It doesn't take a "conspiracy" to ruin a city

A recent audit by the state Controller's office finds that Stockton's bankruptcy was the result not of corruption, but of incompetence and financial mismanagement.  Beginning in the 1990's, Stockton went on a wild spending, debt, and pension binge, assuming that growth and development would eventually pay the bills. It didn't take Bell-style corruption or conspiracy to destroy the city.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Recently, at least two council members have separately used the word "conspiracy" in response to questions from the public about the process that led to the council's questionable (at best) ballot statements against Proposition A. Crying "conspiracy" is a common rhetorical technique to belittle and discredit an opposing point of view.

What is the "conspiracy?"

Here are the facts:

1. City Manager Gus Vina selected the notorious pro-development law firm Rutan & Tucker to write an "independent analysis" of Proposition A. Vina signed the contract on February 4, more than a week before the February 13 council meeting at which the council ordered the report. At the February 13 meeting, Vina and the Council avoided letting the public know that the firm had already been chosen and the contract signed.  Council members have not criticized either the selection of Rutan & Tucker or the timing of the contract before the Council decision, and the Council has since unanimously reviewed Vina's overall performance as "excellent."

2. The Rutan & Tucker report was predictably biased against Proposition A and raised numerous "what-if" fears, the most significant of which have already been debunked by the Coastal Commission on bifurcation and the city's own Planning Department on residential height limits.

3. The Council wrote ballot arguments against Proposition A that included both outright falsehoods and further stretching of Rutan & Tucker's already tenuous speculative hypotheticals.

a) "THERE NEVER WERE, AND WILL NOT BE, APPROVED PLANS FOR 5-STORY BUILDINGS IN ENCINITAS..." In fact, nothing in the General Plan or any other governing document would have prevented future councils from approving 5-story buildings without a public vote. Prop A prevents that. And this is not just a hypothetical. Peder Norby proposed allowing 5-story buildings at the May 24, 2012 ERAC meeting, and got a positive reaction from the committee.

b) "Major land use changes HAVE ALWAYS happened with a vote of the people and the Council is committed to codifying this practice."  In fact, both the Leucadia and Downtown Specific Plans increased building heights from two stories to three stories, and both were approved by the City Council without a public vote.

c) "Prop A [...] allows taller structures in existing developments. Imagine a 30-foot structure five feet from your property line." Here the council stretched Rutan & Tucker's speculative "could be interpreted," which was not adequately supported by any real argument or explanation, into an absolute certainty (which has since been falsified by the city's own Planning Department).

4. After Proposition A passed, the Planning Department quickly resolved the residential height question exactly in accordance with the way the Prop A people said it was intended and should be read.

5. Council members now want to "move forward" from discussion of Proposition A without addressing the serious breakdown in trust that has occurred.  In stark contrast to their campaign themes of open government, fair play, and transparency and trust, Mayor Barth and Council Member Shaffer are refusing to answer questions about the process that led to the Prop A debacle.


Questions and observations:

1. How did Vina know long before the vote that the Council would want to order an analysis rather than saving the taxpayers $300,000 and just adopting the initiative outright?  It sure looks like everybody in City Hall was on the same page to kill Proposition A long before the discussion was held in an open, public Council meeting.  Is that a "conspiracy?"  If so, it's certainly not a very far-fetched one.

2. Why was no one on Council concerned that Vina had selected a law firm that was immediately recognized by the public as a notorious pro-developer firm?  It looks like Council was happy to get a report that supported their position, regardless of its fairness or credibility.

3. Why couldn't the Planning Department have announced the same simple, clear interpretation of residential heights before the election that they did shortly after the election?  That would have gutted one of the Council's primary fear-based arguments against Prop A.

4. Why did the Council resort to ballot arguments that seem pretty clearly dishonest by any objective reading?  It looks like they were more concerned with winning than with providing voters with an honest discussion of the pros and cons.  If there are true problems with Prop A, we never got to have an honest discussion about them.

5. Why did the Council fail to give us an alternative to Prop A that locked in the right to vote but removed whatever supposed flaws Prop A had?  If there are flaws in Prop A, an alternative honestly discussed with the public likely would have won.  It seems that Council never had any Plan B other than hoping the initiative wouldn't qualify and then hoping it wouldn't pass.

6. Who is in charge here, Vina or the Council?  It certainly looks like Vina took the lead with the Rutan & Tucker contract, and then steered the Council right into a political box canyon, pitting the new majority directly against their own political base.  Or did the Council really want it to play out just like this?

7. If council members are unwilling to discuss and learn from their mistakes on Proposition A, how can we be assured that the next controversial issue will be handled honestly and fairly?

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Stockton's leaders, like Encinitas', dismiss criticism from citizens, prompting this quote from the president of the local taxpayers' group that may feel very familiar to Encinitans:

"If only Stockton's leaders would listen and consider that someone else might have something worth saying."

Santa Monica looks admiringly at Encinitas' voter rights movement

As reviled as Proposition A is by our City Council and staff, residents of other coastal communities are looking at it as a model to preserve their own community character.

