The Encinitas school district is putting its seaside Pacific View school property up for auction, after the district’s board of trustees rejected a $4.3 million purchase offer from the city, Superintendent Tim Baird said Friday. “Maybe that’s all (the city of Encinitas) can afford to pay, but the district … has to get a fair price for our property,” Baird said as he described the board’s decision, which occurred during a special closed-door board meeting Thursday night.The property was donated by a benefactor in the early days of Encinitas for the benefit of future generations of children. The EUSD will blow through the paltry few million it fetches within a year or two.
Friday, January 10, 2014
EUSD to strip Encinitas children of irreplaceable community asset
Union-Tribune:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Glad the city offer was rejected, they can't afford another boondoggle. Shit, they can't fix my street let alone fix/repair PACview.
ReplyDeleteI agree. They are bankrupt from the park and pensions. Shit they can not fix my street, but then go hire a spin doctor to try and make sad sac look better. Geeze. Way to go EUSD.
DeleteDump pacific view.
ReplyDeleteThis is horrible. Get all of the selfish administrators from the school and from the city, and everyone else loses.
ReplyDeleteWell look who's pensions get supported on both sides of the fence!
ReplyDeleteI don't think Baird will get someone willing to purchase for more than the lower appraisal figure of $4.3 Million. The School District must disclose that the zoning cannot be changed without a public vote, paid for by the would be developer.
ReplyDeleteIf there were interest by third parties in purchasing PV in the Public/Semi-Public Zoning in which it will remain, someone would have come forward with an offer, by now. This is more scare tactics.
Tim Baird doesn't understand the historical significance of Pacific View. Pacific View was donated BEFORE EUSD existed. EUSD was formed after the Pacific View Property was donated and the Old Schoolhouse was built.
Baird is an interloper and a bully. With the exception of Maureeen Muir, shame on the EUSD Board of Trustees for going along with Baird's attempts to take away our local community assets. I would never vote for any of them, again.
EUSD, through Baird, is receiving nearly $4 Million from the Yoga Foundation,correct? We voted Prop O and Prop P in so that we are paying $50 extra per year per $100K of our homes' assessed values on our Property Tax bills, for 30 years, for EUSD.
We also voted in Prop 30, statewide, giving school districts another huge boost. Baird is greedy. I wish he would go back to Ojai, but he tried to sell off a surplus school site, there, promised to the community as a skateboard park. That park was finally built when EUSD took Ojai (OUSD) "off the hook" by hiring Baird, here, at more than a $50,000 per year increase, because of his pro-development inclinations.
Any purchaser would be very foolish to offer more than the lower of the appraisal values. The higher appraisal used out of area, Los Angeles comps. That appraisal must be thrown out.
The lower appraisal was approximately $3.3 Million. Baird should have been very happy with an extra million. So should the Board of Trustees.
State law requires the local government to give a surplus school site the same zoning as adjacent properties which was what the lawsuit was about and which the school district didn't pursue vigorously which I can only assume because they were trying to make nice. That avenue is still open. And please don't talk about zoning further away. Adjacent means next to.
DeleteWhether the city would have to go through an election because of Prop A is an unknown because a negative vote wouldn't hold up. It would simply be overruled by a judge. Another unknown is who would have to pay for the election, the city or EUSD? If the rezoning is theirs by right (state law) why should they have to pay?
Anyway, there will probably a lot of money spent on lawyers and court costs and it will come out of our pockets.
Finally, the current Pacific View school structure is a nondescript run of the mill 1950's school design which isn't worth saving. The original school house yes, the current school building no.
That lawsuit wasn't pursued because it would have failed in court. The land must only be zoned in a manner "compatible" with adjacent properties, NOT identical to adjacent properties. In addition, as Maggie Houlihan researched when this issue last came up in 2010, before her passing, adjacent, legally, does NOT have to equal contiguous. Adjacent properties in the Downtown Specific Plan do include public/semi-public zoning. Glenn Sabine has admitted that there is NO specific precedent on this type of lawsuit. Other superintendents are not so greedy, and other School Board Trustees (excluding Mo; she's for Saving PV) are not so short-sighted.
DeleteWhat is worth saving is the land, for the current school to be rehabilitated by volunteers, as much as possible, and to keep the Historic Schoolhouse intact, on the donated land.
Baird threatens lawsuits, but the City doesn't have to, and must not back down. Even Jerome Stocks said; "We won't negotiate with a gun to our heads."
11:18, you are absolutely spouting conjecture in speculating that any Judge would overrule an initiative, affirmed by the majority of voters in favor of a frivolous lawsuit, which has no legal precedent.
DeleteThere is a great deal of precedent that judges wiill NOT overrule initiatives, unless they can be proven to be unconstitutional.
Lynn, please go to law school. A local initiative can't overrule state law. While I appreciate Maggie, she wasn't a lawyer and she was dead wrong. Adjacent means adjacent not "go out as far as you can to find the zoning that supports your position. Every lawyer I talked to said the school district had the support of state law. While no one can ever predict with certainty how a judge would rule, those lawyers I spoke with were surprised the EUSD didn't file for summary judgement. I say this hoping there can be something done by the city with the school district but I fully understand the legal situation.
Delete2:47 PM.
DeleteI just reread that and see that my use of the phrase "dead wrong" might be misconstrued regarding Maggie. I meant no disrespect and would never intentionally say that with that kind of connotation.
I was trying to strongly convey only that Maggie was very mistaken.
This argument is not new. "Adjacent" does not mean "adjoining," a big difference. A good friend of mine who is a land use attorney said taking this issue into court would be iffy.
DeleteAlso Prop. A doesn't overrule the Naylor Act. It doesn't prevent the property from being rezoned. It only requires a vote, just as city regulations requires a vote of approval by the Planning Commission, and Council if appealed. If the voters rejected the rezone, courts would have to decide. This might involve appeals up to the state supreme court.
Baird is the 4 B's -- Baird, Bulling, Blustering, and Bluffing. Remember when he turned threatening and red in the face at a council meeting when he didn't get his way? Surprising that he still has support of the school board.
EUSD asked that the property be rezoned R-15 which is the zoning on the north, south, and west of the property. The east zoning is D-OM which is R-15 with office mixed in. So the PV site is surrounded by the type of zoning EUSD requested. Also the state law requires that the school property be treated as any other applicant so the city can't withhold approval just because it wants to preserve the property as public or open space.
DeleteIf your land use attorney is a betting person, I'd gladly put money on EUSD success if they refile the lawsuit.
What I would like to see happen may not align with what the law requires.
The City should begin Eminent Domain proceedings against EUSD ASAP.
DeleteYou won't even take the risk, 4:17, of sharing who you are, probably Baird or a EUSD Board of Trustees development shill.
DeleteAnyone wanting to develop the property, any developer or new owner, including the current owner, would have to get a zoning change, or develop within the public/semi-public zoning. The school district IS being treated exactly as any other applicant, except for the fact that any other applicant would not be a school district that didn't abide by the terms of the Naylor Act, when it should have, and has not been following the Brown Act, either.
It is EUSD, through Superintendent Baird and the Board of Trustees, that is breaking the law, and being greedy, putting money before the true values of the greatest common good.
Shut up Lynn. U don't know shit. And by the way u love in Encinitas, not Leucsdia.
ReplyDelete9:09 PM - too stupid to understand the hard facts. Keep up the good work, lynn -you are an exceptionally well informed citizen.
DeleteYou're probably right about Baird not knowing or caring about the historical significance. He's trying to maximize the purchase price, period.
DeleteWatch for this to come up for a vote for rezoning, whether by the school district, or a developer.
Lynn you've even conned. School districts dont need more money. Calif spends huge amounts of money perchild each year. The results .....50% of Calif school teachers send THEIR children to private school. Which tells you all you need to know. No more bonds for school. Just look what YOUR money bought you at SDA, a new track. A track closed to the public, which is you and me. No more weekend walkers. No more evening walkers. No more safe and measured distances. That howSDA says thank you to the community.
ReplyDeleteI always vote NO on bond measures, so should everyone.
My point was that EUSD has been able to pass the bonds because citizens voted for them. I'm not saying I did, personally. Because the bonds did pass, Baird is being very greedy.
ReplyDeleteThe City could participate in the auction and offer only $4 million. The Ocean Beach school property sold, mentioned in the UT article, was a much larger parcel. Why weren't Ocean Beach comps used in the current appraisal, is it because they are considered outdated? According to the Coast News:
"DEL MAR — In a rare split vote at the Nov. 18 meeting, council agreed to begin preparing a master plan for the Shores property, a 5.3-acre lot on Camino del Mar and Ninth Street the city purchased from Del Mar Union School District in 2008 [late 2007, early 2008, before the real estate bubble burst] for $5.8 million to preserve open space, recreational areas and the private Winston School, which is on the site." [Full disclosure, the Winston School also pitched in $3 Million with a 55 year covenant to be able to keep their private school at the property. Winston also pays a yearly lease amount, before to the School District, which had declared the public school site surplus, and now to the City of Del Mar.]
Legislative bodies, such as the EUSD Board of Trustees, are only allowed to discuss price and/or terms of payment in closed session. Any other discussion, including the idea of an auction, should have been accomplished in OPEN SESSION.
When having a closed session re real property negotiations, Legislative bodies must have an open session before the closed session and are to list on the agenda who the negotators will be and which parties will be present. EUSD had failed to do that, either. Through Superintendent Tim Baird, EUSD is consistently violating the Brown Act.
EUSD should be sued for violating the Brown Act and for stifling dissent by forcing Maureen Muir to recuse herself because she has not gone along with the fact that Baird holds "profit" (for something he doesn't own) as the greatest value; to him money is the greatest value, not keeping the property in the public domain for a true community arts and learning center.
Our city needs to quick building these facilities. Get back to the basics and don't pursue any more City facilities. Instead, please fix my road.
ReplyDeleteYou are using fallacious logic, presenting a false dilemma.
