You know how for years staff and council have told us that Encinitas finances were in great shape and conservatively managed?
Fiction:
February 2003:
The city is in good economic health despite the looming threat of state budget cuts, Mayor Jerome Stocks said in his State of the City address last night.May 2011:
[...]
Stocks said a combination of healthy property-and sales-tax revenues and adequate reserve funds have braced the city for the fallout of the state budget crisis.
During the April 27 meeting, acting City Manager Phil Cotton told City Council members that Encinitas is in a very good spot and will once again have a "structurally sound budget." The city has ridden out the nation's troubled economic times by being fiscally conservative, city finance department staff said.May 2012:
"We tend to be realistic, but conservative," City Finance Director Jennifer Smith said as she discussed the city's proposed revenue forecasts for the coming two years.
Following a watchdog report on government reserve fund overflows, appearing in the U-T in late April, officials with the City of Encinitas claimed a chart depicting the percentage the city had in their general fund reserves for the Fiscal Year 2010/11 was misleading.July 2012:
Gus Vina: "Good, prudent and consistent fiscal management in Encinitas has allowed our organization to serve the community at appropriate levels in spite of the recession that has swept across America."March 2013:
An important element of the City’s overall financial strategy is to remain nimble, proactive and prepared for occurrences beyond its control. The City has a $10 million Contingency Reserve and a $1.1 million Budget Stabilization Reserve.
The City plans to continue pursuing the conservative budgeting philosophy that has enabled it to preserve programs and services while moving forward with new projects desired by residents such as Encinitas Community Park, slated to open in 2014.
Reality:
Well, those lies have just been officially and thoroughly debunked. Council Member Lisa Shaffer's Feb 13 newsletter acknowledges the sad financial truth that Encinitas watchdogs have been screaming about for years.
One issue I feel strongly about is pavement management - we have chronically underfunded road maintenance, and unfortunately, the draft CIP budget did not offer any improvements. We have been spending about $1.3 million/year and it would take about $2.8 million/year to maintain a constant quality level and prevent continued decline (which only leads to more expensive repairs later). Council agreed that we need a strategy to increase funding for pavement overlays to get to this level and be able to maintain it going forward.This is the issue behind the long-running road report fiasco, where staff and council spent years illegally trying to hide a public document from the public. Our new City Council last year unanimously approved continuing the contract of city attorney Glenn Sabine, the legal mastermind behind the debacle. Council watchdogs note that even the new $2.8 million figure could be dramatically understating the true cost, as staff and council still have not provided the public any transparency behind the estimates and calculations.
Beyond the roads, there are tens of millions in desired capital improvement projects with no apparent funding. Last year, the council unanimously voted to put the city deeper into debt and plunder its reserve accounts to build the Hall Park, without identifying revenues to pay for either the Hall Park operating costs or its debt service. Shaffer:
Without going through all the projects and all the fund sources, there is no question that our "wants" exceed the available funding. The City has a number of financing strategy options:And then there's pension costs, which will be rising by millions of dollars per year due to years of chronic underfunding by our city's "good, prudent and consistent fiscal management."
* Pay as you go - only commit to what we have funds to pay for
* Take on more debt through issuing bonds
* Increase revenues through a sales tax or other tax assessments
* Cut expenses and/or cut back or cancel other projects
* Sell surplus assets
And of course last week the council floated the idea of raising the sales tax instead of getting our spending problem under control. Giving a drunk the keys to another liquor cabinet.
A sincere thank you to Council Member Shaffer for being the first city insider to publicly begin speaking honestly about the city's financial condition.
I have a feeling there will soon be a tremendous amount of whining from people who pay very little in taxes to their city. Not that this problem would be solved by paying more taxes, just sayin'.
ReplyDeleteWhining is the new normal in the U.S. Amen to recognizing Lisa on this issue, I saw that in her newsletter.
ReplyDeleteOur streets aren't as bad as SD's, but we still need some overlay work, especially on Santa Fe....
I streets and from a +5 years ago 2D within five years because they suck all the money towards the regional sports complex....
DeleteGuss needs to be fired immediately.... He did nothing to warn the city council of the Financial impacts for building a regional sports complex on such a small tax base.
I think I still have Lisa's u-tube video stating that the city should not consider borrowing more money. She also loves any and all new projects. At least she acknowledges that she's a TAX AND SPEND LIBERAL.
ReplyDeleteThis blog continues to misunderstand the role of city attorney. The city attorney doesn't call the shots, the city council does. The city attorney advises on the law, on possible legal strategies for either side, and the best course of action based on what the direction the council wants to go in. This fantasy that the city attorney is driving the bus is just wrong. The city council is the legal decision maker for the city.
ReplyDeleteAnd this whole conspiracy theory about the pavement report. Going back and looking at the council video, the report sat on someone's desk for six months waiting for the final review because the employee who had been coordinating the contract went on maternity leave. Conspiracy? I'd say more like bad management that there was no backup assigned to the project. After all, it's not like the pregnancy wasn't known.
No, this blog understands the role of city attorney quite well. The council, under advice from Sabine, continued to press the frivolous case even when it was obvious to outsiders that it was a complete loser.
DeleteOr are you suggesting that Sabine regularly gives good legal advice and the council always decides to do the exact opposite (Barth harassment, Houlihan banners, road report, etc.)?
WCV
I have to admit I am looking forward to Dr. Lori's accounting of how much we pay Sabine. She told me that she has also put in a FOI request to La Mesa to see how much they pay him. Should be interesting. I am willing to bet he makes the most money at City Hall and has the least accountability.
DeleteAnd you know this how? Just as a defense attorney can strongly recommend to his client to take the deal, it is still the client's decision. The client can ignore the attorney's advice. A general counsel, which is what a city attorney is, is the primary legal adviser but it is the city council who calls the shots. I don't know that Sabine actually gives a recommended direction to the council. He may just review the law, his interpretation of it and how a judge might interpret it. But I'm not in the closed sessions and I can only guess as you do.
DeleteAs far as the road report, I'm 100% behind not releasing internal draft documents. And where is the bombshell revelations from that draft report? I'm sure staff considered this an internal working document but that doesn't excuse letting it lay around for six months while the responsible employee is on maternity leave. That's poor management not conspiracy.
But the DNA of this website is that most things are a conspiracy or worse the deliberate actions of evil doers.
The city attorney needs to go. He has a proven losing record with managing cases and giving bad advice.
Delete10:08,
DeleteAssume your fantasy scenario is correct and Sabine secretly gives good advice, but then the council always does the exact opposite and it ends badly.
Then what's the point of paying for his advice?
WCV
One example of Sabine's incompetence is Teresa Barth's question to him about whether or not she was being harassed by Stocks. SInce he couldn't give her an answer (he said that wouldn't be fair to just give her an answer) the City paid $17,000 to find out the answer was No because she was not a City employee.
