City Council play loyal pawns in developers' No on A campaign

We can't wait to see the council's alleged alternative initiative.

It had better be something rock solid because so far the council is playing for the other team.

Kranz speaks on Prop A

In the North Coast Current, Councilman Tony Kranz explains his opposition to Proposition A.  His reasoning centers on the 101 Specific Plans which conflict with the General Plan.  Prop A honors the General Plan and limits height to two stories.  Kranz wants to honor the Specific Plans which allow three stories.

These provisions will introduce uncertainty into the land-use planning process, in addition to undoing key provisions of previously approved Specific Plans for the Highway 101 corridor.

[...]

In my opinion, it is this little-known “nullification” of decisions made years ago that makes Prop. A bad for our city. Whether you like or dislike the specific plans for the 101 corridor, they were adopted following an extensive public planning process.

Like Lisa Shaffer, the only other Council Member who has been willing to state her reasoning for opposing Prop A, Kranz avoids repeating or defending the claims made in the council's unanimously-approved ballot arguments.

For the other side, see Sheila Cameron and Olivier Canler, also in the North Coast Current.

Your May 2013 HoodLink is up!

May 2013 HoodLink

As I Lay Plotting: rocker Tim Lambesis arrested in Encinitas murder-for-hire plan

Billboard:

As I Lay Dying vocalist Tim Lambesis has been arrested for allegedly conspiring to have his estranged wife murdered.

In a press release titled "Murder for Hire Plot Foiled," the San Diego County Sheriff's Department said Lambesis was arrested "without incident" on Tuesday, May 7 at 2:00 p.m. in a retail business on Vista Way in Oceanside, California.

[...]

On Tuesday afternoon, Lambesis is alleged to have asked an undercover detective to kill his wife. Authorities arrested him, took him to the Encinitas Station and booked him into the Vista Detention Facility.

Note to all those looking to hire a hitman: the second guy you try to hire is usually a cop, because the first guy you asked went straight to them.

Meggan Lambesis is listed on Neptune Avenue.

Shaffer speaks on Prop A

Lisa Shaffer has posted her reasoning for voting no on Prop A.

A few preliminary thoughts:

- Kudos to Shaffer for discussing this issue with the public, which the mayor has been running from. Other council members have been radio silent.

- Shaffer seems to back away from some of the more outrageous statements made in the ballot argument (e.g. "Imagine a 30-foot structure five feet from your property line" and "Major land use changes HAVE ALWAYS happened with a vote of the people" Really? When did the public vote for three stories on 101 in violation of the General Plan?). If no one on the council will stand behind the over-the-top claims in the ballot arguments, why did they unanimously approve them?

- Shaffer argues that "the harder we make it for property owners to build within our existing land use policies, the more likely they are to use the Density Bonus law to circumvent our constraints."  That seems wishful thinking: if we give them three stories, they won't use the density bonus.  Did the North 101 lofts end up any less dense with three stories than they would have been with two stories and a density bonus?

Barth Afraid to State the Negative Consequences?

After a couple weeks of being strung along, Barth is still not willing to
state what she currently sees as the negative consequences of Prop A. She has
made public statements that seem to indicate that she's backing off of some,
but which ones she hasn't stated.

Which consequence is actually an unintended negative consequence?
Which "issue" is genuine, and not manufactured? Which issue is
actually a consequence? 

Doesn't the public have a right to know this before they vote?

This council allowed an ambiguous and suspect report on Prop A to become the
official word on Prop A and they signed a ballot statement that they don't want
or can't defend. This does not facilitate an open public dialogue. Instead it
helped kick up a lot of dust.

Was that on purpose? Well, Barth not being
willing to lay it out doesn't give me much confidence that she is going to help
clear out the dust. Is it because she doesn’t want to be open with the public? She
can fix that in five minutes by emailing her list of negative consequences.

So, why won't Barth answer? Right now Barth forces us to guess. Why did Barth
initially offer excuses that were highly questionable and inconsistent? Barth
has been trying to play both sides on this (and many other issues). In this case,
she made the statement in her mass mailing that said that Prop A had negative
consequences. I asked Barth what SHE saw as the NEGATIVE consequences. She
refuses to answer.

I will pay the first person $100 (or donate to a charity on their behalf) if
they get Barth to list the negative consequences of Prop A, in writing, this
week.


Here is her personal contact
info:

/http://barthforencinitas.com/

Don't email her on her city mail. If you correspond on her city email she
will have to restrict responses to being completely factual or risk being
seen as advocating using city resources.  

Council bows to public pressure, backs down on taxpayer-funded propaganda

In yet another unanimous vote (as independent thinking is neither present nor welcome at City Hall), the council reversed its plans to use tax dollars to send out "informational" mailers against Prop A.

Coast News:

Council was due to finalize the language for a mailer containing frequently asked questions about Prop A, and for a postcard reminding residents that there’s a special election set for June 18. But at Wednesday night’s meeting, council unanimously voted not to send either one.

Prop A reaffirms the city’s 30-foot height limit and would eliminate council’s power to “up-zone” beyond height and density limits with a fourth-fifths vote.

Councilwoman Kristin Gaspar said she initially backed the mailers, but changed her mind after hearing concerns from the public.

[...]

Councilman Mark Muir also said he received quite a bit of feedback from residents about the mailers.

“I have some reservations after listening to public input,” Muir said before the vote to scrap the mailers.

Really?  It took massive public blowback for them to realize this was a bad idea?

If we care about Encinitas, we're going to have to watch this council like a hawk.