Dear Encinitas (and other North County) friends,
We are in real danger of losing the Pacific View site to general development (and a likely housing project), if the school board sells the property. This is a horrible shame, as that property was bequeathed to the children of Encinitas. Many residents would rather see it become a community arts center, me among them.
So, I urge you very strongly to visit the website below and, once there, write a short letter to the school board, explaining that we want the property to remain in the hands of the Encinitas public, not those of developers.
http://savepacificview.org
It's late in the game, but there still may be hope if the board receives enough letters. Please send a letter; it will take you five minutes or less.
See also the Coast News on local resident Scott Chatfield, the man behind the Save Pacific View web site.
First....
ReplyDeleteScrew it. Let it be sold off. Rezone it for several hundred affordable housing units, even at 5-6 stories.
ReplyDeleteJerome it sounds like your the sauce again
ReplyDeleteThat citizens form a nonprofit and purchase the property in that manner. The city has to many other priorities to focus on and pacific view is not one of them
ReplyDeleteIf anyone wants to read REAL comments from concerned citizens instead of blog trolls such as these, go to the web site, SavePacificView.org .
ReplyDeleteExactly! Thanks, 9:20
DeleteInteresting that four months elapsed between the time the deed was initially dated in March of 1883, and when it was recorded, in July of 1883.
I suspect the land was donated and the deed recorded without benefit of legal counsel, or there would have been deed restrictions.
The deed is a legal document. Your suspicions, anybody's imaginings about Pitcher's intent, whether or not he had legal advice, and whatever Pitcher's other activities were don't matter.
Deleteyes… great idea. We have more important things to discuss like saving Encinitas instead of wasting time on PV.
ReplyDeleteThese blog trollers would like City to focus on dumping money into a $20 Million unwanted and unneeded plan for four one-lane roundabouts at three way T intersections, with NO cross-streets from El Portal, through Leucadia, instead.
ReplyDeleteSave Pacific View! This is one project that would generate an actual lease revenue stream. It would be a win/win/win for the community, the city, and the school district.
Thanks for posting this, WC. Check out the website SavePacificView.org. Wonderful photography, from an aerial view, too . . .
Evil roundabouts....that work .
DeleteRather be a troll with common sense than a slow person with a closed mind and no common sense...
DeleteI like how WC leaves Lynn's attacks but deletes others
Like 12:05 and many others, I'm all for saving Pacific View. And although it's disturbing that 12:05's motive here continues an old quest of a few who would rob funding for Leucadia's improvments for another part of town, it's pretty predictable where she'd aim her sites.
DeleteFred, you extremely predictable, including wrongly suggesting that I would rob Leucadia of ANY improvements. The point is, the majority would not agree or vote that four one-lane roundabouts ARE improvements. If you don't believe that, you should urge a public vote, not keep suggesting that would be a waste. More direct democracy is NOT a waste.
DeleteAnd the back log on road maintenance is NOT referring to pie in the sky CIP projects designed to benefit a few at the great expense of many.
I want to save Pacific View. People screaming "fix my roads," should call City Hall, report to Public Works the potholes or broken surfaces they are concerned about, and should post the exact locations, here. You don't FIX a Major Arterial by turning it into a two lane road, one lane northbound, one southbound, through four one lane roundabouts at 15 MPH. During peak traffic periods, that will NOT eliminate stops, and would not be an improvement, in that it would increase cut through traffic and slow emergency response times, cause more back-up and negatively impact coastal access/egress.
I want beautification for Leucadia, but not density bonification through negative environmental impact declarations allowed too often by roundabouts. I am NOT for changing the character of our funky neighborhoods to something you keep sharing you-tubes about from other states, with dissimilar highway configurations, NOT between the Coast and a RR.
TransNet Tax funding cannot go toward beautification. Because of the lane diet, we are NOT getting a rail trail corridor through Leucadia to La Costa in the forceable future. Your desire for lane elimination as the first phase of the roundabouts is defeating your own purpose. Because the ONLY reason Carlsbad got TransNet funding for its ONE roundabout at PCH and State St. is because they are ALSO putting in a railtrail corridor lane for bicycles and pedestrians, so bicyclists will NOT be forced to go through the roundabout.