Santa Monica Lookout:

Santa Monica is in the midst of creating a new Downtown Specific Plan and three pending hotel projects, all taller than any building constructed in Santa Monica in three decades, has bitterly divided the community over the future of development in the city.

Developers have proposed those projects on three of eight special “opportunity” sites, each identified in the pending Downtown Specific Plan as places where there could be increased height and density limits to encourage more intense development in exchange for more community benefits.

Those sites, however, have become flashpoints for controversy with some members of the community characterizing the sites as give-aways to developers looking to cash in on Santa Monica's choice real estate.

“If they approve the Downtown Santa Monica Specific Plan with those heights in the plan, not as a separate text amendment, collecting signatures (for a ballot initiative) begins the next day,” Feinstein said.

Placing an initiative like Encinitas' Prop A on the ballot would only take about 8,000 signatures, or roughly 15 percent of Santa Monica's registered voters, he said.

The people behind Encinitas' Proposition A have much to be proud of. This rag-tag band of rebels defeated both the entrenched powers of City Hall and the deep pockets of development interests. And residents of other cities all over Southern California and beyond are poised to benefit from our neighbors' leadership.

Sign-gate Part Deux: No on A

Remember when Jerome Stocks and Mark Muir were caught illegally putting up campaign signs early?

Well, the developers behind No on A are trying to top them.  Encinitas municipal code prohibits using the public roads and sidewalks for campaign signs.  City code enforcement personnel have the job of removing illegally placed signs.

Which is why, just as Stocks and Muir did their Midnight Cowboy stunt on a weekend evening so code enforcement couldn't take down their signs, the No on A people waited until late in the day yesterday, the day before election day, to put dozens of signs all over Vulcan, Santa Fe, Encinitas Boulevard, and Leucadia Boulevard.

Encinitas Undercover contacted Council Member Tony Kranz late in the afternoon yesterday, and he was able to get some of the signs removed before code enforcement went home at 5 pm.

Code enforcement supposedly begins work at 7 am, but signs were still illegally placed all over Vulcan, including right in front of City Hall, around 8:30 am today. So the No on A cheaters succeeded with their plan to get illegal advertising in front of both evening and morning commuters right before the election.

If the developers and city council are on the right side with No on A, why do they have to lie and cheat to win?

Because nothing inspires confidence like "Trust me; I'm a realtor"

Really? Like we trusted Suzanne the realtor when she told young couples to buy more house than they could afford in 2006?



For a more serious point-by-point rebuttal of Doug Harwood's argument, take it away Fred:

Just got a NO on A flyer with an important message from the desk of Realtor Doug Harwood. Now I remember him. He's the guy who mentored the developers of the 3 story structures that were built right next to me. I kept wondering why he was always showing up at Planning Commission meetings when those were on the table. Now I know.

On the flyer he sounds worried.

1. He's worried Prop A will "drain city finances to pay for special elections". But he should know the city doesn't pay for those special elections. Only developers wanting to rezone for 3 to 5 story projects will.

2. He's worried that Prop A will destroy property values for people "wanting to remodel their home". What he must not know is that that only applies to someone wanting to add a 3rd to 5th story on their home as part of their money making "remodel".

3. Doug also is worried that "Desirability of living in Encinitas would decrease." Really? Last I heard he lived in Rancho Santa Fe. Maybe they'd like him to help them start their 5 story future? We're talkin' lots of available agriculture acreage there that could be well developed.

Those things said, that's one beautiful 2 story estate remodel on his flyer. What everyone should realize is that home is nothing the passage of Prop A will inhibit here in Encinitas. Unless that chimney is over 30' tall of course

A second, confidential Encinitas Undercover source confirms Doug Harwood as a Rancho Santa Fe resident (where, conveniently, they have "The Covenant" which prevents high-density development) and that Harwood has meddled in Encinitas politics for many years, working to get pro-developer politicians elected to city council.  Why is zoning protection OK for Doug Harwood's neighborhood but not for ours?

No thanks, Doug! Upzone Rancho Santa Fe instead!

City e-mail shows staff viewed Prop A as no problem with Coastal Commission

Well, this is kinda inconvenient for a council that told us the Coastal Commission would rain down hellfire upon Proposition A.

E-mail here.

And judging from the header, it looks like the whistle-blower was in the Coastal Commission office, not the city office. Which would kinda lend credence to former Coastal Commission Chair Sara Wan's opinion that the council was full of BS.

Oh, what a tangled web we weave...

ADDENDUM: They had a whole conference call with the CCC on May 15th, and then followed up with the e-mail two weeks later. It is clear that city staff were trying pretty hard to get the CCC to tell them Prop A had a CCC problem. And given that we never heard about this discussion from the city, it's clear they did not get the answer they were looking for.

Taxpayer funds buying political support for No on A?

From the inbox:

ENCINITAS CITY COUNCIL ---- Using Power on City Business Associations?

Money talks?

While the City Council is determined to defeat Prop A, the Right to Vote Initiative, should they ask that the city business associations take a position on Prop A?

