Frye's special election for SD Mayor. Though I did not vote in that election, I felt sad that it seemed to have been stolen from Frye by a judge's ruling that many write in votes for Frye could not be counted since voters neglected to shade the oval next to her name. I felt that this was a miscarriage of justice.
ReplyDeleteThis situation is far worse. Citizens wrote an acceptable initiative and put it to a ballot and legally won the election. I think that during the Frye situation, there was a lot of discussion about the will of the voters. What about the will of the majority of the voters in Encinitas?
So you're finding out that the Encinitas City Council and staff doesn't care about the will of the voters. They do whatever they want regardless of the will of the voters.
DeleteThe three up for election in Nov '20 should be gone if voters are paying attention, and there are qualified alternative candidates.
If you have access to Encinitas Votes you might want to take look at what Marco said about all of this. He aaid that he offered for the city for free to get rid of Prop. A when it was first voted on by the citizens. He professes to go by the law, but since he offered it up on Encinitas Votes, it seems as if he takes the laws he wants and leaves the rest. Jane Doe
ReplyDeletethere's no way his work on this comes free. too much money for too many of his developer clients for him not to be getting something from somewhere. and the way our city shifts line items around his fees could easily be buried under our noses.
Deletehe is like his bff council buddy, they take the law's name in vain.
I never offered to rid the City of Prop A. It still applies when not preempted by state law. I've never said differently.
DeleteWhat I offered was a recommendation that the City pass a resolution interpreting state law to preempt Prop A in the context of Housing Element Updates. This would have then certainly spurred the Prop A proponents to sue the City, and that is the lawsuit I offered to defend pro bono. I was (and am) confident the law is clear on preemption.
The City didn't take my recommendation or offer, and instead had to (unsuccessfully) defend against the BIA and SD Tenants United lawsuits, to a tune of $1M in wasted taxpayer funds after paying the City's lawyers and the plaintiffs' lawyers in those cases. Add onto that the cost of the current suit.
You can question my motives all you want, and sure I wanted to make a specific point in all of this, but there can be no question I would have saved the City a decent chunk of change, not to mention resolved the issue in full much more quickly.
What area of the City is the Ho going to sell out today?
ReplyDeleteIs she going to place another vote at SANDAG requesting more money to double the train noise in the City?
Is the city looking at a casino? Is that one reason why the council and mayor want to get rid of Prop A?
ReplyDeleteDon't you people get it???? The vote against low income housing was overturned by a judge, making Prop A a useless tool in the fight against overpopulation of Encinitas. Sooo, if a leftist judge in a dirty black robe can overturn our vote then it will happen again and again. So what is the point of having Prop A. The left will keep hammering and hammering until they ruin things, then they go on to ruin something else. Everything they touch...fails.
ReplyDeleteThe right is ignorant, as usual. The judge suspended Prop A for the sake of HCD and the HEU. The city is trying to kill it forever by suing.
ReplyDeleteJudge's ruling was biased toward the City, which is biased toward the BIA, the building industry. Prop A was a non partisan issue.
ReplyDeleteThat judge isn't "leftist" to my knowledge. In my eyes, he is horrible. City has deep pockets. Citizens' groups have a hard time paying for lawyers to challenge wrongful rulings, which become the law of the case. By corrupt interpretations, bad judges can undermine democracy, as has happened here, in Encinitas.
See below how Marco "Trump" alone can solve the problems of this city of 60,000 and knows better than the voters who won three legal elections. By putting aside the will of the voters, he could have saved taxpayers $2 million.
ReplyDeleteCouldn't there have been other options besides getting out the City checkbook or letting Marco handle this?
Marco Gonzalez October 5, 2019 at 8:30 PM
I never offered to rid the City of Prop A. It still applies when not preempted by state law. I've never said differently.
What I offered was a recommendation that the City pass a resolution interpreting state law to preempt Prop A in the context of Housing Element Updates. This would have then certainly spurred the Prop A proponents to sue the City, and that is the lawsuit I offered to defend pro bono. I was (and am) confident the law is clear on preemption.
The City didn't take my recommendation or offer, and instead had to (unsuccessfully) defend against the BIA and SD Tenants United lawsuits, to a tune of $1M in wasted taxpayer funds after paying the City's lawyers and the plaintiffs' lawyers in those cases. Add onto that the cost of the current suit.