We're all one community, Fred. Many Leucadians would also benefit from a community arts and learning center at PV. It doesn't have to be either/or, but the City cannot count on the TransNet tax funding, anyway. It doesn't have $20 Million lying around, WITHOUT a revenue stream, to fund building un-wanted, unneeded one-lane, 3-way T intersection roundabouts, with NO cross-streets, which the U.S. Dept. of transportation recommends against, as roundabouts are NOT recommended when cross-street traffic is significantly less than the arterial.
Dr. Lorri FYI: of the last 149 blogs all were Anonymous with the exception of you, Lynn, Fred and Andrew.
ReplyDeleteWe need low cost section 8 housing in Encinitas not a better place to put it. Five or six stories of apartments would go a long way towards filling the city's obligations and help stop the city from ruining our other neighborhoods further then they already have.
ReplyDeleteHow can anyone be against helping the poor just because it is your neighborhood?
It's easy to be against helping the poor just because it is your neighborhood if that land was donated for the greater public good. Do the poor have more rights than everyone else? Section 8 housing can be put anywhere. It's inappropriate to put it on prime, coastal property where the poor would get something better than the rest of us, like a $150,000 ocean view. This kind of public subsidy would be absurd. It would be the same as subsidizing the poor with Rolex watches, when a $20 Timex would adequately tell them the time.
ReplyDelete...and what's "poor" these days mean anyway? Working poor? Medical bill poor? Abandoned veteren poor? Retired poor? Entry level job poor? If we let The Buidling Industry get away with this "affordable housing" scam, WE'LL all be poorer for it. Any one who advocates for this is a "poor whore" for the developers and that includes YOU, 5:22am
ReplyDeleteDoes Encinitas have any Section 8 Housing? I am not aware that it does, correct me if I'm wrong.
ReplyDelete-Mr. Greenjeans
NE corner of Melba and Gardena is one project.
Deletenew apartments built north of Paul Ecke Central on Vulcan… curtousy of City Council.
DeleteAsk Barth, she and Houlihan were leads on combining the affordable housing in this single area. Keep the poor by the train tracks.
DeleteIt does. Two people who receive Section 8 housing are now on the Housing Authority. My understanding is that most of the Section 8 housing is in private homes, subsidized by the Federal Govt., through the City? But I believe there are also some subsidized housing within multi-family apartment buildings?
ReplyDeleteFrom what I was told at the City a lot of Section 8 housing is on the east side of the tracks in Leucadia. They are apartments. Does anyone know where they might be?
ReplyDeleteI believe you may be correct, Lorri. That's probably where the majority of Section 8 subsidized housing is, in Encinitas, east of the tracks, on Vulcan. One could also call up and ask to speak to the housing administrator. He could give you more exact numbers. His name is Ron Barefield: rbarefield@encinitasca.gov
DeleteHe can give you more info, or you can do another public info request to find out where, generally, Section 8 housing is located throughout the city.
I believe the project is called "Iris" apartments. The new ones next to The Riviera.
DeleteThat's the low income housing that Shea homes "aggregated" at that location. It was an existing "build" that went down during the recession. It was supposed to be condos.
DeleteShea bought it and the city let them put all the Low income "units" from Vulcan, Andrew and other places in the city there.
A former planning commissioner referred to it in a meeting I went to as "ghettoizing" the Low income housing, not to mention that it's not in the spirit of the law.
-Mr. Greenjeans
5:46 pm, You would no about welfare… you'll gobble up any dole open to your government grabbing hands.
ReplyDeleteIf you are addressing me, I am going to say once and for all, I am not on welfare. I know about the Section 8 housing only from having attended some Housing Authority meetings. Plus there was someone up the street who received Section 8 subsidies, before that house was sold, after the City came in and gave the previous owners various notices of violations, which were unjustified; complaints had not been filed by the Section 8 tenant. Code Enforcement's actions caused the City to lose that affordable housing.
ReplyDeleteMy husband and I are retired. He gets a small pension from a non government source. I am not on disability and have never been. If you do not stop targeting me with your comments, including by referring to me by the time of my posts, instead of by name, you will face the consequences of your lies and your obvious attempts to defame me in a public forum.
My opinion is that taxpayers pay far more in "welfare for the rich," than in welfare for the poor. Welfare for the rich includes huge amounts in pensions and salaries to overpaid government employees and contractors.
Our public servants too often have become the haves, while the working middle class struggles to keep up with the constantly devaluing dollar, and the machinations of the "ruling class."
Officers at public agencies should not only have to disclose how much they make from non government sources, but also, how much they are paid through all sources of public funding.