DeleteWow the conspiracy WORKED! People still believe it was a draft document. It was not an internal draft document. It wasn't internal. It was not a draft. The city changed their story many times and yet people still believe what ever they say. That's idiocracy.
DeleteHow many millions of dollars is considered a bombshell in your book?
Hello WCV-
ReplyDeleteI find Ms. Shaffer's newsletter a clever means of laying groundwork for her and the council to:
1. Raise fees on residents.
2. Raise taxes on Residents.
3. Prepare the public for the eventual council recommendation proposed by City Manager Vina for the city to issue yet another bond indebting taxpayers while claiming the need to fix roads and infrastructure. (I would not be suprised to see Pacific View included to help pass public approval)
I attended the budget meeting last year and witnessed Ms. Shaffer and the council members ignore residents who spoke against city Manager Vina's budget. Among the items was the recommending hiring a Spin Doctor for $an estiamted $135,000 annually. Residents spoke against hiring a 'Spin Doctor' saying the money should go to fix roads or complete capital projects raided by Mr. Vina's and the council. I suggested Mr. Vina's request to hire a Spin Doctor was to spin the disasterous state of the city's finances asking why is their money for a spin doctor but no money to fix our roads? I sugggested a hiring freeeze.
Deputy Mayor Shaffer and the council ignored residents. Our roads remained broken and our projects unfunded but the pensions got paid and Mr. Vina got his spin Doctor. Ms. Shaffer and the council are responsible.
At the same budget meeting where Mr. Vina told the council the city was in solid financial shape - speakers pointed out Mr. Vina was telling untruths and a presentation was made by residents showing unfunded liabilities in pensions, roads, and the empty capital improvement accounts that the council had raided. Speakers pointed to the banner hanging behind the dais attempting to sell pavers as a sign of the poor state of the city's finances - again Ms. Shaffer and the council ignored residents and their presentations.
A few weeks later City manager Vina was back in front of the council lecuring Ms. Shaffer and the council that the city's finances were in great shape and then asking the council to approve an additional 400,000.00 for the planning department. Again speakers again spoke against Mr. Vina's recommendation and requested Deputy Mayor and council reject the $400,000 asking taht that money be used to fix roads. Deputy Mayor Shaffer and the again council ignored taxpayers.
After ignoring public speakers Ms. Shaffer and the council then followed Mr. Vina's recommendations and discussed raising fees on families for remodels and youth sports - today they are looking at raising fees and taxes.-
If Ms. Shaffer and the council were truly interested in the well being of city finances they would have terminated the employment of City Manager Gus Vina and City Attorney Glen Sabine long ago - instead they have not only followed their fool-hardy reommendations they have given each glowing job reviews. These are the facts.
On Prop A city manager Vina spent $50,000 without council approval to hire the pro-developer law firm resulting in minsinformation that confused voters. The council supported Mr. Vina and opposed residents.
According to the Nichols road report the city is some $43M behind in road repairs, A drive up Birmingham shows how bad our roads are. At the top of Birmingham sits a new $6.2 Million fire house built by Mark Muir to house a few fire fighters that sits behind a former fire house. Money that should have gne to fix our roads went to pay pensions, salaries and reward special interests.
Mr. Kranz ran a campaign rightly making the raod report a campaign issue -since being elected he has failed to make recommendations to improve our roads and instead taken action to raise fees on residents and support the wrong-headed recommendations of city manager Vina.
I respect your opinion regarding the intentions of Ms. Shaffer WCV but disagree. Given my experiences and observations I see the newsletter as a bait and switch along and an effort to deflect critisism away from her failings to provide responsible financial stewerdship during her tenure as Deputy Mayor.
Hello WCV-
DeleteI meant to sign my name to the post at 9:31 am, I am responsible for the post. The opinions are mine.
Thank you
Andrew Audet
Andrew,
DeleteFirst of all, thanks for all you do to shine the light on city hall. But with all due respect, the Comm. Director position, aka Spin Dr. position doesn't pay $135k a year (and yes, I understand about the benefits, but I never include those when I think about what I get paid, and neither does anyone else). Here's the position description below:
Communications City of Encinitas Communications Officer $68,761 to $96,754 A completed application packet is required and must be received in HR by 7/10/13. Contact HR at or visit or apply at City Hall, 505 South Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, CA 92024 EOE. This job has originated from a member site of TheJobNetwork - U-T San egory: Marketing, Advertising & Business Dev., Keywords: Full Time...
I think you raise some good points about Tony and Lisa, I too would like to see action on the road report from Tony and I'm certainly not looking for new taxes and fees as a way to pay for it.
That said, I believe they are going to need more time to try and build consensus for that. And to be honest, I'm not sure they're going to be able to get that done with Teresa. We'll see, they have a full 3 years to get some action on these items.
I'm as frustrated as you are, but knowing what we do about the shenanigans of the Stocks era, I feel it's only fair to give them a little more time. I'm not willing to consider Lisa's newsletter a bait and switch at this time, that just seems to out of character. I may be proven wrong, but since I actively campaigned for her, I'm not running away at this time.
With all votes, I reserve the right to change my mind at the ballot box, and that could happen. I think it's a valid, question, what would you do in Lisa's position, how do you proceed in your first year on the council?
A lot of others have done WAY less (think Dalager, Guerin), so I still haven't abandoned hope.
-Mr. Greenjeans
Marlena Medford from the Patch was hired for this position. What has she done so far? That is not to say she hasn't done anything, I just don't know. What exactly is she supposed to do. What is the job description?
DeleteMr. Greenjeans
DeleteIt is clear to me Deputy Mayor Shaffer participated in a bait and switch on the issue of Prop A -this matters to me as it means I can't trust her. While some argue she was for A during the campaign season to get elected and the against A as a council member I instead direct your attention to her newsletter in opposing Prop A and her comments in opposing Prop A. Sadly, on this issue she sided with developers and special interests, just as Mr. Stocks would have.
In addition to Ms. Shaffer failing to hold Mr. Vina responsible for spending $50,000 on the Rutan and Tucker report without council approval, a report that misled voters, Ms. Shaffer also signed her name to the ballot rebutall statement that included half-truths and misinformation at best, untruths at worst. I went to city hall and asked the council to direct me to the city ordinance that forever banned 5 story buildings as Ms. Shaffer and the council claimed - Ms. Shaffer could not produce the code - is she a teller of untruths?
As I was at the meeting where Mr. Vina first requested hiring a spin doctor I note for the record that Mr. Vina's first request asked Ms. Shaffer and the council to approve up to $135,000 base pay. I and others spoke against this request recommending the council use this money to complete a capital improvement project that was raided of it's funds (the trail at Cottonwood Park / Storm drains in Leucadia ) or to fix our roads. Deputy Mayor Shaffer ignored the public speakers and followed the directions of City Manager Vina. As we now know, the citizen speakers were right, and Deputy Mayor Shaffer was wrong. The city is not in good financial shape - and Ms. Shaffer and the council are responsible.
Thank you WCV for letting me present facts and opinions for public discussion.