DeleteThe City can do both. It doesn't need to "build a facility," in this case. The Artists' Colony has offered to lease the property, and rehabilitate the school, as volunteers.
Again, the district negligently allowed PV to deteriorate, in a failed attempt to force rezoning to residential/mixed use.
What's preventing our roads from being fixed is overspending on operating expenses, including unfunded pension liabilities.
Also the City could have given community members what was requested at the Hall Property workshops, not a hugely expensive interregional sports complex being negligently built, creating sediment discharges never measured for toxicity, as they should have been, according to Best Management Practices (BMPs).
I agree that the City needs to focus on reducing staff costs. The biggest budget item by far.
DeleteIMO, the city should not be in the business of providing an art facility for the Artist Colony.
If the Artist Colony is such a great idea, create a non profit and have the community donate money and volunteer to build a facility. Like the YMCA or Boys and Girls club do for family and children sports.
the City is not very efficient at anything they are involved in. With the City services the statement rings true. " sometimes less is more" Meaning quite trying to provide social services that are a luxury and get back to the basics- Police and Fire Services and maintain our core street and park infrastructure. The rest of the services should be on a much lower priority level.
The City should not take on any more facility projects. Do not pursue the Pacific View property and spend even more city money and focus on yet another unnecessary facility.
The City needs to focus on its long term finical plan…. the regional sports complex future costs are not addressed, the streets are falling apart and the City has yet to address the huge unfunded pension debacle. Those should be the City priorities.
This issue is just a distraction.
This issue is not a distraction to the people who have been working to Save Pacific View since 2003, when it was closed down.
DeleteAs is true with many issues, Lynn has her facts on Pacific View straight. For the site to have the sky-high value that Baird and his cronies think they can get, it would have to be rezoned. Since Prop A requires public approval by ballot for any rezoning, it's highly unlikely to happen.
ReplyDeleteFor anybody interested in seeing the original bequest, the Encinitas Historical Society in the old schoolhouse on the site has a framed copy. Unfortunately, it's in negative rather than positive form so it's hard to read. But the folks there also have a faithful transcription that's easy to read.
U have to be joking! Ha!
DeleteThe City should not take on any more facility projects. Do not pursue the Pacific View property and spend even more city money and focus on yet another unnecessary facility.
ReplyDeleteThe City needs to focus on its long term financial plan…. the true Regional Sports Complex Future Costs are not addressed, the streets are falling apart and the City has yet to address the huge unfunded pension debacle. Those should be the City priorities.
This issue is just a distraction.
The city should bid on PVS at a lower rate than their offer. When they get the land they should make an adjunct park to the Hall Park complete with 100 foot lights, speakers and soccer fields. After all Carlsbad needs more fields for their kids. If it is good enough for Cardiff it should be good enough for Old Encinitas.
ReplyDeleteThis land grab has been pre-scripted for a long time. Developers will look at the graduated rezoning occurring on the former Ecke properties as the way to gradually bring it to mega-condo zoning status. The city attorney should put a lis- pendens on the property and force Baird to negotiate with the true owners - the city. Unfortunately, we know whose camp Sabine is in, so don't expect any remedy from our "civil servants". Another piece of Encinitas's historical legacy is fading . . fading . . soon gone.....
ReplyDeleteDefinitely Dump Sabine.
DeleteShaffer will put a plastic bag on all the council peoples' heads in protest. .Muir has requested his be from Burger Kings, Gaspar's from Macy's, Kranz's from Kinkos, Barth's from Whole Foods and Shaffer's from Dog's Beach.
DeleteThis city does not need another multi- million dollar project. Say NO to Pacific View.
ReplyDeleteFix my road!!!
Your roads aren't going to be fixed no matter what happens. $4.3 million for the PV property is nothing, especially considering that an artists facility could generate income.
DeleteThe Nichols Engineering road report showed that with present funding the city would be $46 million behind in road maintenance in five years. This report is already several years old.
The new GASB accounting standards go into effect in 2014 and will add millions and millions of dollars to the unfunded pension liability that must go on the books.
The total cost of the Hall property sports facility will be $70 - $80 million, plus annual operating costs from $0.5 - $1 million. If 90-ft. lights go up, it will add another $1 million or more, plus a huge annual energy bill.
I say YES to buying the the PV property. It's a one time opportunity to keep the property in public hands. Baird is engaged in wishful thinking. Without a zoning change and a public vote required by Prop. A, it's likely no one will bid high in a public auction. This is the time to think about the long term value of not selling out to developers for short term gain. It's the pubic benefit, not the private benefit, that is important.
You know nothing about business. It will cost $1 M plus to get that property up to par. Is there asbestos in the walls?? If so, say NO to PV .
DeleteYour city has a history of buying property that needs repair of is toxic.
Whoever buys the property will have to deal with any asbestos in the buildings, whether the structures are saved or torn down and correctly disposed of. This cost will have to deducted from any bid price on the property.
DeleteThe group of citizens who looked at the property were optimistic about what they found. Included were people with experience in this. They did their due diligence.
Bullshit!! Did the city inspect city hall before they bought it?? No!! If they had they would have known about the leaking roof and deducted the cost from the purchase price. Did they inspect the Hall property prior to purchase?? No. If they had they would have found the pesticides.
DeleteYOUR city has a history of fucked up bonehead purchases.
Say NO to Pacific View!!
SAVE PACIFIC VIEW!
DeleteSave us the profanity. Man, it's like free anger venting on this blog sometimes. But I agree, the city should stay away from purchasing Pacific View...
Delete$5 million goes quit a long way towards fixing my road.
ReplyDeleteNo more trophy projects!!!
Council needs to address true priorities!
My response in the UT
ReplyDeleteGetting this property rezoned may not be as easy as Dr. Baird would lead developers to believe. The citizens of Encinitas voted YES on Prop. A. That means if a person ,or a developer, wants the property rezoned it has to go to a public vote. Even the Ecke''s, longtime residents of Encinitas, didn't get a zoning change when they wanted some property rezoned. I haven't a clue as to what the property is worth, but without it being rezoned to something other than what it is, it is not worth as much as Dr. Baird would like people to believe. Something to think about before anyone decides to bid on Pacific View. It was a gift to the children of the area, long before Encinitas became a City. Personally I think it should remain in the hands of people who had the best interests of future generations in their minds. I am pretty sure maximizing profit wasn't considered, even then.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteLorri, I didn't get to read you deleted comment. Could you e-mail me, personally?
DeletePlease don't let anonymous trolls bully you. You are deeply appreciated and respected. We are fortunate you participate here, despite meatpuppets who get off on smear campaigns, and ad hominem attacks.
There will probably always be these kind of trashy, futile attempts to distract from facts and educated opinions shared as a service, NOT out of ego. Actually, as we know, it says a lot, that our efforts are getting so much "push-back."
The messenger is attacked when there is no evidence, no factual ammunition with which to contradict truthful messages.
I could care less if u put ur name or post anon.
ReplyDeleteThere's no difference, you are just playing to your ego when posting ur name.
No more trophy projects, fix my road!
I see Dr. Lori took her second post down. You are a moron 12:35. She has given more of her time to the city than you will ever give. Try learning to spell before you do anything else. Where do you live. I'll make sure YOUR road gets fixed first.
DeleteYour road is scheduled to be fixed ...... 2034.
ReplyDeleteBy then it will be dirt path....
DeleteThis city council and city manager have their priority all screwed up
A dirth path between 20 story buildings
DeleteWhat happened to the Pacific View purchase plan that Bob Bonde presented to the City Council and general public a few months back?
ReplyDeleteWe don't know, and can't find out, yet, because Council hasn't discussed it in open session. I think it's a great proposal!
DeleteBonde was theoretically using 'transient occupancy tax' that is currently allotted elsewhere in the annual budget: meaning, the TOT is already paying for the leasing of Moonlight Beach and Swami's from the State, sand-replenishment, maintenance, insurance, lifeguards, etc...the only good/lucid plan heard so far for the purchasing of Pacific View by the city? Moving City Hall there, scraping the hill property where City Hall is currently and then building ALL the affordable housing directly across from the transportation hub on Vulcan Avenue, freeing the 5 communities from shoe-horning affordable housing in their neighborhoods and not interrupting anyone's view.
DeleteMeanwhile, have you taken a look at the Encinitas Community Park progress from the McKinnon Bridge off of I-5? All the trouble will be worth it when the stunning accomplishment is opened this Fall. 12 years in the making.
But, compare that to 20 years and 3 million dollars expended by the EUSD trustees to achieve the sale of PV: 2 decades of failure at this one goal/task: imagine what your children's scores and skills would be with these trustees adroitly shepherding the curriculum like they've overseen this school sale?
NOTE: the decision to sell off Pacific View was made by Skiljan and friends in 1993: yep, 20 years ago: and every Superintendent since then has not been graded on the testing results of the district students, but on whether or not Pacific View is sold for $10 mil.
Dalager and Stocks stopped the City from invoking the Naylor Act (2009, City employees Patrick Murphy and Pedar Norby were assigned to help EUSD by the City: sort of a 'conflict of interest' don't you think?) and buying the site for less than 2 mil, (its pre-recession appraisal). Danny/Jerome wanted every nickle to be spent on the Encinitas Community Park so the Naylor Act was violated by the City Manager's office with a fib about a dollar a year parking agreement that cannot be documented with any paperwork, because it never really existed.
If you really want to know Bonde's plan, submit a California Information Request form to the City Clerk and in 10 days, you'll have it in hand. Or, why not ask Bob? Or Tony, he probably has a copy.
I hadn't heard that about a city hall for PV swap and then build affordable housing at the old city hall site. On the surface it sounds intriguing. Other than what the PV neighbors would think, could affordable housing be built on the old city hall site without interfering with the panoramic views from the library?
DeletePart of the TOT taxes are dedicated to sand replenishment. Another part, the bulk of the TOT taxes goes into the General Fund.