All Council candidates should have to disclose how much, in total, they are receiving through government pensions for themselves and all family members. My understanding is that Lisa Shaffer and her husband get four government pensions between the two of them. I had put in a public information request for Shaffer and Barth's pensions, including family members, but was informed I would have to submit my CPRA request to the State, or the relevant public agency. But without full disclosure, how are we to know from whom to request the information?
If Teresa Barth wants to run for mayor, she should be willing to disclose the amount of her State pension. And if Lisa Shaffer wants to live up to her campaign promises of more transparency, she could reveal the total amount of government pensions her household receives.
We know how much Mark Muir makes, because he has worked for the City. What's good for the goose should be good for the gander. Lisa Shaffer and Teresa Barth are "double dipping" from the public trough. If they don't think there is anything wrong with that, then they should disclose their total government received monies. Our city CAN have higher standards. But these amounts should be publicly disclosable in any case. It's just challenging to know whom to ask for the information, and to know exactly how many pensions one "public servant" can accumulate.
Meant to say Shaffer and Barth should publicly disclose their total household monies received through the government, through any public agency.
DeleteI am not attempting to condemn Lisa or Teresa, just urging that they should be more transparent.
DeleteSorry to get off subject here. I was thinking we were posting on a different thread. I am grateful for the efforts of Council to Save Pacific View.
I don't appreciate the City Manager and City Attorney's attempts to derail that process. Council should step up to the plate, attend more EUSD Board Meetings, as Tony Kranz has, and should NOT be afraid to threaten Eminent Domain. It did re the Mossy Property according to the 7/19/06 staff report!
http://archive.encinitasca.gov/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=129286&dbid=0 Page 11
DeleteCouncil, on 7/19/06, had none of the members now seated.
Right, but many former military people double dip, it's all within the legalities of the situation. If Teresa and Lisa get pensions, I'm ok with it. Whatever their spouses get are their business.
DeleteThe salaries at city hall for council members aren't that much that it bothers me.
I mean, Muir's pension is so egregious, and the firefighters and powers that be made sure he got that seat when Maggie passed so they could protect their interests. It's not even close.
If lisa did say she wouldn't take a salary on council, then she should be held to it.
-Mr greenbacks pants
As I said, if they think it's fine, and you're right about the military, too, often getting more than one pension, then elected officials, in particular, but all public officers, in my opinion, should be willing to disclose all monies received in their households.
DeleteAs it now stands, public officers only have to disclose non-government sources of income or revenue, not public sources. Doesn't seem fair.
We all know that because something is legal, doesn't mean the person acting "within legality," is acting with integrity. It's not wrong to double or triple dip, but it should be wrong not to disclose that public officers are doing so, at taxpayer expense.
DeleteThere may some changes that need to be made. I don't know if it should extend to spouses, in terms of pensions and outside income.
Deletethe Dallager thing with the bank was definitely froggy, he got easy on that one, that whole bit smacked of influence peddling and corruption.
I can't really blame Teresa or Lisa for not disclosing that information, it's not the law at this time and isn't unethical. If the law is changed, that's a different matter.
A lot of the anti Lisa and Teresa stuff starts approaching witch hunt status, so while I'd agree this kind of rule needs to be looked at for all state and local officials, let's go elsewhere for now.
-Mr Green Conspiracy
When Lisa ran she stated she would not take the salary for being a council member. Does anyone know if she is?
ReplyDeleteSo now school board member Carol Skilgian, sorry if I misspelled the name, has come out publicly in support of baird liquidating Pacific View. I have to assume she is is not interested in running for this position in the next voting cycle. We will not be forgetting her position and the stain she is leaving behind. Good riddance. Is there no appreciation for the community supported school bonds of forty million $ we all happily voted for in the past when we were asked? It sure seems so. This comparatively meager amount for Pacific View could have been paid by a factor of ten for what we all gladly voted when asked by our school district. One gift surely deserves another. Where is the thanks school board besides Mo? Are there others there that will support the community who chose to vote for them? They made the choice to serve our community and we are thankful for their service. Now I hope they will earn the trust we put in them and return it it in kind. You can stand for us in preserving this invaluable irreplaceable gift. This site could be such a shining example for all the generations to come. Where do you want to be standing when the history is written about this gift and what it could mean to every citizen to have this land be available for all our benefit? cha ching
ReplyDelete