Kind regards
Andrew Audet
Andy,
DeleteBang your pots, we are listening.
Bang your pots, drive them out.
We hear you. The entire structure at city hall must GO!! Staff, council, management. Failures at all levels!!
Bang your pots, they must go.
Andrew,
DeleteI respect your opinion, if you feel Lisa should be voted out, I respect that.
I am actually in agreement with you 100% on the Comms director position, it is unnecessary at any salary level, and thank you for speaking on the topic.
I merely wanted to point out the actual salary level.
I'm as frustrated as you are, I do feel that's it's probably back to the drawing board at election time. I'm not sure the choice in actuality at city hall level was actually that clear cut between using that $135k to hire a director of communications or fix the roads.
I'm not saying that in the overall picture that's not true at a high level, but in the way budgets are processed, was the choice really between roads and a communication director? I'm not sure that's a fair assessment there to say she ignored the public and listened to Vina when putting that $135k into the roads may not have been a choice.
Not sure if that made sense, so I'll say this. Being a council member is a thankless task in this day and age, I appreciate Tony and Lisa trying, even if they're falling short. I feel they are taking a lot of heat for the shortcomings of the last 20 years under the Stocks Axis.
Would I like to see quicker change, hell yes? Do we deserve it? Yes! Is it realistic to think this will all happen in 1 1/2 years? To me it's not.
I'll close with thanking you for your involvement, your arguments, and continuing to shine the light on city hall. Thanks for jumping in today.
-mr. greenjeans.
Mr. Greenjean -
DeleteThank you for your involvement.
The council meeting on the budget referenced is straight forward. In 2013 there was a budget presented by staff with money alloted to pay for road maintainence that was woefully inadequate. Mr. Kranz, Ms. Shaffer and Ms. Barth were all well aware of this given Mr. Kranz and Ms. Shaffer's use of the Nichols Road report during the campaign (likewise Ms. Gaspar and Mr. Muir were aware)
City Manager Gus Vina goes before the council and states the city is in great financial shape and the council is to be commended. Vina then recommends the council approve up to $135,000 for Mr. Vina to hire a Spin Doctor.
Mr. Vina is followed by multiple public speakers - residents- who recommend:
1. The council reject approving Mr. Vina's hiring of a spin doctor citing the city's debt and unfunded pension liability.
2. Residents make a presentation that the city is $43M behind in road repairs.
3. Residents cite the council raided $7M from other projects.
4. Residents ask the council to deny Mr. Vina;s request and reommend that council approve the $135,000 dollars to be spent not on a spin doctor but rather fixing roads or one of the capital projects raided (Cottonwood Park /Leucadia sotrm drains -specifically mentioned)
Deputy Mayor Shaffer and the council could have denied approving the city manager request of $135,000 for a spin doctor - they did not..
Deputy Mayor Shaffer and the council council could have made a motion and approved that the $135,000 be spent to fix roads or complete a capital project - they did not.
Instead Ms. Shaffer and the council approved Vina's request and ignored residents.
This vote had nothing to do with Mr. Stocks or previous councils. This vote had nothing to do with timing or how long Ms. Shaffer had been in office.
This vote had everything to do with Deputy Mayor Shaffer and the council wastefully spending our tax dollars and being fiscally irresponsible to the citizens they serve. Ms. Shaffer and the council chose instead to serve Mr. Vina.
I respectully disagree that serving on the council is thankless task -It is my opinion that had Ms. Shaffer followed the recommendations of citizens that night she would be held in high esteem, be viewed as a responsible fiscal leader and regarded as a common sense council person. She chose instead to follow the directions of Mr. Vina and she andteh council are now viewed in the community by many as poor stewards of our tax dollars.
1. The counciol has raised fees on remodels, youth sports are next.
2. Ms. Shaffer is discussing parking meters, a hidden tax on residents.
3. The council is discussing raising taxes -
4. Soon I suspect the council will propose increasing our debt by recommending another bond issue -wait for it.
Thank you for your involvement
Kind regards
Andrew Audet
Hi Andrew: Do you recall the date of the meeting you are referencing with regard to your post above this? I would love to see it, as I must have missed that meeting. Thanks if you, or anyone, knows what date it was. I can then watch it on streaming.
DeleteThree years back, 275 business licenses in the city went up considerably. Ours went from $45 per year, to $379. When I asked why the jump, they said "Well,, that what San Diego charges". Makes me wonder if this is a pattern and other businesses here have had the similar hikes in the last 2 years. These are quiet increases most people don't hear about. Also, our required State license for 2nd hand dealer went from $10 every two years to $300. I imagine if I called them to ask why so much, they'd tell me "Well that's what Dubai charges."
DeleteYes, I would love to watch the footage. It's hard to reference all this information if you weren't there, so I appreciate the info Andrew.
DeleteWe're kind of getting down to a core philosophical argument on who has what kind of say in government, and that's a good thing. I tend to agree with you, the people don't have enough say.
Hard not to get discouraged, because we have to have 5 council members, and can we ever get some effective change through what we will have.
I'm still giving Lisa a chance to fulfill some promises, but that narrative is pretty disappointing..
-Mr. Greenjeans.
Dr. Lorri and Mr. Greenjeans,
DeleteTry May 22, 2013. It looks like Andrew Audet, Donna Westbrooke, Bob Bonde, and Sheila Cameron spoke on a couple of different agenda items.
I'm guessing they all had much better ideas than the Vina plan that the Council unanimously approved.
If anyone wants to edit their comments into a YouTube video, I'll post it.
WCV
That's what happens when you're paying you pensions.
DeleteI spoke against hiring a Communications Specialist at several meetings during oral communications. So also did Andrew Audet. As far as I know, the first time a Communications Specialist full time position was proposed was on May 22, 2013, as part of Agenda Item #7, which included the operating budget for 2013-2014. I don't believe I was present at that Council Meeting. Andrew Audet and Donna Westbrook Spoke in opposition to staff's recommendation.
DeleteShaffer moved and Barth seconded to direct the City Manager (who had been insisting on this position) to recruit a Communications Specialist as a full time employee. The range was up to $135K for salary, benefits, and costs associated with recruitment.
Kristin Gaspar, Mark Muir and Tony Kranz had all discussed possibly hiring a contractor, on a temporary basis. Gus Vina insisted he needed a full time employee. The only public speakers opposed hiring a communications specialist. In the end, after Lisa Shaffer, as usual, made the motion, all of Council voted to have Gus Vina recruit a Communications Specialist as a FTE.
I asked for reconsideration, during oral arguments, but that was never put on the agenda. I tried to persuade Tony, Mark and Kristin that it could at least be a contracted, temporary position. They just went along with Lisa, Teresa, and Gus, and would never reconsider.
I mean I later asked for reconsideration during oral communications, and in numerous e-mails to Council. To no avail.
DeleteRight, but again, the final position did not pay $135k. And I opposed and do opposed having that position.