DeleteBob Bonde is definitely NOT a trophy builder. The anonymous person labeling him as such, probably is projecting his own enormous ego.
Bob Bonde, along with Marjorie Gaines, our first mayor, was one of the founders of this City. He and Marjorie Gaines organized the North Coast Coalition to Incorporate Encinitas, for which I volunteered, because we all wanted more local control. Bob Bonde could have been our second mayor. He never wanted the "trophy" of holding elected office, yet he has contributed, immensely, to our community, and continues to do so.
No doubt lawsuits will happen due to this park having contaminated soil, the compromise of which is now well noted. Bad decisions by bad leadership. Time will tell.
DeleteWrong. The runoff was surface soil. Check the pictures. The other soil was buried. Your hatred of the park is well noted. Bang a different pot..
DeleteWhoever said Bonde could have been our second Mayor needs to apply for a writer's position at Comedy Central. He was, is and will always be un-electable: the deceptive actions he took in the last election with the now defunct Encinitas Taxpayer's Association (Due in part to Bonde's 'fixing' the endorsement documented on Leucadia Blog Spot) is only one of dozens questionable actions on his part: he was going against a bullet-train, not pursuing cityhood or incorporation: ask for Coast Dispatch Editor Lhota, he'll tell you. Ask Kevin. Ask the FPPC.
DeleteIts hysterical to watch Sheila try and promote him to newcomers.
I worked with Bob Bonde, inputting the Financial Report, necessary for incorporation. You, anon 2:52, are absolutely incorrect when you falsely claim he was not pursuing cityhood or incorporation. And where would one find Coast Dispatch Editor "Lhota?" The Coast Dispatch is long gone, at this point.
DeleteIn my experience, the FPPC wouldn't answer my questions about whether or not Maureen Muir must recuse herself. The FPPC person "manning" the phone wanted to speak to Mo or Mark Muir, personally.
You ask Kevin. I doubt that Kevin was personally involved with the incorporation process; he's too young. I think he became active many years later, after the City's initial push to declare Leucadia blighted, along with JP, through Leucadia Blog?
But I respect the efforts both Bob Bonde and Kevin made on the ETA, along with many other important contributors and city activists.
I think it sucks. WTH is wrong w bonde I thought he was supposed to look out for the tax payers. He sounds like another trophy builder.
ReplyDeleteFix my road!
2:47 Initiatives, whether statewide or local are upheld in Court, unless they are found to be Unconstitutional.
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you go to law school? You anonymously spout hearsay that you allege "every lawyer I talked to" said to you. EUSD WOULD have filed for a summary judgment, if that was in its best interests.
The district doesn't have a case. You and lawyers you have allegedly spoken to don't understand the nuances of the Government Code. The zoning must be compatible with adjacent zoning, not identical to it.
Furthermore, the school district didn't offer the property for sale according to the terms of the Naylor Act, which mandates 30% of it or .85 acre, must be offered for sale at 25% of the APPRAISED value (using local comps, not LA comps) when the property is initially offered for LEASE or sale. The property was leased to the City of Encinitas six months after it was permanently closed in 2003. The district LAGGED on declaring the property surplus, but the time should toll from the date the school was closed, and subsequently leased, according to that part of Government Code included in the Naylor Act.
For many years EUSD maintained the Naylor Act didn't apply because the property was to be traded, not sold. Now Baird shrugs off that part of the law that EUSD don't want to abide by, and didn't want to abide by in 2003, forward.
EUSD didn't do due diligence.
Lawyers are paid to litigate. Of course they would love to go to court. Baird would love to throw them a bone, at taxpayer's expense.
Why don't YOU go to law school....
DeleteFix my road.
What road is that? I'd like to take a look at it. I have friends on staff who might be able to help you.
DeleteEvery other road in Encinitas.
ReplyDeleteWe used to have excellent roads 10 years ago now they all look like shit.
Why did they quite maintaining our roads?
Now the look and ride like TJ
We can have a low-key community art center, and road maintenance back-log can be reduced, if the City cuts down on operating expenses. Everyone making over $100,000 a year should take a 20% pay reduction, or find another job. This will ultimately reduce the pension liability, as well.
DeleteBut what road is that? Turn in a report to Public Works, or are you someone who is from out of area? Just another blogger with a self-interested agenda of denser development, trolling the waters, trying to stir up a "tempest in a teapot?" Or maybe for you, a tempest in a shot glass?
No one can fix "your road" if you don't say which road it is? How is it "broken," and where?
I'd like to FIX my road, too, because the City took part of it away. But not for good.
Santa Fe really needs help. Among our major thoroughfares, that's the one that stands out. Parts of Vulcan could use more than a patch as well, in addition to Leucadia Blvd. heading West in between Saxony and the 5.
DeleteOther than that, I don't go down every neighborhood street, some of which are private, at least in Leucadia.
A low-key art center sounds like a low-yield art center.
Delete"Low yield" equating to what? It's supposed to be self-supporting? Another money changer in the temple.....
DeleteCreating a viable and well used art center is not blasphemy. Creating a negative cash flow on taxpayers isn't either, it's just not a good thing to prefer.
DeleteThe city throws on some crack repair & seal coat so it's just minimal cosmetic repair, roads are a real mess and the cost for real repair will just grow. Instead of this toxic sports park nobody ever wanted this real need could have been handled.
ReplyDeleteAgreed.
ReplyDeleteFix my road!!!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYour brain doesn't work.
ReplyDeleteLose your extra 100 lbs load!
Fix your toad! ☝
Delete8:08, if you won't say what road you want fixed, how can anybody help get it done?
ReplyDeleteHey, idiot.... Fix all the roads and remove the utility poles and wires also. Fucking morons in this Mayberry by the sea.
DeleteI agree. The list is too long to right every other road in town. Go out and drive on the roads and compare them to 10 years ago. They suck.
Deletethe city is not maintain them because all the money has been shifted to paying for the Trophy projects- Regional Sports Park and the $30 million dollars in 5 new fire stations for our fire princesses.
Council better wake up and start addressing this City's long term finical plan. First step - fire the incompetent City Manager that was a part of the Stockton and Sacramento collapse. He is wasting a year and a half on this Strategic Planning crap just to get him closer to retirement when we all no know the city is broke and needs to address this in the near future. The real issue is trimming City expenses which means cutting city staff costs.
Santa Fe by the High School is the one that really stands out for me. That definitely needs some work, in addition to some parts of Vulcan.
DeleteIf you want to see bad roads, go down to San Diego and drive on Friar's road by IKEA or down in La Jolla. Those are some bad roads.
ours just a few years behind them….. with all the money going to the regional sports complex…. when are we going to see a long term financial plan?
DeleteJust a few include 3rd Street, El Camino Real, Leucadia Blvd., Sante Fe, Encintas Blvd., Rancho Sante Fe, plus about every other residential street in Encinitas… the list is long just like the list of debts the current city manager has established for our citizens.
ReplyDeleteFire Vina.
3rd St will crumble to nothing if they don't get on it soon.
ReplyDeleteNo one disagrees that deferred road maintenance needs to be addressed. However someone is trying to hijack this thread by taking the conversation away from saving Pacific View, which is desired by the community.
ReplyDeleteWe don't have to choose between good roads and our longtime goal of saving PV. It's not an "either/or" choice; we sound fiscal management, and prioritization, we can do both, improve our roads, and preserve our community's historical heritage, enhance our quality of life with an arts and learning center, and more open space, a beautiful community garden.
Your clueless. There is no money for one of the issues, so of course buying the PV would defer more road maintenance. Explain how it wont oh illogical one.
DeleteSorry, I meant, above: with sound fiscal management, and careful prioritization, we can do both, improve our roads, and preserve our community's historical heritage, enhance our quality of life with an arts and learning center, and more open space, a beautiful community garden.
ReplyDeleteThat would NOT be another trophy project, which I agree the Regional Sports Complex is. The Sports Park was misnamed "community park," according to our own EMC zoning definitions, when not a single person had suggested that, when names were solicited from the public. When questioned about that discrepancy, staff stated: "We aren't going by the definitions." That's like saying, "we aren't going by Encinitas Municipal Code!"
Council has had trophy projects, including building an unnecessary new fire stations, or stations. Not only has road maintenance been deferred, but the City failed to release the Road Report after it had been long completed, and lost further money in a lawsuit filed because the City wasn't following Statutory Law, Government Code re the California Public Records Act.
But saving Pacific View is important; the land was donated to locals, who volunteered and built the Old Schoolhouse 135 years ago. Our history is important. Part of the history is the LOCATION of the Old Schoolhouse remaining on the land originally donated. Part of our cultural values include something beyond money and profit for developers or interlopers like Baird, playing a game of power and ambition. Our quality of life, as a community includes cherishing our heritage, and valuing art, learning, and open space. room to breathe, to plant community gardens. We don't have to give it up because of maneuvering by cheats and power mongers who think that money makes might, and might makes right.
Very reasonable, well-founded remarks. Don't be swayed by the ignorant bigots pouring their bile onto this blog.
Delete2:45- I believe you are a ignorant government tick. I you want it, you pay for it- not the City tax payers.
DeleteNo its not reasonable. If its so important, start a non-profit and get the people to donate their money to save it. Leave the City out of it. Just because YOU want it doesn't mean the public wants it. Put it on the ballot and explain the cost to each of the few tax paying citizens in Encinitas. If you want to buy PV, the city should sell our property on Quail Gardens to pay for it. No more debt that takes away from our real needs.
ReplyDeleteFIX our roads!
Fire Vina!!
I'm not sure what you're talking about......the roads in my neighborhood are fine. In fact, the road crew was here several weeks ago fixing a stretch around a curve....
Delete- The Sculpin
If your roads are so fine, why were they doing work several weeks ago?
DeleteMaybe your tight with the City Manager or something.
Not me - the entire neighborhood!