Encinitas has four city business associations and three of them currently receive taxpayer funded support in the total amount of $70,000 from the City Council. The Chamber of Commerce hasn’t received city support money for the last 3 or 4 years. At one time the Chamber had received up to $90,000 a year. According to the Chamber representative, the Chamber has a debt that should be paid off by October.

At the March 27, 2013 Council meeting the associations, which are the Downtown Encinitas Merchants Association (DEMA), Leucadia101, Cardiff 101, and the Encinitas Chamber of Commerce presented a report on their accomplishments. It was agenda item #4.

It was at the end of the presentation that Councilman Mark Muir, the retired fire chief, asked a question of the representatives that was completely unrelated to the agenda item.

Approximately 1:31:47 into the video of the meeting, Councilman Muir asks the representatives – Have you taken a position on a vote on the initiative coming up is the first question and second if you haven’t are you going to?

Each association representative goes to the microphone and answers Councilman Muir’s question that it will be discussed at the board meeting.

The Downtown Encinitas Merchants Association (DEMA) receives $20,000. Cardiff101 receives $20,000. Leucadia101 receives $30,000. On the May 22 Council meeting was a funding request for the Council to give $20,000 to the Chamber of Commerce. This vote was delayed.

With the exception of the Cardiff101 association, the other three boards, DEMA, Leucadia101, and the Chamber of Commerce voted to support the City Council’s No on A position.

The city's incestuous relationship with the associations does raise eyebrows and creates the opportunity for, and the appearance of, corruption. City funds should not go to private business groups in the first place.

And Councilman Muir's crass, stupid questioning of the associations about their positions on Prop A during the discussion of their receiving city funds adds a lot of weight to the appearance of corruption.

Council throws "Spirit of Prop A" and "right to vote" under the bus

"Meep. Meep."

In the council's early opposition to Proposition A, they focused on "unintended consequences" and legal flaws while insisting that they supported the "spirit of Prop A," and promising to provide an alternative that would achieve the spirit.

If that were honestly the case, the council could have proposed a simplified, alternative ballot measure for the November 2014 ballot with the alleged "flaws" stripped out. As we have pointed out before, a ballot initiative passed by voters is the only way to prevent future councils from upzoning without a public vote. The council's theatrics over the 4/5 exemption last week aren't worth the paper they are printed on unless they add a provision that prohibits NEW exceptions being added and this is protected by a ballot initiative. Without a ballot initiative, any future council can give itself any similar exemptions it wants. Without a provision prohibiting new exceptions, they can nullify the Spirit of Prop A with new exceptions so large you can drive a 5 story building through it.

So why does the council refuse to propose a clean, no-loopholes ballot initiative that fixes whatever flaws they see in Prop A? Indeed, both Mayor Barth and Councilmember Shaffer wrote in their latest newsletters that they were committed to a vote on the General Plan Update (which would be completely toothless), but did not even mention sponsoring a better "right to vote" initiative. Other council members have made clear in private conversations that there will be no "right to vote" initiative if Prop A fails.

If it is not clear to you by now, let us spell it out: Your council does not just oppose the details of Prop A. Your council is, apparently unanimously, opposed to the very principle of a public right to vote on upzoning.

UPDATE: Since publication of this post, Council Members Shaffer and Kranz have indicated support for a legitimate, alternative right-to-vote initiative. However, this still leaves them in a 2-3 minority on the Council, meaning for the public, it's Prop A or no right to vote on upzoning at all.

Mayor Teresa Barth: seniors and young people want high-density development

KPBS:

But Encinitas Mayor Teresa Barth believes the Pacific Station development represents a new kind of community.

“All of the units there have sold, so obviously, people like to live in that environment,” she said. “Whole Foods is busy all the time and people are sitting there, having lunch.”

She thinks the new development represents changing trends in the way people want to live.

“Our demographics are changing,” she explained. “The fastest growing group in our region is the seniors, people who already live here, people who are going to get out of the suburban house because the kids have all gone and they’re moving into a smaller apartment or townhouse, and they all want to live downtown. They and the millennials all want the same thing.”

Barth said both the older and the younger generations want to be able to go out their door and walk or bike to a grocery store, a restaurant, the library or the beach.

Well, we now know why Barth never signed the Right to Vote petition. And we know what to expect from her vaporware alternative ballot initiative.

UPDATE: No, just because people bought them doesn't mean people want to live there. They are speculations and party pads for the out-of-town rich. How does that help stop global warming?

Are you an unwitting opponent of Prop A?

Sources tell Encinitas Undercover that at least three people on this list of alleged "Encinitas Residents Opposing  Prop A" do not oppose Prop A, and, in fact, one alleged opponent actually circulated Right to Vote petitions and currently proudly sports a Prop A yard sign.



It is clear that Very Bad People with Very Big Money will say and do Very Bad Things to defeat Prop A.

If they are successful with the assist from your City Council, what will your City Council do to "honor the spirit of Prop A" and stop Encinitas from turning into Manhattan Beach without voter approval?