DeleteAnd I will make this point now, once and once only. Not to get into a philosophical argument about this, but I think there's some cognitive dissonance on this board in terms of what people want to happen with our council and what has always happened and will continue to happen.
And before you rip me to shreds, I do think that our elected officials need to work harder to represent and do the people's work in our city.
That said, if you think that because you said something in oral comments, that Tony, Mark and Kristin will just go along with it, you're probably a little confused on your level of influence.
People on council are always going to have their own agenda, their own way of doing things, and sometimes they may flat out disagree with you, without being a traitor to why they were elected.
In this case, I think they needed to oppose this position, I would like to hear from them why they supported it, but I haven't asked.
Has anyone asked why they supported it, just wondering?
But my point is, don't expect this MO to change, every city has gadflys, activists etc. We have some great speakers in our city, but to me, I think saying your piece has to be it's own reward, because there will never be a 1 to 1 relationship to what we the people want and how the council votes.
Thanks WC for digging up the info on the meeting.
Delete-Mr. Greenjeans
I was attempting to relay a sequence of events. I don't overestimate my level of influence, Anton. I had hoped that Council might reconsider and at least not hire the position as a FTE, but as a temporary contractor, considering that Tony, Mark and Kristin had all considered this in their public comments at the CC Meeting.
DeleteThe council RELIES on the city attorney for sound advice, because they are not lawyers, themselves, and either are truly frightened of making the wrong decision legally, or...you fill in the blank. Sabine routinely squirms and wiggles around providing direct answers and appears clearly uncomfortable much of the time; you can see him balancing the correct answer (assuming he knows it) with a hidden agenda.
ReplyDeleteHow many times did Stocks "help" Sabine not respond by saying "perhaps you need to go look that up"? More often than serves our city, that's how many times.
$abine works the special interest agenda; Encinitas is a cash cow for the bureaucrats and developers. Vina has his "cabinet" and spin doctor to double speak his way out of the degenerating financial situation of the city. He'll eventually jump ship with a fat pension and join the small elite club living large off the backs of the uninformed taxpayers.
ReplyDeleteAnd I agree - Shaffer is no reformer. So much for" Ms. Ethics"...
I wonder how much Sabine's wife, former finance director of the City, gets for her pension? Sabine and she and a thing while she was still working for the City. She got pregnant and is no longer there.
ReplyDeleteShe saw his legal briefs at half mast! He found her bottom line apparently.
DeleteYeah let's hope on lunch break or did the taxpayers foot the bill for this?
DeleteTell Barth that if she looks back at City Hall when she is booted that she will turn into a pillar of salt!!!
Delete"Comfort the disturbed, disturb the comfortable." An old yiddish saying, and one used by many great peacemakers, including MLK, Nelson Mandela, and even good ole Pete Seeger.
ReplyDeleteAudet is right. Shaffer takes on an appearance of reasonableness and really wanting to problem-solve. However, she's constantly playing catch-up, waking up months too late every time to the reality of our situation.
ReplyDeleteShe IS setting us up for increased taxes; she already indicated an interest in installing parking meters as a great source of income. Note she's tried several times now to get us ready to overturn Prop A, with comments about changing zoning in the General Plan update to meet state mandates, or else.
This is her M.O. Hard to tell if she thinks she's sounding sincere (bad) or really is sincere (and that clueless - worse). Residents lose again despite the fact that they take time from their day jobs to research and repeatedly ring the alarm bell, only to have it fall on deaf ears. The question is: why the deaf ears?
Rip-van-Shaffer
Deletehere are the Encinitas details for 2012, with part-time, contract, and partial-year workers and city council members filtered out.
ReplyDeleteAs most of you who read this blog now, I wasn't a Lisa fan when she ran. However, I am slowly changing my mind. When I spoke to Council on Oct. 13,2013 regarding putting out a Request for Proposal for possibly another City Attorney, she was the ONLY ONE who made a motion to do so. She received no second, even from Teresa, who had said she wanted Sabine gone if possible. Lisa has a Ph.D. and that could mean 2 things, piled higher and deeper,or she really is intelligent. Since I have one of those myself, either could be said of me. However, for those of you who have gone on to higher education, you know it is not so easy to get a Ph.D. from a decent University. You must have some critical thinking skills, and you cannot B.S. your way through a dissertation. Therefore, I am going to watch the drama play out, and for now, I am taking a "wait and see" position on Lisa. For those who also said that Lisa had another firm in mind, I say "let's see their credentials". When I did present my information on Sabine in October I was told by a couple of Council members the information was too old. However, I have also been told that Sabine has institutional history, and somehow that makes him valuable to the City? So old information, not good, but old history, good. This time I asked for the last 3 years of his billings, and yes I have sent an FOI request to La Mesa. So far, from what I can tell he really is the highest paid "employee" in our City.
ReplyDeleteOne thing to keep in mind is that the oft maligned Muir and Gaspar voted AGAINST the notion of increasing the sales tax. Dump Barth.
ReplyDeletewhile some play checkers other's play chess - so my dad Hank says.
DeleteAndrew Audet
Dump Muir and Gaspar with Barth, friends of big pensions and big developers.
DeleteDump them all.
DeleteAndrew, the truth is, you play Legos.
DeleteAnd Nero fiddled while Rome burned. What's your point Andrew?
ReplyDeleteThis city is run by incompetents in the service of developers and big monied interests. The City Council is a joke - people with no experience for the jobs they hold; therefore they take advice from the vested power brokers. Finances are running amok, but the salaries and pensions are first priority. This is Fukashima - the melt down is beginning.
ReplyDeleteI fully agree with Andy. City Council needs the fire Gus vina immediately
ReplyDeleteBut he was rated "excellent" by the council!
DeleteTime for new City Council Members Clearly.
DeleteThey appear to not be smart enough with the exception of possibly Lisa Shaffer. but she better step up now that we know she knows.
Where Mayor Barth with her "State of the City" address??....
ReplyDeleteShe'll be back peddling on that one.
Andrew Audet, please come clean; correct or confirm a rumor about you:
ReplyDelete1. You were fined ($$$) and pleaded guilty to FPPC violations?
2. You were fired by the Coast News?
Andreen? Where have you been?
DeleteSiting in a dark carve with my bff, Jerry $tock$….. get me another round its not sunrise yet.
DeleteYeah, beat it loser 9:59. Andrew is a valuable member of the community who adds to the dialogue..
DeleteAndreen was fired from The Coast News.
DeleteAnd no longer lives in Encinitas....
DeleteThat person posting negative comments about Andrew Audet could be Harry Eiler or Ken Moser. Moser goes around San Diego County picking on people with whom he disagrees politically, to attempt to stifle free speech by filing harassing complaints with the FPPC and sometimes, lawsuits. Eiler and Moser were harassing Maggie Houlihan while she was alive. They don't go after the likes of Jerome Stocks and Dan Dalager, though.
DeleteBoth of the rumors listed above are FALSE. Anon 9:59, your IP address can be traced. Stop defaming people who share our names on this blog. You are the one starting the untrue rumors.