DeleteLook, the post was in jest. Yes, the roads need fixing, but that's not what makes Encinitas such a great place to live. The great things about our town are the beaches, with lifeguards, the hiking, bike and horse trails, the parks, the ton's of kids and adults playing baseball, softball, soccer, tennis and whatever else at all hours of the day and evenings, the great restaurants (and bars), the train station, the neat shops - all this stuff attracts higher educated, and as a result, higher income people to our cool city. I'll gladly drive over a few stretches of bad road to enjoy all of this. Heck, every city in California has bad roads - why would we be so different? Drive through Rancho Santa Fe lately?? You may see no value to any of these things, but plenty of Encinitas residents see lots of value in all of this......and that is precisely why Vina will never be fired........he may not be doing everything exactly right, but he's got the basics covered......go ahead....bang your pots!!!!!
- The Sculpin
- The Sculpin
Sculpin- Olivenhain gets everything it wants and needs. 30 years ago you guys bitched about a block wall on RSF road. Bond saw to it it was covered with decorative stone at a cost of $100K. They then planned vines to cover the decorative stone!! Wtf?? Couldn't they have just planted the vines to cover the block?? Of course, but you whiny Olivenhain brats needed to have the city spend $$$ and that what they did. Olivenhain gets everything the rest of us get pissed on. I guess your new in town.
DeleteYou lost me at "and bars" - in a bubble. Olivenbubble.
DeleteAnd no train station I know of. Solana and oside have them.
DeleteNo train station, only a coaster station: more bars- Sculpin you suck.
DeleteOh yeah you live in Olivenhain, so your not effected.
Considering Olivenhain and the City don't carry their weight, I think more density should be proposed near the intersection of Rancho Sante Fe and Encinitas Blvd. Like 3 story apartments big time, to pay for your fire services which you bitched for and were not needed.
Parents were playing ball and going to the beach long before the trophy projects of the regional sports park and the Fire McMansions.
I agree. you are a bottom feeder and work for the City.
Dump Sculpin.
The Sculpin doesn't work for the city, rocket scientist. And I agree, VINA will never be fired. And I'm not a supporter. Things are golden here for a lot of folks, if you're rich and you moved from LA or almost anywhere, this is paradise....
Delete6:14 - touch a raw nerve, did I? If I remember correctly, the fire station in Olivenhain was something that was taken away, and then after much community activism, was restored. Now, isn't that exactly what you are trying to do about the things that were taken away from your community? But in your eyes, your fight is the noble one, and our fight was just one more city perk to its wealthy and elitist pro developer constituency. Nice. Believe it or not, not all of us in Olivenhain live in McMansions. Some live in modest homes on large lots - others live in very nice estate type homes on many multiple acres. As for 3 story apartments on the 4 corners? I see no problem with that - it's the logical place for it if you're going to do something like that. Close to public transportation, close to jobs, close to services. It's a no brainer - not like the Desert Rose fiasco. OK - we lose the balloons.....darn!
DeleteOh, and about those fire services - they've already saved on friend from death, patched up a few others as well as some workers of others, and all within the same response time that you get to enjoy in your neighborhood - so yeah - definitely worth it and I thank you for paying your share.
- The Sculpin
The intrer-community squabbling above is just what the powers that be want, pit one community against another on density, sports park. It's NIMBY personified.
DeleteNothing will ever change with those kind of attitudes, VINA will remain, pensions will stay high and your street will have a pothole...
I can envision someone with a crap load of cash buying this parcel for 5 or so million, scraping it, and then sitting on it for decades. Why not? Parcels like this don't come up that often, and despite what many of you say, the economy - for some- is doing just great, and they have to park the cash somewhere.
ReplyDelete- The Sculpin
Good plan… the City should not buy it.
DeleteSave Pacific View
DeleteThe roads don't belong to you, anymore than public land belongs to all of us, and should remain in the public domain.
6:12 PM Class act - NOT!!!
DeleteDump the sculpin.
ReplyDeleteAfter today's post sculpin must work for the city. Nothing will now convince me otherwise.
ReplyDeleteDump the Sculpin and Vina.
ReplyDeleteCan't people read? The Sculpin gave you a hint awhile back, doesn't look like he works for the city..
ReplyDelete"11:29 - Ha! Now that's funny! I knew Doug back in the '80's - did a few deals together - but that's it. I moved on to bigger and better things, and he stayed local. He lives in a better house than I do, but I think I have more land - not that that means anything.......he's older than me, too."
I don't buy it. Sculpin is city employee
ReplyDeleteSculpin seems fishy.
ReplyDeleteWho cares who the Sculpin is? When someone won't post there name, I consider it garbage in and garbage out. I don't post mine because I do work for the City. Having said that, I can tell you that they could lay off about 1/3 of the workforce and still have enough people. Why do you think things like getting pet projects done takes so long. They want to keep their jobs and their pensions. So do I for that matter. And I can tell you that Vina runs a military operation over here at City Hall. Why do you think he calls his minions The Cabinet? It would make for a great t.v series if it wasn't so pathetic. I am writing this on my own computer because I can. Therefore none of the City's resources are being used. If Sculpin does work for the City, hopefully he or she knows better than to use ant computer at the City, as IT monitors it. Any other questions. Now, get back to work and support me.
ReplyDeleteAh, the disgruntle employee who slavishly works with his nose to the grindstone while his fellow employees frolic in merriment as they ignore their duties. We see the one true hero standing firm against this onslaught. His general blind to the waste yet craven in his discipline.
DeletePlease. If there are problems in city hall your duty as an employee is to expose it not bitch about it on blogs. Is that easy no, but there are various avenues you can follow that will enable you to get it done.
3:35 PM
DeleteI should clarify that I don't know whether this person is male or female.
The stink from City Hall permeates the otherwise pristine ocean air.....
DeleteThe only people who post their name are Lynn, Dr. Lori and Fred. The rest of us are in the same boat. I guess we're all gabarge-ologists.
ReplyDeleteThe Sculpin has good input, but anyone who disagrees on this blog is usually labeled Marco, a developer, Jerome Stocks, Mike Andreen, or a city employee.
We would of course love more scoop on the daily workings of Vina. Sounds like he rules with an iron fist. I guess you can't complain if everyone someone manages to band together and layoff 1/3 of the workforce over there.
Sculpin does not have good input and the rest is not worth a response.
DeleteTHat's your opinion, and since you responded, I guess it was worth a response, lol!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYou have no heritage at PV. If its so important to your heritage buy it yourself and leave it as is.
DeleteFix my road.
PS- my road is the street on which I live not H101.
DeleteYou are a broken record with your anti roundabout rhetoric.
Dump Fix My Road.
DeleteI have a special affection for Pacific View, and have had a vision, along with many others, of saving it since the school was closed. Both my daughter's and our cousin's son have played ball on the school fields, there, soccer tems and pick-up games of baseball, on weekends.
DeletePacific View is our City's heritage, because it is part of our historical heritage.
I suspect there are only a couple of people posting against purchasing PV, over and over, here. Why don't you post your names if you oppose saving our heritage?
These couple of posters are interested in THEIR OWN PET PROJECTS. We support real streetscape improvements, improving our canopy, preserving what's left. We love flowers, and NCTD and the City should help maintain landscaping; we agree. But TransNet Tax money won't fund beautification.
But a public highway road project should not be completed to include bottlenecking traffic during peak periods; it should not include narrowing Highway 101 from four lanes to one lane northbound and one lane southbound through four one-lane roundabouts. Bicycles would have to funnel through, too, like an hourglass.
This would not a be a "road fix" but would create gridlock, more cut through traffic, more accidents involving cyclists.
Why won't the "fix my road" guy reveal his identity? That anonymous commentator has an agenda, alright, and it's not supported by the majority of the community, as saving Pacific View would be, should either issue ever come to a public vote.
At least the public is GUARANTEED a vote on PV. should any developer, or the school district, which wants to act like a developer, want to change the zoning. Not so for reconfiguring a Major Roadway, circulation element, arterial, Highway 101.
Whether you live adjacent to PCH, or not, Historic Hwy 101 affects coastal/access egress for everyone who lives here who goes to our Leucadia beaches. The Coastal Act is meant to preserve historic lands within a community, to protect community character, preserve the environment.
We should put TransNet taxes to work on a bicycle lane through the railtrail corridor, all the way to La Costa, not stopping short in Downtown Encinitas. Also, that funding must go for mitigation for expanding I-5, should that happen.
Hwy 101 is not an arterial road. La Costa Ave, Leucadia Blvd and Encinitas Blvd are.
DeleteWrong, Fred. You're blind and wrong about Streetscape, and you're wrong about Hwy 101. It's a major arterial, which means it's a four-lane road. This is from the City's website:
Delete"As directed by Council, staff initiated the required discretionary permit process which includes a Design Review Permit, Coastal Development Permit and an amendment to the General Plan, Local Coastal Program and the North 101 Corridor Specific Plan (N101SP). North Coast Highway 101 is classified as a Major Arterial (four-lane roadway) in the Circulation Element of the City of Encinitas General Plan and depicted in cross sections of the N101SP as a four-lane roadway. Given the three lane configuration for Plan 4A, an amendment to the General Plan and N101SP roadway classifications are deemed appropriate. As the General Plan and N101SP are components of the Local Coastal Program, an amendment to the Local Coastal Program is also necessary."
That's why the current lane diet is illegal, as the CCC has acknowledged.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete101 used to be a major roadway connecting LA to San Diego. It's use now is far less than it was in the mid sixties before freeway 5 opened and it's speed limit is now about half what it was then. Arterial roads such as La Costa Ave, Leucadia Blvd and Encinitas Blvd which carry travelers to major roadways like the freeway and El Camino Real handle far more traffic than hwy 101 and are better described as arterial roads.
Deletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arterial_road
Also in the last 50 years, 101 between Carlsbad and La Jolla has gone from two stoplight intersections to 50 stoplight/stop sign intersections. If anything improves the flow of traffic on 101, it is when these stifling intersections now stopping traffic will be removed. Likewise, if anything inhibits traffic flow on 101 it's the installation of yet more intersections where vehicles must stop. Why is that so hard for some to grasp?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvoFjirrgYA
According to the city's General Plan and our own EMC definitions, 101 is an arterial and defined as a Major Roadway. That is why policy and public documents define it as quoted above, by 11:56. Thank you for that quote; right on, 11:56! ☺
DeleteNyah, so the city wasn't very accurate on that one. No big. Wikipedia says arterial roads access freeways. 101 doesn't. It's just that 101 is being portrayed as the super highway it used to be 50 years ago. Now El Camino Real has twice as much traffic and even Encintias Blvd and Leucadia Blvd handle more cars. But go ahead and call it Major Arterial. But take it from me, the last thing arteries need are stops.
DeleteFred insists on the false choice between stops and roundabouts. We have neither in the north-south direction on 101 now except at Marcheta, and things are pretty much OK most of the time. The problems are caused by the Leucadia Blvd. intersection, which nobody has come up with a practical way to fix. The problems there are made worse by the illegal lane diet north of the intersection. Your beloved roundabouts are major stupid and, besides making the existing problems worse, are illegal according to the CA Coastal Act. The long quote by 11:56 is from the City's website and complies with the Coastal Act, which is state law and, in practice, a good thing to follow. Ignore it at your peril.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAnyone who doesn't learn from the past is in denial that N 101 will only invite more stops for traffic if not for roundabouts. The four traffic cloggers at Marcheta are not the only stops coming down for Streetscape. 14 physical traffic stop signs/lights will come down. 4 on side streets (Jupiter, Grandview, Bishops Gate, El Portal); 6 at La Costa and 4 at Marcheta. Collectively, including u-turns, right turns, left turns and going forward, stops are removed for traffic going 22 different directions. Google Earth and count 'em yourself.
DeleteQ. Who would think eliminating 9000 minutes of cars idling each day on N 101 is not a good idea? A. People like 2:47 who think "things (on 101) are pretty much OK most of the time".
Yeah, things are pretty much OK most of the time on 101 - except for occasional horrible accidents, pitch black sidewalks, needless excess air pollution and a constant burn of natural resources, time and money. Evidently people who can't see what's safe can't see what's dangerous either.
Why is it that when the Coastal Commission is on your side, it's a good state/regional agency but when you disagree state legislature/HCD/SANDAG then they are bad agencies trying to take away are local control?
DeleteIf ever there was a heavy handed agency usurping local control it's the coastal commission.
Lynn was dumped long ago… of course she's clueless, she has given up on herself. Just look at her… actions speak louder than words Lynn. Try and go something good for your community instead of writing all your garbage.
ReplyDeleteFix our Roads!
There are many more people wishing their road fixed before taking on any additional trophy projects. Go start a non-profit and get donations. Oh thats right, you never do anything productive. You only bitch about things.
All talk and no action. We've seen your kind forever.
If you don't care for the way I look, then look away.
DeleteFix your toad!☝
Good one Lynn, Ha
DeleteWhatever that means in your mind?
The Artists Colony in collaboration with the Encinitas Historical Society, I believe, has started a foundation to help volunteers and generous community members rehabilitate the existing schoolhouses, once the City purchases the Pacific View property.
DeleteIf Baird will not cooperate, the City should begin eminent domain proceedings, ASAP.
Watch the schoolhouse get rehabilitated on Quail Gardens Drive.
DeleteSeen your kind forever, anonymous bully. You won't convince anyone, just look at yourself. What are you doing for our community? Do you think the trash talk you spout is a service, other than gratifying your own twisted ego?
ReplyDeleteYou don't know anything about my personal life, so shut up about your false assumptions and condemnations of me; I can easily trace you through your IP address and report you for cyber stalking and being a chronic cyberbully. I have an excellent case against you for constant defamation of character.
You are not protected by posting your hate comments anonymously, coward. But bullies are always cowards.
This is to demand that you cease and desist your constant defamation and libel against me. I have copies of all your past comments, which have been deleted by WC as the moderator, in acknowledgement that you are way out of line, along with dates, and your IP address . . .
Wow. hit a nerve with that one. Bring it on… lets see what your case has to say. First witness Mr. Marvin… next witness Mr. Stocks… next witness Mr. Norby…… the list is endless.
ReplyDeleteWho is the cyber bully? If you don't like something about yourself, change it. Like try and listen and learn.
Just sayin!
What is wrong with people? Can't we have a civilized discussion about something without it getting personalized and just plain mean? No wonder things often don't get done in our community with all of the in-fighting people do on this blog. When the Council does the same thing we are all appalled. I would hate to see many of the bloggers here become Council members if this is how you would treat your fellow citizens. It's one thing to have a legitimate complaint against the City or a person that blogs. It's another to "trash" them with person innuendoes. Play nice children. Your beginning to act like the City Council and/or Vina and his Cabinet. And you're not getting paid enough to do that.
ReplyDeleteSorry for some of the negative comments I'll keep it more positive with constructive comments on how Lynn might focus on herself instead of imposing her "opinions" on others. But Lynn needs to own up to her words. Many time she implies that she is speaking for a great number of people when we know that is not the case. Her candidate was Barbara Yost who received less votes than Jerome Stocks. Yikes.
ReplyDeleteIf she wants more respect, she should start acting more respectful. You reap what you sow - Karma.
Yes, Fix my Road, we get your point, some of the roads need fixin. 'Nuff said. Let's keep the harsh personal attacks out of the discussion. There's enough to be solved at city hall without the infighting among those who want to see meaningful change....
DeleteI did support Barb Yost, because she answered the campaign questions I sent out to all of the candidates, as did Bryan Ziegler. However, Barb Yost would have gotten MORE votes than Jerome Stocks, had not the campaign managers of Lisa Shaffer and Tony Kranz recommended that people "target vote" for them, and only vote for two, instead of three candidates.
DeleteThat wasn't a good idea, because Jerome Stocks COULD have been, except for Mark Muir, the "third place runner up," and still on Council. After Lisa Shaffer and Tony Kranz changed their minds on the right to vote on upzoning initiative, after having signed the petitions, and having been elected, their campaign managers realized that target vote was a mistake.
Barb Yost also supported and supports my position on saving Pacific View.
When I say "we" I often mean myself and my husband. Sometimes I know that many of my friends and neighbors share my opinions.
ReplyDeleteWhen I address others by name, it is about the issues and I don't personalize it, here. When I have spoken about Peder Norby, it has been about his actions working for the City as 101 Czar, or Coordinator. Czar is not a name I came up with; he was labeled that by both Stocks and Dalager. I have also spoken about Norby with respect to his association with Leucadia 101 Mainstreet Association and Director, along with Paul Ecke and Doug Long of the Encinitas Preservation Association, and their unreported lobbying activities, as well as Norby's failures to fulfill a CPRA request for publicly disclosable documents.
When I have spoken about Jerome Stocks, it was all in a political context. Same for Charles Marvin, who has been known to bully community members, and their spouses, such as owners of Leucadia Glass, Sub Palace and Leucadia Donuts, when they were collecting signatures for a petition against roundabouts and lane elimination, NOT against beautification and improving sidewalks, or installing a dedicated bicycle lane in the railtrail corridor. We (as in all residents and businesses adjacent to 101) want to preserve and enhance the canopy; we appreciate the sidewalk improvements and hope they continue.
I am not asking for more respect. That's not why I participate. I am doing my best to present the facts as I see them, offerning educated opinions about the topics of the threads.
Someone gets off on blasting me, personally, as a means of distraction, hijacking the conversation about Pacific View, which has been important to me, ever since the school closed. I went to the initial community meeting about the closed school and possible development of the property under Superintendent Devoir. I went to subsequent meetings under King. King was Superintendent when Dalager was having the trees at Orpehus Park hacked down. Baird has had NO community meetings about Pacific View. He doesn't seem to care what our community wants. He seems to have a proprietary sense of ownership, when he's only been in North County since 2009.
What's important to me is the message I'm sharing, not what you think of me. However, I'm tired of a few anonymous bullies, mainly only one, doing everything in his power to drive me away. It's not going to happen. If you don't respect me, fine. But you could show respect for WC, who provides this forum, and others posting here, by keeping on subject, even if that ranges to other City or School District issues. Please leave what you think about my personal appearance out of it. That is completely irrelevant, and is an obvious pattern of bullying. I don't do that to you, to any public figures, including Charles Marvin, Jerome Stocks, and Peder Norby.
Actions will always speak louder than words.
DeleteSorry Lynn, that is a universal and inherent truth!
When we speak of Lynn's shortcomings we speak the truth. No lies. If she was smart (not), she would listen and work on herself. Most times when you work on your own issues, the world turns out a better place. I am sure all those that Lynn trashed feel Lynn was attacking them personally. Like Mr. Marvin, "known to be a community bully". That the same as saying Lword "known to be an out of shape, ignorant, blabber mouth that no one listens to."
DeleteI feel the later is more truthful that the prior.
Just saying.
I have spoken to five different people who confirm Marvin's bullying was done with their direct knowledge. I have seen him, myself, go through his bullying antics at City Council meetings, making faces and gestures, on camera, during the webcasts, attempting to distract from and deride public speakers with whom he disagrees.
DeleteWhy do you keep defending these kinds of antics? You aren't speaking "the truth," you are only couching your prejudiced opinions in terms you think you can get away with. Charles Marvin can and does speak for himself. You don't have to defend him. His bullying people about the streetscape is a known fact, which I have witnessed, as have many others. He knows what he's done; he knows the boycotts he's threatened. He knows when he's ripped the petitions off the counter and yelled.
Your opinion of my "shortcomings" is irrelevant to any discussion on Pacific View. When I suggest that a few don't want ANY public improvement projects EXCEPT roadwork (including installing unwanted roundabouts, no doubt), then the haters jump in and start addressing what they self-interestedly judge to be my personal shortcomings, etc.