You can question my motives all you want, and sure I wanted to make a specific point in all of this, but there can be no question I would have saved the City a decent chunk of change, not to mention resolved the issue in full much more quickly.
Reply
Considering what the city wastes on so many other misguided projects ($10 million for Pac View, $5 million for two Moonlight buildings, projected $50+ million for Streetscape — millions that will multiply with bond interest — so what if it wastes relatively small amounts on defending lawsuits?
ReplyDeleteThe city tried to prevent Prop A and failed. The voters prevailed. The city has been trying to kill Prop A since. They got part way to that goal with the judge's decision for temporary suspension. They said at the time they would seek a permanent kill. That's what the current lawsuit is about.
The city as plaintiff needed a defendant, so they named an opposition group and a bunch of John and Jane Does. That's just a device to let the suit proceed. The city is seeking declaratory relief, not punishment of the defendants.
The city could have avoided this expensive, destructive mess by offering an HEU that voters would have approved. Residents demonstrated how to do that. The city ignored them and offered two HEUs that were doomed from the start.
The dipshit scolding grandma who squashes EV doesn't understand all this. She thinks the city will find out who voted for Prop A and punish them. A legit Cardiff attorney weighed in on the legal technicalities of the suit, and the dipshit attacked her for being a stooge.
If the dipshit ever had enough working gray matter to be rational, she no longer does.
Not defending Marco, not defending or excusing the city. Just looking at the facts of the matter. The city council and staff are nothing but a bunch of incompetent boobs pursuing their and the developers' interests instead of the public's interests. It's a shameful corruption of democracy and representative government.
The public is bigger, stronger and pays far more taxes to sustain the city than any developer or group of developers. The public is not knowledgeable, organized and unified. Orgs like the BIA are. That's why the public keeps losing.
pull your idiotic descriptions of the EV owner and stick to your facts. if you knew her you would know she gets it all 100%. but you don't. she doesn't fear the city going after her any more than this John Doe does. jesus, get your facts straight on the woman. if you can't do that, leave off her and stick with your spot-on comments about the HEU, the BIA, and the complicit council.
Delete1:04, read her comments then revise your post here to make it relevant and accurate. Try being objective and paying attention to what's really happened.
DeleteI am, I do, and I stand by my comments. Your juvenile name calling is no replacement for actual examples and big-person words.
Delete8:36 AM
ReplyDeleteSelf proclaimed potty mouth attorney Marco Gonzalez never stops his self promotion. Face it Marco, even the Mayor and Council didn't want you.
So, 11:55, he's your vote for least popular person in Encinitas?
DeletePerhaps 2nd? http://encinitasguerrilla.blogspot.com/
DeleteWho's 1st, 3:09?
Delete4:46 - http://encinitasguerrilla.blogspot.com/
DeleteThree choices there.
Deletethey're kind of interchangeable. too hard to decide, what do you think?
DeleteRight, a tossup. So I'll go with the alphabetical order.
DeleteThey should do one on the worst Planning Department employees. I can think of at least four.
DeleteAnd their names are?
DeleteCan you not imagine based on performance or do you agree with the mayor that all are "professional experts"?
DeleteNone are professional experts. They do the council's bidding or lead it around by the nose. They are there to feather their own nests.
DeleteWho are the leading contenders?
the council is there to feather their own nests. it's a nice little deal they've got going with the professional experts.
Deletewho do you think are the leading contenders? you keep asking like you can't wait to give us your list. don't hold back!
Nope. 5:24 doesn't know their names.
DeleteEncinitas Guerrilla spot-on, as always. Wonder who the writer refers to - the same person??
ReplyDelete“It’s ironic that a known bully accused a satirist of being a bully,” and “If that’s not a case of the pot calling the kettle black, I don’t know what is.”
Then:
“I don’t understand how a guy who must be very busy racking up billable hours and influencing city government finds time to pay attention to minor issues and post so often on social media.”
Like Trump, the world revolves around him. Either he takes credit for the results of backroom meetings or bullying, or he calls foul when others try to hold him to account by reading his own words back to him. I'd say he has a lower approval rate in this town than Trump.
ReplyDelete