You will pay the consequences for your politically motivated sockpuppet posts, designed to drive people away, and to defame our character with untrue rumors and false innuendo.
The fact is, sadly, if President Reagan hadn't removed federal funding for mental health care, chances are very good no one in Encinitas would ever have any knowledge that Lynn, Lorri and Andrew ever existed.
DeleteLynn can dish it out but she sure can't take it. "You will pay the consequences for your politically motivated sock puppet posts..."
Everyone who either attends a council meeting or watches one on television 'pays the consequences' every time you completely waste the council, staff's time and voter's time.
No one needs to 'defame' you, you do plenty of damage to yourself every time you write on this blog or speak before the council. I bet Lisa and Teresa curse the day they accepted your help getting elected.
The real question Lynn is, how did one city end up with you and Kathleen and Donna and Sheila all in one six mile area?
Pity we cannot ask President Reagan.
P.S.
Careful what you say about people you don't know or new laws you are unaware of. Not everyone pities you.
Er, that's a real low blow, and does a disservice to people who do actually suffer from mental illness. We've had that discussion on this blog, so I won't beat a dead horse.
DeleteNeedless to say, if you don't like what you read here, you might want to pick a different blog, no one's making you read this one.
-El Senor Pantalones Verdes.
2:58- Happy to be included with Lynn and Andrew. Not certain exactly how I fit in, but that's fine. The great State of California gave me a license to practice psychology. Can you believe that? And Reagan actually signed my undergraduate degree. What is the world coming to?
DeleteGod bless Ronald Reagan.
DeleteRude remarks by anonymous cowards won't keep me away from Council Meetings or this or any other blog.
DeleteYou will pay the consequences 9:59 and 2:58. Your pathetic attempts to defame activists in this City, from the shelter of your cowardly anonymity, mean nothing to anyone but yourself.
Some people share to help. Others get pleasure out of trying to hurt. You are only projecting your own psychopathic personality disorder. You are only hurting your own mental well being.
Lynn,
DeleteWhy do even bother to respond to these clowns? Don't give them the satisfaction.
It comes with the territory. I've already been called a commie, a racist and a liar on this blog, and the lying part was about music being cut under prop 13 in my school district, which believe me, I'm not lying about.
Unfortunately, I've seen people make just as bad a comment on blogs where you have to login to Facebook or another service. It comes with the territory.
I just try and use some good old fashioned gentle humour while they stew in their own juices..
-Mr. Greenjeans
Too call Lynn a clown would be a compliment.
DeleteI call her a ego centric was of tax payers time. She is so narrow minded that her opinions are not based in common sense.
And she rambles Forrrrrrrrevvvvvvvvvverrrrrrrrrrrrrrr without making a new point.
Go ahead Lynn, track my IP address. Big Brother is already tracking yours…..
you see those cars hanging around the neighborhood, right?
Then don't read it, and don't respond, genius. Everyone has a say in democracy, at least in theory if not in process...
Delete-El Senor Pantolones Verdes
No music was cut at my school, none. More lies about prop 13. The very prop that allows old farts to stay in their homes and blog day and night.
Delete9:59 PM
ReplyDeleteCrawled out of your hole, did you.
9:59 could be Jerome $tocks. He's been known to post on numerous local blogs, often anonymously. Sounds more like him than Andreen, to me.
DeleteJ$ loved to sing the praises of Arnold Schwarzenegger, too. He even went so far as to inaccurately portray that he got Schwarzenegger's endorsement for his second run for Council, in his campaign propaganda. So easy to photo shop and crop out the backround, to give a false impression. Schwarzenegger's handlers contacted J$ and instructed him not to use Schwarzenegger's image to imply any endorsement ever again.
J$ is a bitter man, defeated by his own appointee, Mark Muir, and J$'s own reputation as a bully and a tax and spend Republican, who did what he could to undermine citizens' efforts toward more open government and more fiscal accountability.
And you know this about Arnold and Stocks because you were there???
DeleteJerome posted mainly on the local red state blog, and it was pretty hilarious, because Richard Rider would then come on and nail him as a RINO (Republican in Name Only) for all the pension raises in Encinitas.
DeleteI was there for the false propaganda, was informed about the notice from Arnold's people, and still have a copy of the doctored campaign flyer that $tocks distributed, showing Arnold shaking his hand, but with the background cropped out.
DeleteThe handshake was taken out of context. It was NOT meant as endorsement, as it was made to falsely appear. That was made clear to $tocks by Arnold's "handlers," in an official letter, read at a subsequent CC Meeting.
Yawn…..
DeleteGo ahead Lynn, track my IP address. Big Brother is already tracking yours…..
you see those cars hanging around the neighborhood, right?
Isn't Stocks no longer on the council? Let's move on....
Delete$tock$ is still lurking in the shadows.....
DeleteYou keep campaign flyers of people you hate?? That's says a lot......
DeleteI don't hate J$. I don't appreciate his tactics.
DeleteI kept the flyer as evidence of his false campaign propaganda, using a doctored image to suggest an endorsement when none was given.
Increasing sales tax in Encinitas would be a disaster for local businesses. Start cutting cost, pensions, and salaries (starting with the top layer). Vina should be accountable for perpetuating this fallacy of this rosy financial shape we're in. I am really disappointed that after more than a year this council has not brought up the subject of pension reform. What are they waiting for: The edge of the cliff?
ReplyDeleteI guess we need to get used to drive on bumpy roads. I'll keep my SUV for a bit longer.
Besides Pension reform and true numbers, I have yet to see a though business plan including long term operational cost projections on the regional sports complex. Will it truly cost $1,000,000 a year to maintain or more? Where will the funds come from General Fund? Private Sports Donations? Many the City should look at furrowing some of the fields until a true financial plan is addressed?
ReplyDeleteNo. Yes. No. It would make the park-haters happy, but no.
DeleteWell you can complain tomorrow night at the council meeting. Bring your pitchforks and flaming torches and run these bastards out of town...... Oh wait, Winter Olympics is on TV. Tomorrow they have the snowball throwing competition. Can't miss that can you???
ReplyDeleteNorway is very strong in the snowball competition, they seek the gold.
DeleteYou know what my fellow citizens? The fact is that nothing is going to change. It will continue because the system is in place to let it continue. The good news is we live in one of the most amazing communities in the country. I, for one, feel fortunate to live here, and hopefully to die here. In between I want to enjoy what we have. Perhaps my existential despair is leaving me and existential freedom is setting in, but tonight is my last night on the Parks and Rec. Commission and somehow that feels like freedom. I want to contribute something to our city without the confines of City Hall. I want to make things happen. If we want to buy Pacific View let's make it happen. If we want to contribute to less drug addiction among our young people, let's do it without relying on the City to help. We CAN make a difference in our small community. And, I for one, would like to do just that. Is there anybody out there interested in doing this as well?