Every shortcoming you see in me is a projection of your own ego. You have nothing better to do than attack those that you feel are susceptible to your self-important opinions. If you want someone to look at his or her shortcomings, look at yourself.
Every judgment you place on others, comes back to you, manifold. Your calling something "the truth," doesn't mean you are being truthful. You appear to get pathological pleasure out of being unkind. I'll not address you again, except through my attorney.
I have spoken to five different people who confirm Marvin's bullying was done with their direct knowledge. I have seen him, myself, go through his bullying antics at City Council meetings, making faces and gestures, on camera, during the webcasts, attempting to distract from and deride public speakers with whom he disagrees.
DeleteWhy do you keep defending these kinds of antics? You aren't speaking "the truth," you are only couching your prejudiced opinions in terms you think you can get away with. Charles Marvin can and does speak for himself. You don't have to defend him. His bullying people about the streetscape is a known fact, which I have witnessed, as have many others. He knows what he's done; he knows the boycotts he's threatened. He knows when he's ripped the petitions off the counter and yelled.
Your opinion of my "shortcomings" is irrelevant to any discussion on Pacific View. When I suggest that a few don't want ANY public improvement projects EXCEPT roadwork (including installing unwanted roundabouts, no doubt), then the haters jump in and start addressing what they self-interestedly judge to be my personal shortcomings, etc.
Every shortcoming you see in me is a projection of your own ego. You have nothing better to do than attack those that you feel are susceptible to your self-important opinions. If you want someone to look at his or her shortcomings, look at yourself.
Every judgment you place on others, comes back to you, manifold. Your calling something "the truth," doesn't mean you are being truthful. You appear to get pathological pleasure out of being unkind. I'll not address you again, except through my attorney.
Look in the minor Lynn....
DeleteI look in the mirror, daily. Not a word I've said, not a fact nor an opinion, has been refuted. The previous "one-liner" is irrelevant, another distraction from the PV conversation, or the conversation about some who would bully, either anonymously, covertly, or in our faces, overtly.
DeleteLook for yourselves, if you care to, at the September 11 2013 CC Meeting, most recently, to see some of Marvin's distracting and degrading antics, documented through the City's webcast, when the Agenda item re funding Engineered Plans for the N101 Streestcape was addressed by numerous public speakers, including Marvin and myself.
There are many reasons to save pacific view and it is worth it. The city can now let go 1/3 of "excess" workers and there is plenty to make pacific view a park & learning center. The sunsets will be enjoyed much better there than at the freeway park being built against most community will.
ReplyDeletereplace "most community" with "vocal few on this blog"
DeleteIf the City lets go 1/3 of its workforce, I will support buying PV. Otherwise skip PV and fix our roads.
ReplyDeleteTo those who advocate the city using eminent domain to acquire PV from EUSD, you do understand that the city would be required to pay the fair market value of the property which is not guaranteed to be what the city thinks it is with its latest offer. There are lawyers who've made great careers out of ensuring their client gets the full fair market value. That isn't a dig at them either. These things often end up in court. So if the city does want to pursue eminent domain, it better have the resources to pay for it. Eminent domain isn't a vehicle to acquire property on the cheap.
ReplyDeleteThe Court would determine the "fair market value" according to a current appraisal, using local comps, in the CURRENT ZONING. It would be less expensive to hire an attorney with a Section in Real Property law, to facilitate the eminent domain proceedings, than to pay more than the bid already offered by the City, which is already one million higher than the lower appraisal, using LOCAL COMPS.
DeleteAttorney Felix Tinkov, an expert in Real Property law, has publicly stated at a previous CC Meeting, that in court, through eminent domain, the value would be determined by the school district's CURRENT USAGE, NOT potential development.
The School board has yet to get an appraisal on this property.The negotiations appear to be a sham,they never intended to sell to the city.They want to up zone to R 15 with state mandated density bonus do you see were this is going .The name DAVID MEYER has been tossed around.
ReplyDeleteBaird is too busy paying his consulting lawyer hot-to-trot buddies, with taxpayer monies, as he bullies, blusters, and bluffs his way through his secret meetings, where he's the reigning bull in the china shop of mostly elderly, easily led trustees. No time to obey the Brown Act, honor the intent of the Naylor Act, or to act out of integrity and conscience for the benefit of the community to whom PV was donated, the old schoolhouse was built, 135 years ago . . .
ReplyDeleteBoooo to Baird. You are not serving the district well. The Trustees will wake up, I hope after the next election. The only dissenting vote, Maureen Muir, was forced to recuse herself, as her husband is CC Member.
Boo to Baird who breaks the Brown Act and cares not about the City's being able to purchase donated land at a reasonable price. This should be like public property passing from the right hand, to the left, for the greatest community good.
We can get our roads repaired, and purchase PV. I recall someone on Council before saying, "we cannot afford not to."
Except he was talking about raising salaries and benefits in 2005, tremendously incurring unfunded, escalating debt.
That was a different scenario, because PV, through judicious leasing after low-cost repair by volunteers and interns, could generate its own lease revenue stream. It is and will remain an irreplaceable asset, in the public domain.
Boy, as someone who was concerned about bullying, you sure feel free to constantly trash Baird personally and infer he has operated unethically and possibly illegally. Also, you basically infer that the trustees are morons that are easily lead. What arrogance.
DeleteAnd I have to say that "through judicious leasing after low-cost repair by volunteers and interns" is just fantasy. Personally, I would like to see PV retained for public use but I doubt now that it's going to happen. And yes, I would worry about it becoming a density bonus project. Now would such a project get the backing of the coastal commission as part of their mandate of opportunity for all?
10:46- watch out. If you use reason and logic to destroy the emotion based arguments you face a defamation lawsuit. This is the change you were promised in 2008.
DeleteI never said they are morons, nor did I infer that. One does not have to be a moron to be easily led. They are elderly and easily led, by Baird, with the exception of Mo Muir.
DeleteIn my opinion, Baird is violating the Brown Act by inappropriately conducting closed sessions re real property negotiations outside of a strict discussion of price and terms of payment, only. The decision to hold an auction should have been made at an open public meeting, with that possibility on the Agenda.
Baird is also being unethical, from my perspective, and the opinion of friends who have worked to save PV, because he is attempting to privatize public land, which was donated for the local community, and which land should remain in the public domain.
The highest value is not ultimately "money . . . [which] could go into capital facility improvements or a one-time injection into the district's general fund."
Baird is being shortsighted and selfish, according to his actions. Please read today's (Jan. 17) Coast News front page news story by Jared Whitlock: "EUSD votes to auction Pacific View property."
" they are elderly", "easily mislead". This is age and intellectual bias.
DeleteDefine elderly??
Are you saying the board is intellectually challenged?? Unable to understand what is happening around them??
Clearly this is a discrimination comment. How sad.
You are jumping to conclusions. They are elderly, with the exception of Maureen Muir. The Board of Trustees has been easily led by Baird, as they have supported him with only Maureen dissenting, or being forced to recuse herself.
DeleteWe are all growing older, year by year. I don't need to define elderly. I feel that our current Board of Trustees for EUSD is a great argument for term limits. As I've said, with the exception of Maureen Muir, I hope they are all voted out of office, because they are not making good decisions, not because of the fact that they are older.
Other than Mo, the current Trustees appear, to me, not to be capable of independent thinking on the Pacific View Matter.
Just to give context and I know people will say this doesn't represent PV's current zoning but I noticed the house diagonally across from PV is for sale. It's a 1542 sq ft duplex at 559 Third St and is listed at $1,395,000. Since it's small and has been listed for 71 days, I'm sure the asking price is way too high. It last sold in 2003 for $790,000.
ReplyDeleteWhile I can't find the square footage of the lot, visually it looks about the same as many lots in the area and comparable to the lots directly across Third St. That block, bounded by Third, Fourth, D & E streets has 16 lots and is comparable in size to the PV block. So assume a developer could build 16 units on the PV site. Using the current Assessor information for 559 Third St (parcel 258-086-07-00), the Assessor calculates the current land value (minus improvements) at $750,482. To get a ballpark number for PV, I multiplied $750,000 by 16 lots to get $12,000,000.
So the numbers that EUSD has been floating don't seem all that outrageous. But of course 16 lots represent R-15 zoning.
Yes, plus density bonus
ReplyDeleteI tried to be conservative in my numbers. I just wanted to give a little context but I'm not a developer. I'm sure its higher.
DeleteWell the school could be razed then individual lots sold to the public.
DeleteAccording to California Government Code:
Delete"… the city or county having zoning jurisdiction over the property shall, upon request of the school district, zone the schoolsite as defined in Section 39392 of the Education Code, consistent with the provisions of the applicable general and specific plans and compatible with the uses of property surrounding the schoolsite."
The public/semi-public zoning is already compatible with the uses of property surrounding the schoolsite, which includes public/semi-public zoning. Public/semi-public zoning is consistent with the provisions of the applicable general and specific plans and is compatible with the uses of the property surrounding the schoolsite. Tim Baird's "expert" lawyers (not named) appear to be intent on misreading this section of the code, and have cost the district tax payers a great deal of unnecessary time and money.
Passage and enactment of Prop A has updated our General Plan, Specific Plans and Encinitas Municipal Code. The property cannot be rezoned to mixed use or residential without a public vote. This must be disclosed at the auction.
Mixed use. Isn't this what you want?? To turn the property into a artist colony ?? That would be mixed use vs what is there today and it's previous purpose.
DeleteSo you are no in support of rezoning PV, is that correct ?
For the city to be able to afford PV, it needs to identify a revenue stream to pay for making the facility usable and safe as well as maintain it over the years. While I've seen suggestions (artist colony, school, organizations, etc.) I don't know if anyone has put realistic numbers to those. Even with rehabilitating the existing building and using volunteers, I doubt the city can afford it and that's in addition to getting the money to buy it.