ReplyDeleteNo Thanks! I think its much easier to just bitch and complain on a anonymous blog. Thanks for asking.
DeleteLOL, someone with a sense of humor, I hope.
DeleteAnd thanks for responding. As the kids say "Whatever":)
ReplyDeleteDr. Lorri why don't you run for city council? You would do a wonderful job!!!
ReplyDeleteNo thank you. I am way too opinionated and controversial. But I do appreciate the sentiment. If I were Queen of this Kingdom, the first 2 things I would do is fire Sabine and then Vina. I would then want every single person working at City Hall to tell me why they thought they should keep their jobs. Most would probably stay, except for a few of the Department Heads. And that is why, I would never win. That's not what we do in Encinitas. That seems to be only for the private sector.
ReplyDeleteGod bless the private sector, they pay the bills.
DeleteThis is the problem....smart people don't run for office. But lets hope someone will see straight to get rid of Sabine. We thought that was Lisa & barth but they went south, just afraid it seems.
ReplyDeleteI think it's harder to think to make changes than we'd all like to think, especially after all the years of the Stocks/Bonds axis.
DeleteTo me, the moment was lost when Christy went over to the dark side, Dennis Holz was defeated, and Stocks operative Andreen launched the "Queen of Mean" campaign against Sheila.
It all fell apart from there. I felt Holz could have and should have been the guy, he has it going on as a leader.
Instead we got Christy, Danny, Jerome, more Jim Bond, and then Gaspar, with Maggie voting with Stocks & Bonds in the interim and only Teresa opposed.
That was a lot of good years kind of down the drain, and a lot of bad decisions made on the direction of city hall and staff in the interim.
Sorry folks, it won't be changed overnight...
Basically, the incompetents have sold out tot he power brokers.
DeleteDalager should have done time. Maggie was no saint - she was a dufus too. .Barth is a cop out, Kranz too slick for words, Muir- oink, and Gaspar a joke. Shaffer is still pondering her ethical standards. Things look bleak.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteSabine advised against using eminent domain in acquiring Pacific View - the city needs an unbiased opinion.
ReplyDeleteI gotta agree with Sabine on this one.
DeleteEven a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then.
WCV
Sabine and Vina prepped the special counsel, Linda Bartz, who is described as a Eminent Domain Specialist. Her written report was far more neutral, than her oral report given after a two-hour briefing by Vina and Sabine, before the 1/22 CC Meeting.
DeleteAnother attorney with a Section in Real Property Law has said that the City has a good case for Eminent Domain.
Sabine and Vina are making poor recommendations to outside counsel and to the City Council. This is not a nut found by our blind squirrels, WC. Sabine and Vina are self-interested. They don't want spending to preserve and protect our community's heritage, because that might get in the way of their earnings, and Council's unfunded plans for maintaining the former Hall Property as a Interregional Sports Specialty Park.
I agree…. City would lose and would spend additional millions trying eminent domain.
ReplyDeleteIf a group wants PV let them form a non-profit like the boat houses and let them raise money for the property….
The City has enough priorities at the time like how to stay out of bankruptcy.
Most of the money "raised" for the Boathouses, was in-lieu affordable housing fees received through the City.
DeleteEminent Domain would not have to cost millions. It could save millions, because a Court would decide the likelihood that the property could be rezoned, after approval by the Planning Department, the Planning Commission, Council, the Coastal Commission, and a public vote. A court would also use the current appraisal with local comps to help arrive at a fair market value. There would be a balancing between the CURRENT public use of the property, including the possibility of a one time injection of money into the District's facility funds, already supported by School Bonds O and P and State Prop 30, and maintaining a donated, historic property in the public domain for a true community arts and learning center.
Were the City to purchase the property from the District, through eminent domain, there would STILL be an injection of funds into the facilities improvement funds, which includes I-Pad purchases and technology updates. This would be a win/win/win, for the District, for the City (because the Community Arts Center, unlike our library, would have a revenue stream), and for our community, protecting and preserving our community's heritage.
I City Council going to do anything positive this year?
ReplyDeleteOne suggestion would be to fire the inept City Manager and hire someone that can accomplish a decent long term financial plan for the City.
Vina's track record and recent actions as City Manager show he is not capable of the task. When will our City Council acknowledge the issue?
Thanks Lisa for opening the discussions on the real priorities for the City. The rest of City Council needs to join in…. We are watching and don't appreciate all this wasted time on "Strategic" Planning. The only thing "Strategic" about it, is it gets Vina closer and closer to his retirement without address the tough issues our City is facing. Top Priorities should be 1) Lowering Employee Costs and 2) completing a True Financial Plan for the Regional Sports Complex.
Adios Pacific View.....
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't have to be adios for PV. There is a lot of money in this town, and a lot of people who have lived here a long time. Why not tap into these resources. I would personally wait to see who bids on it, as they will have to consider that it may not be able to be rezoned. That makes a huge difference. Does anyone know exactly whose name is on the deed for this property? Is it the County of San Diego, as we were not a city then, or is it the School District. And what School district has it been left to, if that's the case.
ReplyDeleteRead the deed. It's pictured at the top of another thread on this blog. It doesn't say what some people claim it says. It's a legal document, a transfer of land without a hint of sentimentality.
DeleteHello Dr. Lori-
ReplyDeleteThank you for your civic involvment. In reading your post above I asked myself the question if what your are proposing is exactly what the good fine hard working people who donated that Pacific View Property to the residents of Encintias wanted?
Is it possible the people who donated the property were in fact as you say people who "had a lot of money" and had "lived here a long time".
In my opinion this makes EUSD selling property donated to the community out from under them appaling, shameful and in my opinion criminal.
It seems to me good people of the community years ago donated the land to be used by the community. Now the EUSD School Board is seeking to liquidate an asset that was given to serve the community.
Kind regards
Andrew Audet
The deed, from 1883, has Encinitas School District as the recipient of the donated land, donated for the children for a schoolhouse. Encinitas Union School District did not exist until 60 years later. EUSD now includes about 40% non Encinitas students, mostly students from Carlsbad and other out-of-district children.
ReplyDeleteAll children would be welcome at a true community arts and learning center, but the land was donated for locals, for a children's schoolhouse, and playing fields. It is not only the old schoolhouse, which has historical and community character significance, but the land, itself. These will also be determining factors re any CCC review, which would be necessary for rezoning applications.
Thank you, Andrew Audet, for sharing, here, and Dr. Lorri, and everyone else who contributes. If you haven't already, please go to SavePacificView.org and make a comment if you want to Save PV. This can be done with a lease revenue stream, so that taxes do NOT have to be raised. The issue of raising sales tax is another red herring with respect to the issue of Saving Pacific View.