DeleteIs there anything like a business plan been put together for PV or is that asking for too much. All I've seen are good intentions.
10:38 AM
DeleteI should mention that Bondi's plan, at least as presented to council had a lot of holes and assumed revenue that is already part of a budget, so for it to work, the city would have to find replacement funds or budget cuts or both.
10:38,
DeleteGood idea. I wish they'd thought of that for the Hall Park.
WCV
Leichtag Foundation bought the Ecke property on saxony for 14 million it is 67+ acres .The school board and Tim Baird believe there property 2+ acres is worth 15 million.They have yet to get an appraisal .The City had two appraisals between 4 and 7 million Go figure !
ReplyDeleteThe Ecke property is zoned agriculture and pledged in the agreement to remain so. Attempts to modify the Ag use were soundly defeated at the polls so the property will remain Ag and the price reflects it.
DeleteUsing the Assessor's land appraisal value for the property at 559 Third St. is conservative because the Assessor always lags behind.
There are many factors that go into what someone will pay for a property. My only goal was to provide context because before I did this back of the envelope type calculation, I didn't have any idea of current property values in the area.
And remember, the city appraisals assumed the current zoning.
The City has an ordinance which was created by the enactment of the right to vote on upzoning initiative. Precedent and State law, including the State Constitution, uphold local jurisdictions' rights to create laws through the initiative process, which are valid unless held to be unconstitutional.
DeleteThe law (State Government Code) that Baird is relying upon is only that the zoning can be changed so that is compatible with adjacent properties. There is no precedent for a school district forcing a City to rezone according to this section of the Government Code.
Baird has had no problems violating the Brown Act, which is included in different sections of Government Code. Despite repeated warnings, under his tenure as Superintendent, the EUSD Board of Trustees have consistently violated the Brown Act, and failed, before Baird, to timely comply with the Naylor Act, when the school was first permanently closed, in June of 2003, and leased to the City of Encinitas, for a temporary public works yard, in December of 2003.
Lynn, this is the part I don't understand. If what you say is true, why are you not going to court or some other jurisdiction where you can get this resolved? You bring up multiple violations of both the Brown and Naylor act on EUSD and council, but it never goes anywhere. What do you need....money? A hungry attorney?
Delete- The Sculpin
I expect that a judge will have the final say in the not to distant future. As part of EUSD's communications during the negotiations, they indicated to the council that they are again requesting PV be rezoned to DR-15. Whether they can reinstate their previous lawsuit or have to file a new one may determine how quickly they act.
DeleteUnless someone, as yet unknown, shows up with a wad of money, I'd say the city's chance of purchasing PV is pretty much dead.
By the way, since local initiative appears to trump state law, can we pass an initiative that overrides the coastal commission?
The City's chances of purchasing PV are not "pretty much dead."
ReplyDeleteThe City should begin Eminent Domain proceedings, ASAP.
I cannot personally afford to initiate a lawsuit. There are FEW attorneys who have specialties in public law in SD County willing to take on these lawsuits against cities. Many attorneys, like Marco Gonzalez, for example, have "conflicts," in that they have projects before the City, and don't want to be in the position of suing the City for violations of the Brown Act.
Bonnie Dumanis is terrible about doing anything about Brown Act or CPRA violations. She's part of the "old boys hierarchy," out to protect all her officers, right or wrong, for the most part. I'd never vote for her again.
Prop A, the General Plan updates and the EMC ordinances created by it, are not in conflict with the California Environmental Quality Act or Coastal Act law. I refuse to use the City's simplification that one law "trumps" another (re Density Bonus), or Baird's use of that term, trump, either. This isn't a game of Bridge.
ReplyDeleteLook at this week's Agenda Report for the Pacific View item. There are letters included, as attachments, wherein Baird quotes the Government Code his previous lawsuit relied upon. But he stops at Government Code § 65852.9(a). Importantly, Baird leaves out (b) and (c).
Government Code § 65852.9(b) states, in pertinent part: "… the city or county having zoning jurisdiction over the property shall, upon request of the school district, zone the schoolsite as defined in Section 39392 of the Education Code, consistent with the provisions of the applicable general and specific plans and compatible with the uses of property surrounding the schoolsite."
The current public/semi public zoning IS "consistent with the provisions of the applicable general and specific plans and compatible with the uses of property surrounding the schoolsite." According to the law upon which Baird and his school district attorneys paid for at taxpayer expense are relying, there is "no contest." State law does not "trump" our General Plan and local ordinances, because they are NOT in conflict. This portion of the Government Code, for which there iis NO precedent of any school district in California suing any city or county, is really meant to insure that if there were an overly restrictive zoning like Public School zoning, then the land should be rezoned. It doesn't have to be rezoned in our case. Furthermore, the way (b) reads, the School District should have followed the mandates of California Education Code and offered 30% of the donated land at 25% of its appraised value (using local comps; the City's higher appraisal is invalid as it uses Los Angeles comps to skew the curve) for sale to the City and County when the property was initially offered for lease, in December of 2003. A judge would likely take into account that the school district initially insisted that the Naylor Act didn't apply because the property was to be traded, not sold, but Education Code requires that the Naylor Act should apply from the date of lease or sale.
Baird is being greedy. He should work with the City of Encinitas for the public benefit.
Nov 27, 2011 Leucadia Blog: A View on Pacific View
DeleteYou're using circular logic. The general plan, adopted in 1989 envisioned PV to be there forever. So it's only natural that it's zoning was based on the current use. But due to changes in demographics and economics the school isn't needed and EUSD is only in the business of running schools.
DeleteBy comparison, remember the original post office on second street? It was zoned public/semi-public because that was it's current use in 1989 and there weren't any plans yet to open a new one. The property was privately owned and leased by the post office. When it closed there were laments of losing a convenient downtown post office but I don't remember any statements about losing public/semi-public zoned property.
But by your logic it's zoning should have remained public/semi-public. But it was rezoned commercial like the adjacent properties on that block with corresponding general plan and downtown specific plan amendments.
If you go by the property today it's a lot less busy than the post office was, especially when it was the main one. That section of Second street is a lot less busy. But if the post office were closing today, after Prop A, the owners would have to cough up at least $30-$40 thousand for an vote.
Second Street is not "a lot less busy," from what I see. After passage of Prop A, if the post office was before zoned public/semi-public, then for that property to be upzoned, the developer would have to pay for a public vote. $30-$40K is chump change for most of these developers.
DeleteProp A is now incorporated into our General Plan and our Specific Plans in Encinitas. You cannot get around it. The post office property, now, could NOT be rezoned commercial without a public vote, and that's what the voters affirmed we WANT by working hard, circulating our petitions and flyers, and passing the right to vote on upzoning ordinance through our true, grassroots efforts, although opposed by Council, their sponsors/subsidiaries, and the Building Industry and associates.
Baird and the EUSD Board of Trustees, with the exception of Maureen Muir, have a pro-development agenda because they think that more money is the greatest value. They think that their will supersedes the public vote. NOT!
Also, you say, EUSD is "only in the business of running schools," but Baird seems to be in the business of hijacking the public's desires. EUSD also has "been in the business" of attempting to force upzoning through the coercion of threatened lawsuits. Now you decline to mediate with the City. You are NOT acting in good faith, and you should know it.
DeleteFor years, EUSD stated the property was not to be sold, but was to be traded, so the Naylor Act didn't apply. For you to now change your mind, means the time should toll from when the property was initially offered for lease, if 8 years prior to December of 2003, the school site was used for playing fields, then 30% of the land should be offered for 25% of its appraised value.
For any upzoning in accordance with our current General and Specific Plans to take place, a public vote would be required, period. Also, because of the sensitive location and the traffic and parking challenges already associated with the Downtown Encinitas Specific Plan, a full EIR would need to be performed, also paid for by any would-be developer.
"$30-$40K is chump change for most of these developers" - Lynn, please, you're using a very broad brush. That may be chump change to McMillan or Broadmoor, but I assure you it's a ton of money to the small commercial owner who has maybe 1 to 3 properties that they have held for a long time as part of their estate planning. Are you implying that a landlord becomes a developer whenever a lease terminates?
Delete- The Sculpin
More relevant material from Leucadia Blog: http://www.theleucadiablog.com/2010/07/anon-reader-feedback.html
ReplyDeleteMike July 28, 2010 7:34 AM
For the better part of a decade, the Encinitas Union School District has tried to up zone the land usage designation of the downtown Encinitas located Pacific View Elementary School in downtown Encinitas.
EUSD is now arguing before the Encinitas Planning Commission Thursday evening, August 5th that having finally fulfilled the requirements of The Naylor Act; that says that school districts wishing to sell large parcels of property must A) Designate it officially ‘Surplus’ and B) Offer it at .25 cents on the dollar to the local municipality, in this instance, the City of Encinitas; that the California Education Code requires the City to up zone the school grounds to R-15, or 15 new residences per acre downtown, without recognizing the zoning requirements of the Downtown Encinitas Specific Plan, or the City’s General Plan.
The disheartening part of this legal ploy is that because of fatigue surrounding this City/School District confrontation; the City just might advise the Planning Commissioners that a down-zoning document can be interpreted into an up-zoning document.
Because, now, the school district is claiming that California Education Code 65852.9. (a) enacted by the Legislature to stop Cities or Counties from down-zoning parcels to Open-Space thus devaluing them financially, now must be narrowly interpreted by the City into requiring the City to up-zone the Pacific View Public/Semi Public land-use designation of the school site to Residential R-15, a substantial increase in dollar value, meaning more money to the district; but at what cost to the City, and downtown?
There is language in the Ed. Code that states, “It is therefore the intent of the Legislature to ensure that unused school sites not leased or purchased for park or recreational purposes pursuant to Article 5 (commencing with Section 39390) of Chapter 3 of Part 20 of the Education Code can be developed to the same extent as is permitted on ‘adjacent’ property.”