Andrew and Lynn: you both make excellent points. My one question is this: Can this City, at this time, afford to purchase this property. Of course, I would love to see it be made into a community center for all. How do we pay for it, without extra taxes, lease revenue bonds, etc. If anyone has a way, I am on board 100% and would be happy to donate some $. I just joined the Coastal Community Foundation yesterday, and they help people get grants via their 5013C tax status. My next "agenda" is to see what we can do as a community to reduce teen drug use, especially Heroin, which unfortunately is becoming very popular in Encinitas. Perhaps, if we do purchase this property, we could have workshops for parents and kids on what is true and not true about drug use? Anyway, I know you both care very much, and if I give the impression that I am not on board with the idea, then please let me correct this right now. I am not a wealthy woman, and we purchased our home in 1983, when one could still afford to buy in Cardiff. If you all think this is an option to purchase PV please know I will fight with you. I just don't want the City to go broke, as then we would have no leverage. Last night was my last night as a Parks and Rec. Commissioner. Learned a lot, and the Park is going to cost a lot more than we bargained for, I will say that.
ReplyDeleteAlso, thank you for putting your names on your posts.I understand that some people must remain anonymous, and I certainly understand that. But for those who don't need to, I can also say that the majority at City hall think there are only a few of us "radicals" that post on this blog. If more people could put their names on their posts, it might also show that we are serious about our commitment.
DeleteIf the City had purchased the Boathouses, and if it were to purchase Pacific View for a community arts and learning center, both of those would engender lease revenue streams. Lease revenue bonds are viable tools, to avoid having to raise taxes and fees, or defund other accounts, when there are legitimate sustainable lease revenue streams. The library and the hall property park, or Moonlight Beach improvements, will not create LEASE REVENUE STREAMS.
DeleteMore unfunded debt is not good; we all agree. But PV is an exception because the debt service payments would be funded through a sustainable lease revenue stream.
I find it somewhat disingenuous to argue that the city can not afford the Hall Park, but can afford to acquire PV, regardless of the method used. I've heard the argument that PV would have a lease stream, and I also have heard the criticism that only the sports teams would use the Hall Park for a fee, thus excluding residents...well, that's a lease stream too! Additionally, there is much and frequent criticism of the Council, its members, and its advisors - something to the effect of "can't find their way out of a paper bag"...so what makes anyone think that this Council can effectively negotiate and manage the eminent domain process?!? If they claim to not know about the runoff at Hall, how are they all of a sudden qualified to run an ED process?
ReplyDeleteThe hypocrisy is deafening..................................
- The Sculpin
Yup it's deafening. It's just the usual shills in town that have their little expensive projects they want everyone to pay for. An earlier posting stated $180,000 per month could be earned at PV.... Ah, hello??? If that much money could be earned at PV don't you think EUSD would play that card??? Hell yes they would. It's the typical small minded thinking of residents here in Mayberry by the sea.
DeleteDon't look for a responce Sculpin, when their fallacious ideas are exposed as screaming lunacy they run and hide until WCV posts something new then they pop up again.
Scuplin-
DeleteThank you for your post. Do you equate land that was donated to the community for use by the community as the same thing as land purchased by a 5 person council that has been estimated to cost taxpayers $80 million to own, and build, and that is estimated to cost taxpayers, many who will never use the park, and additional $500,000.00 to $1 million annually to operate?
Do you think it is an equal comparison?
Kind regards
Andrew Audet
1:20: How's this for some "sceaming lunacy". It is just flat wrong to sell off land that was donated for the benefit of the people of this town,legal or not. BTW Baird and the board are total amateurs. The first auction meeting was a joke, particularly if you were actually interested in purchacing the property.
DeleteThe Cabezon
Aha! So it's you, Andrew, that consistently misspells my moniker!! Ha! In regard to your question, yes. The land was donated for use as a schoolhouse. The day it was considered to be surplus, or no longer needed for a schoolhouse it should have been returned to the estate of the donor (or descendants). However, that is not what the donor stated on the deed. If I remember correctly, the deed has no instructions to deal with the land no longer being used as intended. So to me, any use other than as a schoolhouse is pure conjecture as to divining if it satisfies the intent of the donor. Do I want to see a "stack 'n pack" project there? Heck no!! But to couch one's argument for continued public use of the property as maintaining the wishes of the donor is quite a stretch. If a case can be made to keep in the public realm, I'm all for it, but that's not it.
Delete- The Sculpin
Pitcher donated the land to the Encinitas School District to be used as a school site, as there was no school in the immediate area. He didn't deed it to the people of Encinitas nor to he stipulate that it could be only used as a school site. There were no restrictions or stipulations on the deed at all. Whether the EUSD have a moral obligation or not, legally, they are free to do what they want with it.
DeleteAnd all you eminent domain experts out there, please spare us your certitude about how it works and how the city should proceed. An ED expert informed the city that not only were they way behind in the ED process but that ED proceedings may not go as expected. As in $'s more. But of course she was persuaded ahead of time to give the council bad legal advice.
Under Stocks, Council had voted to exclude Sports teams from having to pay user fees for the Hall Property Park. Has that changed? The Hall Property Park, unlike PV, will require enormous maintenance costs, to maintain the playing fields. Plus it is many more acres than PV, so there will be maintenance fees commonly associated with larger parks, as well, including maintaining the dog park, skatepark, parking lots, etc.
DeleteAny potential fees to be received from sports leagues will be insufficient to pay maintenance costs. User fees by sports leagues or teams does NOT constitute a "lease," or a lease revenue stream.
Obviously you miss well thought out consistent hypocrisy. That is our council's realm.
Delete3:32pm, Carlsbad does not charge their sports teams to use their fields, Encinitas does.
DeleteScuplin
ReplyDeleteThe wishes of the donor are clear.
I do not agree that property donated to the community for public use is equal to property puchased by a 5 person council for public use. They are 2 different transactions.
Kind regards
Andrew Audet
Come on, Andrew - if the wishes were clear, the land could not be sold. It's precisely because the wishes are not clear that "we" are in this mess. As for the 2 properties, how they get into the public realm is of no matter to me. Once they're in the public realm, then they're public property, and should be used however the public sees fit. If the EUSD wants to sell PV, fine. It's a shame, and the good fight needs to be waged, but fine. Same goes for the Hall property. If the city wants to change course and sell it, that would be a shame to. I'll fight the good fight, after which it's OK with me.
Delete- The Sculpin
If you look at SavePacificView.org, the wishes of the community are clear, to Save Pacific View in the public domain as an irreplaceable historical asset, part of our heritage.
DeleteWhat is clear, by the deed, is that the land was donated for the children of early settlers for a school. Apparently, in 1883, JS Pitcher was not savy enough to realize he had to make his donation for land to be held in perpetuity as a school, including open space, as Teresa Barth now informs us was the case with Del Mar Shores, a surplus school in Del Mar sold to that city in 2007, as I recall.
I don't know who is giving Teresa Barth her information, and I wish she would share that, too. The land was donated to the School District to give space to the children for a school and playing fields. That is very clear to the community.