“Adjacent”s definition, taken out of context, is being interpreted as meaning contiguous; meaning if there is a residence contiguous to the school site then the City must up zone it to R-15. This is EUSD’s position on August 5th. The City Attorney’s interpretation of the down-zoning act might trump all five planning commissioner opinions.
But there is hope; later this same Ed Code says, ”...the city or county having zoning jurisdiction over the property shall, upon request of the school district, zone the school site as defined in Section 39392 of the Education Code, consistent with the provisions of the applicable general and specific plans and compatible with the uses of property surrounding the school site. “
Also is states states, “The school site shall be given the same land use control treatment as if it were privately owned.” Imagine if a private individual made this up-zoning argument before the Planning Commission? Think the City Council Chamber wouldn’t be jam-packed?
EUSD should not be allowed to up-zone the Pacific View Elementary parcel exclusive of the downtown Encinitas Specific Plan nor the Encinitas General Plan.
******************
Contrary to this commentator's assertion (I agree completely with Mike in all other respects) EUSD did NOT fulfill its obligations with respect to the Naylor Act. The City was not ever offered 30% of the land, for open space at 25% of the APPRAISED value. EUSD has never released any of its own appraisal figures. That is because the value, in ANY appraisal, must determined using current zoning, and should be with current, LOCAL comps. Baird and his school district lawyer buddies and development consultants want to set the value according to potential zoning changes. That is not the way law works.
Baird's interpretation of state law is way off.
This makes sense if school sites are already zoned residential or commercial but they are inevitably zoned as some form of public use which is why the legislature wanted to give school districts the opportunity to sell their surplus sites. They didn't want the local government to hold them hostage by neither buying the property nor allowing them to sell to a wider range of buyers by not rezoning the property.
DeleteThe land was donated to the public, and should remain in the public domain. However, it is compatible with our General and Specific Plans as public/semi-public, as are other public/semi-public adjacent properties.
DeleteUnless the donated land stipulates when donated that it can't be sold, EUSD is free to sell it. You may not like it but legally they are free to do it if they determine they no longer need it.
DeleteYou are not free to force upzoning, however. The City is also free to begin Eminent Domain proceedings, during which legal process a judge would determine, through local comps and a current appraisal, what the "fair market value" is.
DeleteAnd the public, through letters and affidavits introduced by the City to the Court, should ask that the fact that EUSD did not do due dillegence should be considered in evaluating what is "fair market value."
DeleteThe District tried to avoid abiding by Education Code that comprises the Naylor Act because it claimed it was going to trade, not sell, the permanently closed school site. EUSD did NOT timely offer the property, or 30% of the property for sale, according to the requirements of the Naylor Act when the school was originally closed, in June of 2003, BEFORE the district allowed the playing fields to be paved over, and the property was originally leased.
It is Baird who is trying to hold Encinitas hostage. The law is being quoted, exactly, above, and in previous Leucadia Blog posts. My feeling is that the State Legislators wanted to give school districts the opportunity to sell their surplus sites in zoning that is COMPATIBLE, not identical to adjacent properties. Public/semi-public IS COMPATIBLE, what don't you get about that?
ReplyDeleteAlso, the Legislators SUPPORT more open space, and that is why the Naylor Act should have been abided by, so that 30% of the land, .85 acre, should be offered to the City (and County) at 25% of its appraised value, because that was not done when the playing fields were originally paved over by the City, when the City leased began leasing the property in December of 2003. So the intent of the law was not followed with respect to meeting Educational Code requirements.
The Naylor Act was NEVER complied with because the School District NEVER publicly did an appraisal, so 25% of the appraised value could not be determined when it was offered for lease in 2003. The school district didn't do due dilligence. Now it is trying, through Baird, to subvert the will of the community and of the State Legislature, by not adhering to a strict interpretation of Government Code.
One can't just take certain parts of the code out of context, as in Baird's December 17 letter to Gus Vina, wherein he stops at Government Code § 65852.9(a), leaving out (b) and (c), and continues to demand that the property be rezoned to R-15.
You have got to be kidding. You think the legislature only meant compatible so that keeping the current zoning is all the local government has to do? If this site were surrounded by light industrial, even if there was residential development only a couple of blocks away, residential at the school site probably wouldn't be compatible with the surrounding light industrial. However, if the school district asked to have the school site in this example rezoned commercial or light industrial, that would be compatible with the surrounding use.
DeleteCompatible in this context means the school district can't ask for the school site to be rezoned to a use that isn't compatible with the surrounding use. So EUSD can't ask that PV be rezoned light industrial and probably not regular commercial like along 101 even though the block across Third Street is mixed commercial/R-15. However, R-15 is compatible since that's the zoning surrounding PV.
Your stance assumes that compatibility is the only deciding factor here which in most cases would mean that no school site would ever get rezoned. Unless the neighborhood around a school changes dramatically, a school will always be compatible with it's surroundings.
Unfortunately, you seize on the sections and concepts in the law that support what you want to happen and ignore the rest.
And finally, I assume this blog has a literate readership so could you please refrain from the CAPITALS. We can read. Thanks
No YOUR stance assumes that the school district can force upzoning without a public vote. Surplus school zones can be re-zoned if the rezoning is compatible with surrounding properties and IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR GENERAL AND SPECIFIC PLANS.
DeleteR-15 is compatible, and so is public/semi-public. But whether R-15 is compatible or not, a public vote on upzoning is required in Encinitas.
Also, there is NO precedent that if the existing zoning is compatible, that ANY school district in California has EVER forced an unwilling City to rezone from public/semi-public to residential, or to mixed use, from any one compatible zoning to another compatible zoning.
As I've said before, the law presupposes that part or all of the land was first offered to cities, counties and other public agencies (some jurisdictions have Public Recreation Agencies) for open space, according to the terms of that part of Education Code, which includes the Naylor Act.
Cities or other public agencies are not allowed to refuse to rezone surplus school sites that are zoned exclusively for schools; these surplus properties cannot be rezoned as OPEN SPACE, when the terms of the Education Code, including the Naylor Act, have been followed, and the City (or other public entity) has DECLINED to purchase at the open space cost, as set by the legislature (through the Naylor Act), NOT set by the school district.
According to the State Legislature, the fact that 30% of the property could remain public open space has greater value to the community than profits for the school district, particularly on donated land, for which 30% of the surplus site should have been offered, for open space, at 25% of its APPRAISED VALUE (not potential value after rezoning).
The fact that the land was donated has had an effect on the public, on Trustee Maureen Muir, on Council, and should have an effect on a Judge in a Court of Law, although the original donors may not have been savvy enough to make public/semi-public use a stipulation on title, when the land was originally donated, BEFORE the existence of EUSD. EUSD came into existence after the land and the Old Schoolhouse were donated and built by volunteers.
EUSD much later began adding Carlsbad schools into the district. Although we would want Carlsbad residents to be able to benefit from a true community arts and learning center, the original donors intended for the land to benefit locals, long before Encinitas was incorporated in 1986. Public/semi-public was probably not a zoning classification, in any case, 135 years ago. But even if that zoning in perpetuity were a stipulation on title, I have little doubt Baird and his compliant band of elderly trustees would try to force rezoning anyway, based on the same misconstrued Govt. Code upon which Baird and his attorney(s) now rely, taking that Statutory Law out of context, and not including pertinent following lettered sections.
For Encinitas R-15 would equal MORE than 15 residential units per acre, after Density Bonus is thrown in for "good measure," by the developers. Also, under the previous failed escrow with developer John DeWald, 7-9 "residential lots" were to be twin home lots, plus there was to be a residential unit within the mixed use property, which would have brought the total number of homes to 19, NOT 7-9. One can easily see how numbers have been twisted, and the law has been misstated by attorneys eager to enhance their wallets through litigation paid for by the taxpayers.
You are forcing the City's hand. Encinitas should begin Eminent Domain proceedings against EUSD ASAP. That would determine fair market value, and take into account EUSD's failure to timely honor the Naylor Act.
By equivocation and subterfuge at improper closed sessions, EUSD has first claimed it was going to trade, NOT SELL; now asserting to the public, "your time ran out!" (on the Naylor Act's applicability).
PS, I use CAPS, on a few words, for emphasis, as bold and italics are not available. I will continue to do so. If you don't care for my style, no one is forcing you to read or respond to my comments.
DeleteI ask that you refrain from your condescending and prejudiced attitude. I answer for the benefit of those who may want more information, who may not understand the letter or intent of the law, or the intent of the original generous souls who donated the Pacific View land and built the Old School House, which both comprise an irreplaceable historical asset that we will cherish and protect, as part of our heritage and our community's quality of life.
Lynn, simply because you can post on this blog doesn't mean you should....you assume( incorrectly) that everyone cares about your writings. We don't. A fair argument could be made that someone responding is neither condescending nor predudicial. No grounds for a lawsuit I'm afraid.
DeleteI didn't say anything about grounds for a lawsuit, in this case; I was simply responding to someone's request that I refrain from typing in CAPS to emphasize particular words. I responded by asking that person to refrain from his/her condescending and prejudicial attitude, which has been apparent, to me, and others.
ReplyDeleteI don't assume everyone cares about the message I'm sharing. If you don't care, don't read, don't share your opinion. I don't need you to patronize me by telling me not everyone cares. Why state the obvious?
I'm not afraid of your condescending tone, 3:54. You are projecting your own fears about a lawsuit, because that was never mentioned in reference to you comments such as yours, above.
To me, it's not a matter of whether or not you care about my writing, but whether or not community members know about Pacific View and care about preserving and protecting an irreplaceable, historical, public asset.
We don't care about preserving PV, sell it to the highest bidder and let them do as they please.
DeleteWhat part of capitalism don't your understand??
Had others shared your view on capitalism, 9:26, Prop A would not have passed. There reaches a point where greed becomes indecent, and most of us know it when we see it.
Delete9:26, you live in the wrong town. If it's total development and unbridled capitalism you want, move to Carlsbad.
DeleteAnd who are the "we" you're speaking for?