You know the City couldn't change course and change the former Hall Property after all the money it has invested in building the playing fields. The City shouldn't sell off public assets to fund escalating operating expenses. Operating expenses can be decreased by attrition, a hiring freeze, and a 20% reduction in the salaries of city employees and contractors making over $100,000 per year, annually, down to $100,000. I add that condition, so that someone making over $100K, would not have to take a 20% pay cut, but would only see a reduction down to $100K.
The children's cove in LZj was donated as a safe place to swim 100 years ago, but it's not being used for that now. Things change.
DeleteThings change, but they don't have to change for the worse in our city to profit a few, at the expense of the greater common good.
DeleteThe Children's Cove argument is another red herring.
No, actually it's a valid point on the difference in the environment and situation of Encinitas 130 years ago and what we face today.
DeleteYou can't make a 1 to 1 comparison of the intent of the gift at that time given the different conditions.
What you CAN do is try and come up with a creative way to save most of the land for the people of the city while coming up with a way to pay for it without soaking everyone now, either via a sales tax or other taxes.
So far the EUSD has failed at this, so maybe someone in town can help us out with some ideas. Dennis Holz, paging super Dennis Holz, Gotham is in need!
Pitcher deeded the property to the Encinitas School District. That's all the deed says that can be interpreted as Pitcher's intended use. But since a schoolhouse was built on the property shortly after the deed was recorded, it seems safe to conclude that the school district understood Pitcher's intent and carried it out.
ReplyDeleteAccepting that, it's a matter of good faith to maintain the property in public ownership for educational purposes. To do otherwise is rather like violating a person's last will and testament.
I believe there may be more documents at the Old Schoolhouse than only the deed, which show the intent. My understanding, from public information requests, is that the school district was formed, in 1883, to accept the donated land and to raise money ($600, back then, which was a tremendous amount) through a school bond. The early settlers used the money to build, through the efforts of volunteers, the Old Schoolhouse, that same year.
DeletePitcher was selling lots. He did advertise an ideal community. He realized preserving open space for a schoolhouse would help the early settlers realize their dreams of relocating to Encinitas, and raising their families here.
Oh my God! Pitcher was a developer? But developers are evil and money grubbers.
DeleteI'm quite sure everybody knew then that Pitcher was donating the land for the schoolhouse. That's not the issue. The issue is after 120 years of being used for a school, can the property be liquidated by EUSD? On that point the deed is silent.
Pitcher also donated land in the area for other uses as well. The church is one example which isn't there now. How those deeds were written I have no idea.
Can you preserve open space when all the space is open? Somehow I don't think the concept of open space was in play.
DeleteHere's where "leadership" comes into play. How can we, the people of Encinitas at least keep part of this land without losing our shirts to pay for it or add to our sales tax or other tax.
Come on, let's here some ideas....
More on Shores, Del Mar Shores..
Deletehttp://delmarshores.org/pdfs/villagevoice060525.pdf
http://www.delmartimes.net/2013/11/20/del-mar-to-begin-master-plan-process-for-shores-property/
You can see relevant links at the bottom of the above story.
http://delmarshores.org/learn.htm
My point is that Pitcher donated over 2 acres, about 2.35 acres for a school site, to include open space for playing fields. The lots he was selling were much smaller. People could and did purchase more than one lot for their homes.
DeleteThe one room schoolhouse takes up very little of the actual land donated. It was not donated for development, but for the children of the early settlers for a schoolhouse and grounds.
3:19
ReplyDeleteI agree.
I'm curious. While I acknowledge there is a difference in scale, a number of people on this blog are against the Hall property/community park as a waste of money. From that I assume that most believe they won't use it. Isn't the converse true? Would most Encinitas residents want to pay for a park (PV) few would use? I'm talking about residents of New Encinitas, Olivenhain and Cardiff.
ReplyDeleteI think it depends on what PV was going to be used for? And so far, I don't have a clear idea. I live in Cardiff and I am not an artist, even though I very much value the work of artists. So, if we could not make it an inclusive area, it is going to be a hard sell, IMHO.
ReplyDeleteWhat about making part of it a park and, gasp, sell of the rest to pay for the park.
ReplyDelete-Herr Green Pants
Quoting the deed: "J.S. Pitcher to Encinitas School Dist." The deed is dated March 8, 1883. It was received for record by the county recorder on July 9, 1883. Pitcher couldn't have deeded the land to an entity that didn't yet exist. He gave it to the school district, then a school was built on it. Pitcher's intent was carried out.
ReplyDeleteThe Encinitas School District was FORMED to carry out Pitcher's intent. It didn't exist prior to Pitcher's offering to donate the lane. The original district, different from EUSD was formed to accept the land and raise money for the construction and running of the school through a $600 school bond.
DeleteYou don't know what Pitcher's actual intent was. His vision was open space for the Old Schoolhouse to be built and for the children to have playing fields, there. Because he did not put deed restrictions on title in 1883, doesn't mean you can make assumptions about his intent. The only thing that we know is that he donated the land for the children of the early settlers to have a school and playing fields.
Correction: Encinitas School District didn't exist prior to Pitcher's offering to donate the land.
DeleteLynn - you added nothing to the prior string… only repeated garbage.
DeleteSo a non profit should be formed to purchase the property like the boat houses.
ReplyDeleteThe City has other priorities and this should not be a city issue.
The community can and has indicated what our priorities are. We don't have to sacrifice other priorities in order for the City to purchase Pacific View, to save it in the public domain.
DeletePitcher donated it to the local community, through the newly formed Encinitas School District, for the children, not for rezoning to accommodate developers and ambitious bureaucrats.
Sorry - We can't afford it. We built a regional sports complex for all of north County and give huge pensions to staff instead.
DeleteIf he donated roundabouts would you want to keep those also??
DeleteEvil roundabouts..... That work.
Must be asleep. Meanwhile most hard working people are up and at work by now....
DeleteOMG I still can't believe they had typewriters back in the late 1800's.
ReplyDeleteDr. Lorri - FYI: Out of 140 blogs all were Anonymous with the exception of you, Lynn, Fred and Andrew.
ReplyDeleteHow about Mr. Greenjeans, WcV.( who I know needs to remain anonymous), the Sculpin (who also may need to remain anonymous), are there any others?
ReplyDeleteMy fellow bottom feeder, Cabezon, too!
Delete- The Sculpin
Yup,
DeleteGive us at least 1/2 credit.
-Mr. Greenjeans
nope… sculpin, Greenjeans,, WC and the rest are all Anon… for that matter I can sign in an post as any name I want with a blogger identity…..
ReplyDeleteAnon is no big deal…. get over your egos….
That's certainly one way to look at it 9:35. Another way to look at it is it holds the person accountable and it is much more likely to be factual. However, from now on I guess I'll post anonymously, as I certainly don't want to be seen as an egomaniac. Don't mind the maniac part, but the ego part just doesn't work. Too Freudian.
DeleteWhen you work in the public sphere, especially in the internet sphere, one is better off using an anonymous handle...
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIf names are the spice, anonymity is the oatmeal.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Cher.
Deletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6E98ZRaU1s
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete