If you look around the table and can't spot the sucker, it's you. - poker proverb
While it's possible that the Encinitas Union School District had some buyer lined up to pay $9.5 million for the Pacific View site under current zoning, it seems highly unlikely. Possibly a developer had plans for a medical office complex or something similar that would have penciled out. Or maybe a developer knew he could count on Vina and Sabine to put up an intentionally ineffective defense of Prop A so he could upzone the whole thing to residential.
But most likely at this point is that the EUSD was bluffing, knowing that three council members were so desperate to buy Pacific View that they would pay any price if the district just bluffed that they had a buyer.
Well played, Baird. Well played.
I think they were definitely bluffing, but I'm not going to give Baird credit that he knew he had the votes via the council to buy the property.
ReplyDeleteI think he definitely tried to play the city into a corner, and then when SavePacView.org rallied the troops at the last minute, he probably then hoped the city would deal, and they did.
Other than that, the EUSD has botched this whole thing from the get-go, from the Naylor act to the bogus Arts Center that had no money and so forth. I have no idea if Baird is a good educator, but he sucks as a realtor and negotiator. He got bailed out.
I'm glad that the property stays with the city, but you have to get a better price there. That said, this seemed to be the time the city would have to buy the property or spend endless years in court
How about a foundation to raise money towards the center, or whatever it is. Let's see people put their money where their mouth is.
-Mr Green Jeans.
Green Jean-
DeleteThe Bail out was Barth's. For years she sat by wasting time and costing taxpayers money. When residents needed a leader she shrunk like wilted impotent weed-
Perhaps you should follow city hall more closely. You regularly post incorrect and miseading information. It was Barth who failed to lead, not Baird.
Residents began hammering council Member Teresa Barth with PV and the Naylor Act as soon as she was elected in 2006- Barth's response was to ignore them. She said not a word to hold EUSD accountable. In 2007 when the sham lease between EUSD and the city was signed that changed as EUSD claims the use of the site Barth not only did nothing to protect citiezns who went to city hall and protested the lease she ignored them. Why- because it didn't serve Barth.
In 2010 when EUSD sent Phil Cotton a letter under the Naylor Act residents went to city hall and presented information to Barth that would have allowed Barth to stand up for residents- she sat down for herself instead.
In 2011 multiple residents wrote letter to The Coast News warning the public about teh Naylor Act- - Barth remained quiet as a mouse because it benefited her.
In 2012 Gus Vina illegally cancelled a meeting. Information provided under the Freedom of Information Act shows Vina emailed residents saying he illegally cancelled the meeting because the city had no business- the record shows the next week EUSD went to city hall and chewed out Vina for blowing a negotiating deadline and claiming Vina should have put PV on the schedudle- Barth said nothing. Quiet as a mouse.
Barth has failed the city. She told lies on Prop A, she signed her name to a misealdaing ballot statement, she sat by while residents demanded action on PV, she sat by while VIna illegally cancelled meetings, she has been a financial train wreck and wasted our money and our resources. These are the facts
Now Barth and her loyalist like you propose to put your greedy paws into the pockets of my family to pay for the waste, mismanagement and failures of Teresa Barth. by raising my taxes.
I will be here all year Green Jeans until election day. I will bring to light the facts to rebut your Barth explanations every day and twice on Sunday. You adn Barth keep your greedy hands out of my pockets and wallet. What I earn for my family is mine.
Irresponsible leaders like Barth and VIna think they can waste our money for years on foolish surveys, consultants and their own seflish endeavors- no more.
Dump Barth (I gave money to Barth in 2010 and held a house meeting for her - I will actively walk neighborhood against her in 2014 I encourage fellow residents to as well.)
Thank you Barth hater! LOL. Dude/Dudette, I quite frankly don't know where you get off ripping me as Barth's mouthpiece. Is my name Teresa Barth? No, it isn't. It's Mr. Green Jeans, overlord of the dumpster, high priest of small surf and lover of lost pets!
DeleteLike you, I too worked for Teresa, walked neighborhoods, gave money, the whole bit. And like you, I'm pretty disappointed in her effort as mayor. BUT, unlike you, I'm just as disappointed in Gaspar, Muir, and less so Tony and Lisa, but only because of their lack of time on council.
The list of disappointments is a long one, from Stocks and Bonds to Duvivier and Dallablabber, from ex-cop Guerin to pet Lover Houlihan. That's the nature of politics for me, a 40 something person who never had the 60's moment of hope. I was raised in an age where I think everyone in my generation is cynical about politics.
However, I still think you can't quit trying, you can't give up. Our city is worth fighting for, so I'm going to keep trying to shine the light, find new candidates, push for parks for our communities (that we can afford) and root out corruption and waste. I think Vina isn't the guy, but neither was Phil Cotton, or KErry Miller for that matter? Where does that leave us, endlessly bitching on here, or trying to figure out another way?
So as far as you trying to tell me to watch city hall more closely, you can straight up shove it my friend. Baird is a total ass clown, he pretty much got up and gave a false narrative at that school board meeting, and misrepresented what has gone on during all of the negotiations. There's plenty of blame to go around on this whole thing, I'm not going to regurgitate it here. Phil Cotton blew it , Baird's predecessor blew it. Hell, if it wasn't for the late Bob Naninga raising the flag initially, the council then would've had no clue on the Naylor act. They blew it too. We all deserve better
As for Barth, it's simple man, you can vote against her next time. That's democracy. I think she should step aside as well, but I certainly don't want Gaspar either. We need someone who can handle the finances, who is willing to reign in the pensions.
You can rip me every time, and I'll still come back and try and put some perspective on what I think is happening. I don't see things in quite the black and white way you do, and unlike you, I try and prevent repeating the same tired crap over and over again.
When I'm talking about Baird, I'm talking about his skills as a negotiator and as a real estate seller. I'm not trying to assess his effectiveness vs. Barth's. If you want to make that comparison, you're welcome to do so. My point is, I think he got lucky. He had kind of played out his hand, he was in a corner. No developer was going to buy that property. The city bit on it. At least the three who voted for it had some balls, right or wrong. Not voting is the height of cowardice. If you feel the city shouldn't overpay, or shouldn't buy it, vote no, represent that voice, instead of chickening out so you put that in your mailer when you run for office. That's complete bs.
So you can call me a Barth apologist all day long, but that's not what I'm on here doing. I'm just going to vote, instead of spewing hate at people all day long.
-Mr Green Jeans
Green Jeans-
DeleteNo hate here, just the facts.
In your post aboce you hold everyone accountable except Barth - are you her spin Doctor? hmmm
How do we know Muir and Gaspar did not say offer $6M, and that Baird might have taken $6M- we don't because Barth Shaffer Kranz blew it.
Has Barth been on the council for 8 years- yes.
Are the city's finances worse today then when she came into office- yes.
Are our raods worse under her leadership -yes
Are our pensions worse under her leadership- yes
Are unfudned projects worse under her leadership-yes
Have residents gone to hall seeking a voice to stop the waste of spending- yes.
Did Barth remain silent when resdients talked of failing roads, out of control pensions and over priced pacific view- yes.
Did Teresa Barth spend money recklessly yes ($1.3M to MIG, approving $135K to a spin Doctor, approving $66K for foolish surveys, $50K wasted on Rutan and Tucker, 3% raise to fireman spiking pensions- the list on facts goes on, soeaking of facts GJ - do you have any?)
Did Barth vote against residents seeking a pay as you go, or a bond offering vote on the park, and instead side with Vina who said all was well with the city and then raid $7M in money capital improvement projects to benefit residents like the rail horn warning systems and the chesterfield quiet zone- yes.
No hate fest here GJ, just the facts. You saying Baird played himself into a corner is laughable- yeah, what an "ass-clown" - Baird sold a $2.5M property for $9.5M he makes Barth Shaffer and Kranz look like idiots - oh wait, to use your name calling instead of facts - "ass clowns"
Green Jeans is sounding like Dalablabber in his flawed dissertations.
DeleteOdd insider voice. gonzalez, perhaps?
ReplyDeleteLook at Green Jeans bogus logic- whatr a joke. "Baird sucks as a realtor and negotiator" really GJ- you wanna ignore the facts we won't.
ReplyDeleteBaird had a property he had to dispose of by law under the Naylor Act at a 70% discount by law. He changed the use while Barth was on the council to a storage yard under a sham lease Barth never opposed, he then sent a letter Barth and the city in 2010 offering it under the Naylor Act and Barth said nothing-
now Baird sold the property for $9.5 M, 200% more than the Naylor act price, $5 million over the lowest known appraisal and $2M over the highest know appraisal- HE maximised his profit and Barth sat idly by crying about how she wasn't respected on the council. With Barth it's always about her, not the residents.
Barth and Vina sold us all out.
What about this illegal meeting Vina cancelled in 2012? Did Baird really go down the next week and protest? Where was Barth? Any facts appreciated.
You'll have to ask Barth dude. You guys aren't understanding my argument. Baird played himself into a corner, the city bailed him out. Don't mistake that bailout by the city as Baird's skill as a negotiator. He sucks. Does the city council suck more? Does Vina Suck more? You could now probably make that argument.
DeleteBut just besides one side overpays doesn't mean the other side is skilled at negotiation.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled Barth hatefest. Cue the Sculpin, lol!
-Mr Green Jeans
GReen Jean- pleeaase!
Delete"Baird playerd himself into a corner"
Baird sold a property the city could have bought part of by law for a 70% discount and instead sold that to Barth Shaffer and kranz for $2.5M more than the highest appraisals and about $5M more that the lowest appraisal.
Barth sat by in 2007 when residents spoke out agaisnt teh lease, she did nothing in 2010 when residents spoke out about the Baird letter to the city and she did nothing in 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2104 whenr esidents went to city hall demanding the city buy the property under the Naylor
You have no facts Green jeans, you make no sense? Baird sold a property the city could have bought for taxpayers for $2.5M for 9$9.5M.
That is no Barth hatesfest it is simply the facts- speaking of which, do you you have any?
Go back and read what I said, I'm talking about negotiation strategy, pure and simple. I'm not talking about whether or not the property was overpriced (It was, that's real obvious).
DeleteWe all know about the Naylor act, how the property should have been offered and all the back and forth. The city should have called Baird's bluff again, then lowballed off the prior offer even lower. That's how you do it.
I'm not here to present facts for you on the narrative on how the back and forth went, and tie that in for you on the barth and Vina hatefest. That can be your job if you want it.
I merely present a "take" on negotiation. Where was Baird going to go if the city didn't come back with the upped offer? No developer was going to pay a premium price with Prop A. hanging over their heads. They want a free and clear route to come in, get the property and turn it.
to me, the city was the only real bidder, Baird did know that, but he had run out of options, the developer dog and pony show wasn't fooling me, did it fool the city? You tell me, you seem to be the expert.
We now return you to Barth III, return to the land of hatefest..
-Mr Green Jeans
Dump Barth
DeleteMock Green Jeans
Dump Barth, Dump Gaspar, mock small minded morons who can't understand perspectives other than their own unmitigated hatefests...
DeleteLike Green Jeans
DeleteUnless Baird disclosed in some legally binding way that other bids had been received, the city council totally misplayed this negotiation. They should have put in a low-ball bid and made Baird react to it. What would he have done if the city's low-ball bid was the only one? Now we'll never know. The council had the threat of Prop A on their side (even if they would not acknowledge that publicly. Developers were likely to stay away from bidding because of Prop A. It looks like the council grossly overpaid, all to satisfy an email campaign from whiners who didn't have the responsibility to look out for the financial security of the city. The council had that responsibility, and failed us all. You can't have everything you want, if you can't afford it. And you have to live within your means. (And not everybody can or should take out a loan to fund a child's college education, as Shaffer suggested in her recent letter. That was a very revealing statement of how she views financial decisions - just borrow and spend more)
DeleteBarth is already pointing out that Gaspar and Muir didn't vote for the school. I don't think that the school should have been bought at any price, and I assume that this is why they did not agree to the $9.5 million.
ReplyDeleteThis is another of those real estate deals like Mossy Nissan and the Hall Property where the city is again fleeced and the taxpayers are left on the hook.
I agree, the best thing about yesterday is it's one less day I have to stay in Mayberry by the Sea.
DeleteDon't let the door hit you in the ass, more room for the rest of us!
DeleteBarth and Shaffer are calling attention to the very smart decision by Gaspar and Muir not to spend $9.5 mil. that the city (i.e. all of us) can not afford. I understand the emotion behind wanting to 'Save PV", but not at any cost. The city paid more than it can afford, and probably more than it needed to if it had been smarter in the negotiation. But who would expect Barth and Shaffer to be able to make real world, leadership decisions?
DeleteFact is that Barth hired Vina, MIG (General Plan Consultant), approved pension...
ReplyDeleteI partially agree with some of the comments made above. I voted for Barth in her last elections, but will not support her if she runs for mayor. In all fairness to her, she was in the council minority until December 2012 after Bond retired and Stocks was defeated. In the 2010 votes Gaspar recused herself and the council deadlocked 2 to 2 (Stocks/Bond vs. Barth/Houlihan). The city never agreed to pursue a purchase of Pacific View because Stocks and Bonds wanted to keep all the money to build the Hall property park, whose fund had been drained of several million dollars to plug other holes in the budget.
ReplyDeleteIt is true that Barth was reticent about articulating her opposing views. She frequently asked the public privately to do what she wouldn't/couldn't do herself publicly. That gave the bully pulpit to Stocks and Bond and easy dismissal of any public speakers.
I agree with WC that the city paid too much. I also suspect that the school district was very short of bids. Baird bullied and won. The city gets the property, and I'm happy for that.
The city pays too much for property, as it did on the Hall property and the Mossy Chevrolet property. When it bought the property for the library from the San Dieguito Water District, it paid too little. It's always the ratepayers and the taxpayers who get screwed.
And the key to Gaspar recusing herself, is she didn't have to recuse herself, she actually abstained from voting. You have to recuse yourself when you have an interest, financial or otherwise within a certain radius of PV in this case.
DeleteThat's one of the reasons Dallagher as a bad pick as a council person. Because he owned multiple properties downtown, he had to recuse himself every time. Gaspar didn't have any reason to recuse herself, unless I'm missing something. She merely abstained because she didn't want to be the tie breaking vote and have the losing bloc of voters opposed to her in the future.
See a pattern developing here?
11:25 if the property was offered in 2010 under Naylor, and gaspar recused herself - what prevent Barth from making a motion at any poiunt since 2013 when she became Mayor to put PV back on the agenada and to reconsider the EUSD letter from 2010? PV had not been sold, Barth had the votes- why did she ignore residents?
Deletesounds like a Barth pattern developing as well- looks like both Barth and Gaspar stuck it to taxpayers-
DeleteYou can ask the "Why Didn't the city_________" question numerous times during this whole negotiation. There are lots of dominoes in play, as the poster above notes when bringing up the Hall Property, Stocks and Bonds etc.
DeleteThe city paid too much here, just as it did on the Mossy dealership. Can someone at the city come up with a way to get money donated to cover some of the cost, or find revenue generating income via whatever ends up on the property?
Bob Bonde and Encinitas taxpayes made an excellent proposal/presentation to Mayor Barth and the council to fund the PV purchase.
DeleteMayor Barth and Vian shot Bonde and the residents down - then went out and overpaid. Just another example of Barth's failures and pettiness. Apparently it isn't a good idea unless she presents it.
Bring back the Bonde Plan and fire Barth- better yet let's get Bonde to run for council get some John Wayne like testosterone back on the council.
Gaspar did "recuse" herself twice. That was the word she used. I was at both council meetings. She claimed she didn't know enough about the issue to vote. She did not use the word "abstain." The City Attorney would have opined that an abstention counts as a YES vote, as he did with Lisa Shaffer and recently with Muir and Gaspar. Lack of knowledge didn't stop her from voting on any other issues. To me it looked like she was ducking the issue.
DeleteBarth did put the Pacific View purchase on the agenda in 2013. The city was negotiating with EUSD, but Baird and school board refused the first offer and put the property up for auction. Baird and Vina, the two negotiators, are the real villains here.
Correct, she abstained. If you don't know enough to vote, then why are you on the council? I believe Jim Bond made words to that effect.
DeleteKnowing how she wants to vote IS HER JOB!
-Mr Green Jeans
you mean like hos barth abstained from holding baird and eusd responsible for the naylor act - that was her job, she failed
Delete2:45 Barth had the votes in 2013, you want tovblame Vina and EUSD - wrong. Barth could have pushed for a vote and directed the attyAtty to pursue Naylor act - the council could have voted. Barth did neither.
DeleteI think that part of the high price was to justify the Lew Edwards contract to raise taxes. Naturally, this is just a distraction from the fact that there is no money, and they will mix funds to cover shortfalls and move money around like usual.
ReplyDeleteDid it ever occur to these people that we could have afforded the school if we would have paid what it was worth and not wasted so much money on other crazy things? We already have survey data that if taken from the planning department and given to competent people, could yield valid results. Instead, they are buying more invalid surveys (Peak Democracy and Lew Edwards) to manipulate public opinion. This will never fly.
When all is said and done, the bottom line is PV has been purchased for more than it was appraised. In other words, we got SUCKERED. Now, we citizens have to live with the mistakes that have been made at city hall. WE are the ones who will end up paying for this. 650 or so emails did not represent the majority of our city. It's too bad this decision could not have been voted on by the public. I am more than disappointed by this city council. Not one of the 5 seems to have a brain. Is this how they would run their household? I think NOT. And, of course, they continue to listen to a city manager who cares nothing about our city.
ReplyDeleteFirst, Kristin didn't recuse herself, she abstained, saying she didn't know enough. This was when she first was elected. Second, no one at the City, as of yet, has told us how we are going to pay for this. I guess the motto is if we still have checks in the checkbook, we must have money and lastly, as 12:03 stated, 650 emails do not make a majority in this City no matter how one looks at it. I am as sentimental as the next person, however, we are leaving our children with a potential fiscal mess. I'm old, so should I care? YES, I should care, even though my kids would never be able to afford to purchase a home in Encinitas. I am of the mind that there was no developer who would have purchased this property without an assurance that they could get it rezoned. Now, we cannot either. Therefore, we will pay for it all. Good going all that wanted it. You got it. Now, what are you going to do with it? Personally, I have to admit, I would have rather seen the money go to our infrastructure, but as Lisa and Teresa have said "It's a legacy property". Now I guess we will find out what kind of legacy it is. It can NEVER be rezoned, so now what?
ReplyDeleteLegacy? A legacy of failure. Barth has been on teh council for 8 years, she could have led on this issue on 2007, 2010, or since becoming mayor in 2013. She could have put this on the Agenda in March 2013 and forced a vote to buy under teh 2010 Baird letter- but she didn't
DeleteNow she wants to put her greedy fingers in my wallet to bail out her bad choices and misuse of our tax dollars-
great legacy
Gaspar repeatedly states she never has enough information in order to make an informed decision. What does that tell you? She is over her head as a council member because she is way too busy trying to raise her children, being an "old" cheerleader, running her husband's business, and on and on. It's people like her that try to juggle too many things at one time and find out that it is next to impossible. She keeps trying to be "Wonder Woman" but it is not working out well.
ReplyDeleteLet her fly off into the sunset in her invisible jet, which matches her accomplishments.
DeleteShe is Wonder Woman, she wonders about every issue and we wonder if she will ever do anything.
Delete1:11 love your comment which is so very true.
Delete1:40 maybe you don't get to city hall much? She opposes rasiing taxes. She thinks you should be able to keep more of the money you earn for you and your family. She thinks city hall should get's it house in order.
DeleteBarth Shaffer KRanz not only want to take more of our money, they want to pay $168,000 to a consultant to lie to the public. They first want to waste your tax dollars, then take more of yoru tax dollars, so they can then waste that.
Wonder woman is doing something- she's trying to let us keep our money while Barth Shaffer Kranz want to take.
Oh yea- and the three are willing to violate their own ethics of transparency to do it.
I can not wait to campaign against Kranz in 2016- I have already made my PHONY TONY posters. Deep local roots my ass
2:35 Wonder Woman is fantasy just like Gaspar. You can choose to trust her, but there are plenty that don't.
DeleteGaspar's mind is invisible, just like Wonder Woman's Jet. Just saying you're opposed to taxes does not make you qualified to lead. Just opposing things is not a position. And frankly, I think that maybe Teresa's issue. She was great in the opposition, but in the majority and asked to lead or chart a course? She has sadly come up short.
DeleteI wouldn't trust Gaspar for one minute, though, under her leadership the developers would be adding the 4th Story to PV Acres right now.
-Mr Green Jeans
green jeans - gaspar is the only one listening to residents. Under 8 years of barth the city is failing - oh right, we have a great strategic plan coming, along sith higher taxes.
Delete5:44 Excuse me ---- Gaspar listens to residents? When, Where, How? What a joke. So many residents have come before the council regarding a Deemed Approved Ordinance and begged for help so that they could live a normal life and get a decent night's sleep. What did Gaspar do??? C'mon tell us what she did. She IGNORED THE RESIDENTS. I will say it again. SHE IGNORED THE RESIDENTS and sided with her bar owner friends. Oh yes, she listed, but did NOTHING to help them. Wonder Woman needs to be dumped.
DeleteDude the DOA would not change the current conditions. Would they may be a little more aware for a brief time yea- but nothing would have changed. They could still have their license, and the planning commission could or could not approve more bars. What would change downtown is IF the sheriff set up shop and started ticketing for drunk in public and dui- kids would go party elsewhere
Deletewhat's not working out well are the 8 years Barth has wasted on the council and that Barth has ignored residents like Bonde and others- atleast Gaspar wanted to hear the Bonde plan - Barth pooed pooed it as it wasn't hers.
ReplyDeleteFacts are facts- Barth has been there the longest and is responsible for the city's bad choices- Barth has to go and Gaspar can go with her. At least Gaspar doesn't want to raise our taxes to pay for the city's failures or waste more money on the Lew Edwards campaign
12:24 I agree with you. However, do not let Gaspar fool you. She knew very well that 3 of her teammates would vote YES on the tax issue, so she played it safe to make it look good for her re-election campaign. She can honestly state that she voted not to raise taxes. Clever move, but oh so sneaky to get re-elected. I don't trust her.
ReplyDeleteValley girl - O MA GOD!!
DeleteShe's a Valley Girl, and there is no cure.
Delete-Zappa
We need two new candidates- I understand there might be a long time native with long time roots running to run, can we find a second- heck, if ther pserson runs we might back then Alex just to shake things up - it could not be worse then these 5
ReplyDeleteI have heard rumor of a great candidate that is fed up with the lack of leadership that will win soundly. I am keeping my fingers crossed but we still need one more. Barth will never be elected, sure on that.
DeleteOK, gonna compare apples to oranges a bit here so bear with me.
ReplyDelete1. We just invested a lot of money in the last available large chunk of exclusive ocean view properly in the greatest place on earth. But it wasn't just for property but especially for education..
2. We paid around $78. per square foot.
3. Property on 101 here goes between $200 and $250 per square foot.
4. I think that makes a good buy.
5. 10 years ago the city paid $9.5 million for the "turn key" Mossy Nissan property by the freeway.
6. The MN property became annexed offices for the city and parking for their trucks and has no potential for creating revenue for the city - or educating anyone besides city employees for that matter.
7. The MN ordeal also got rid of successful business that made $150,000 per year for the city in taxes.
(or $1.5 million to date). Not a stellar exchange.
8. Compared to our purchase of Pacific View, the difference is vast. PV will once again become not only a great learning center (it's original intent when it was gifted to Encinitas School District in 1883), but a source of pride and a new positive revenue flow for the city. I think that's a win / win.
9. The $9.5 million investment itself goes to our kids education locally at EUSD's other schools (not a private party like the MN purchase), so the price paid for PV itself channels the money for other public schools.)
9. The alternative to keeping the property public would have been to create yet more common (but undoubtedly desirable for many) private stack and pack housies.
10. And here's a wild card in your Poker 101 game that we held very close before we collected all the chips: For a developer to build homes on the PV property it would have to be DOWN ZONED to residential. That doesn't require a special permit. Granted, Prop A was probably a deterrent, which special hoops to jump through to get more than 2 stories - which wasn't guaranteed, but I'm happy PV gets will remain in the public domain.
Someone mentioned earlier about "selling bricks" to help pay for it. That's not a bad idea at all in addition to the many other things that can and will help pay for it.
* Personalized bricks for the Boat Houses for example were $250 each. They add up fast.
* The 7 classrooms are in good shape and it wouldn't take much time money or energy to have them ready for use.
* Volunteerism to help clean up the property (like we did for the old schoolhouse) would be ample. A LOT of locals love PV. -
* Potential for a Learning Annex, Charter School, Pre-School (dare I say Yoga class) etc etc is great.
* The E-101 Farmers Market one day a week would bring in good revenue.
I believe in the long run this is an outstanding investment. I know this purchase will be complained about on here much, and I'm against wasteful spending, but it was our last opportunity to preserve the past and enrich the future here on the coast in a big way like we did and I'm glad about it. Besides, of all the public meetings I attended, not one person spoke against the idea of purchasing PV, but a myriad of people showed up in support.
Special thanks to Scott Chatfield, Mary Fleener, Sheila Cameron, Teresa Barth, Tony Kranz, Lisa Shaffer and literally tons of other people for their support!!!
Glad "bar" wasn't on your list!
DeleteFred, according to the definitions which are now part of our General and Specific Plans, supported by our local ordinances, rezoning from Public/Semi-Public to residential is NOT downzoning. By definition of Prop A, it is upzoning, and would have required not only approval of the Planning Department, the Planning Commission, Council and the Coastal Commission, but would have irrefutably triggered a public vote, should all the other entities approve.
DeleteI am very grateful that Pacific View was purchased and will remain in the public domain. I feel the terms should be explicit. Those are still being negotiated, so the City needs to now insist, that for the public:
1. Pacific View will remain in public/semi-public zoning, in perpetuity.
2. 30% of the 2.82 acre site, or .85 acre will remain as open space, for public use, including but not limited to fields and community gardens. Parking lots don't count.
3. The Old Schoolhouse will remain on site in perpetuity, as well.
4. Because past and current City Managers and Superintendents FAILED to abide by the provisions of Education Code, as they relate to the Naylor Act, and now, failed to respect the confidentiality of closed session agreements and information disclosed, in such a manner that prejudiced the City's ability to purchase the property much closer to a price that reflected the ONLY relevant, current appraisal, using local COMPS, in the current zoning, then the City and the District should do some DAMAGE CONTROL. It would have cost the City FAR LESS to begin eminent domain proceedings, which would NOT have had to go to litigation , but could have helped in reaching a settlement price far more reasonable.
Therefore, because the City is intending to grossly overpay, and both Superintendent Tim Baird and City Manager Gus Vina have shown bad faith in violating the confidentiality restrictions of the Brown Act, then the terms should allow for EUSD to carry the loan for thirty years, at ZERO percent interest.
Until Tim Baird's very belated letter of March 2010, Superintendents DeVore and King had maintained they did NOT want a one time injection of monies (which still would be required to go into the District's facility improvement funds, NOT EUSD's General Fund), but wanted instead, an ongoing revenue stream. Repaying the loan over thirty years would provide just such a revenue stream for the District.
I'm glad for the purchase. Now we need to iron out the terms. Remember as Dalager used to love saying: "The devil's in the details."
Why not let it be a school again. I am sure their are unhappy parents willing to spend money for good education. Create more jobs and let EUSD feel the pain.
DeleteHey Fred-
DeleteGoot disagree- Thansk Scott, Mary, Sheila and the resdients- they lead.
In your listing of events include these
2007 PV and city sign sham lease- residents object- does Barth oull a Chatfiled and start a sign in effort- no. Does Barth pull a Lynn Braun (who you left out) and gather facts and write a commentary in the paper- no. Does Barth pull a Cameron and spend wisely- no. Barth goes in the corner and sulks, blames others and cries.
2010- EUSD send letter to council to buy PV- does Barth organzie like Chatfield, communicate like Lynn, get the word out like Fleener? No , she does zip, jack, nada
2011, 2012, 2013- zip nada- while residents write editorails and columns Barth's lets them do the heavy lifting.
2013- Barth becomes Mayor, the property is for sale, she has a letter from 2010 from EUSD and the Naylor provision- does Barth put it on the agenda, ask the city atty to act- nope! nothing, jack, nada.
2014 Barth Shaffer and Kranz cave and ffer $9.5M when they could have bought the property for $4.5M
Now Barth Shaffer adn Kranz want to stick their greedy hands on the hard earned money I make for my family to pay for boneheaded failures- 1.3M for MIG, 50K for Rutan, $135 for the spin doctor-
I call BS Fred - I put my facts out there. Thank you residents.
Please show me how Barth Shaffer or Kranz have provided leadership in any way on this issue beside over paying for a property no other buyer wanted?
2:28
DeleteEUSD already had a $9,000,000 offer that was turned down. With that in mind, it was gracious for EUSD to give the city first right of refusal for the $9.5 million purchase instead of the likeliness of someone else paying more. Like it or not, without Mayor Barth's vote PV would be gone forever. .
2:18
DeleteNope, just a sand bar.
Fred-
Delete2007 Sham Lease- Barth ignores, comments?
2010- Naylor letter to city- Barth ignores - comments?
2010, 2011, 2012-, 2013- citizens right letters to editors, newpapers, commentary- Barth ignores- comments?
2013- Barth becomes Mayor with supposed majority- refuses to put PV on the agenda, ask city atty explore legal action, ask city atty explore Naylor act to save money- comments?
2012- Vina cancels city meeting illegally, next week Baird chews council out saying PV could have been discussed- Barth says nothing -comments?
Tereas Barth cost taxpayers millions of dollars by failing to represent citizens in a timely and responsible manner.
These are all facts- no comment Fred?
about the $9M offer> Barth should have struck a deal with PV and EUSD in March 2013- she didn't. Shame on her.
Hi Fred-
DeleteWhere are you comingup with the $9M number - did Teresa give that to you?
I used to believe Teresa. In her newsletter two weeks ago she said the tax survey was going to cost "far less than $100,000 and more like $20,000"
Then last week a guy gave a presentation at city hall that Vina got a detailed line by line estimate costing $168,00.
Why did Teresa tell lies untruths in her newsletter? It's like her untruths on Prop A all over again.
She can't be trusted.
Barth is lazy. Must not have learned a work ethic.
DeleteFred- where you coming up with the supposed other $9M offer? If the auction never happened, and the bids were sealed what are you talking about?
DeleteDid Teresa spread some more of her BS on you that you bought? Truly, how you come up with that number if the bids were sealed?
Fred- how'd you come up with that number, thats news. Look forward to the explanation.
Delete3:01 & 3:11
DeleteLOL. No, Teresa nor any public official said anything to me about the $9 million offer that was made. And like yourselves unfortunately, the bidder prefers anonymity.
right- so you know something no one else knows? Please-
DeleteYou sound like Teresa writing to eveyone that her survey to raise taxes will cost $20,000 when the line by line estimate the city manager had was $168,000
but hey Fred- why go by facts when we can just make things up - that's how they do it at city hall.
sounds like the Barth Shaffer Kranz spin is starting- EUSD had an offer of $9M (from a sealed bid process, but hey, trust us)
Deletejust like they told untruths on prop A
3:38
DeleteMaybe you should have attended the Pacific View walk through.
Smack! Good one Fred! Hey, he laid out some good thoughts. I don't think 3:37 trumpeting "facts" carries a lot of weight. You're pretty loose with your own facts.
DeleteThe PV site has been purchased, and it is one of our key resources. Let's hope for the best and work to come up with some good uses for it.
If you continue to dislike Teresa, that is your right, and the appropriate arena is the voting booth later this year. Everything else is just hot air unless you want to talk about your own candidacy for mayor...
4:57 you call into question the facts presented - great. But you offer no facts to rebut them - why? Is it because they are true and you can't offer other facts. It has nothing to do with barth ghe person and everything to do with barth the =ouncil person. You may reward failure - don't expect us to join you
Deletefred - are you tdlling us someone stood up at the walk thru and offered 9M? please explain
DeleteIt's silly to blame Barth for everything. She was first elected in 2006, then reelected in 2010. Until 2012 when the majority turned, Barth was in the squashed minority. She is one of five council members and, singly, has very little power. To get anything done, she needs at least two other council members to vote along with her.
ReplyDeleteThe city manager is the executive. He's shown himself to be an untrustworthy manager who bullies employees, sucks up to the council members and seems to have maximizing revenue by destructive means as his principal goal. At the same time, he's not controlling or minimizing costs.
Barth can't tell Vina what to do without having at least two other council members voting on her side.
We elected her two hand-picked candidates in 2012 to give her a majority on the council and they still let Vina run roughshod over the council and the public.
DeleteWhat more does she need?
Functioning brain.
DeleteHow many times have those three agreed and acted in concert on important issues?
DeleteThat's the messiness of democracy. Each individual has interests and an agenda. Even when you get similarly thinking members on the same page, what finally gets enacted is first diluted, often to the point of ineffectiveness.
Barth is the longest sitting council member. Barth has allowed city finances to get run in the ground. Barth is working with Vina against residents- see prop A lies, see strategic plan mraketing, see Lew Edwards-
DeleteIs Barth alone to blame- of course not. Is it time to vote her out for failings- absolutely
She is intimidated by him or "charmed" - remember she rated his performance as excellent.
DeleteI have all the exact dates written down, but there were two letters written to Council. The first one was written by Superintendent Lean King, in 2009, just before Superintendent Tim Baird came in, fresh from trying to take away public use at a surplus school site in Ojai, which failed, did mention the Naylor Act, although there was a disclaimer saying it didn't apply.
ReplyDeleteThere was a (bogus) appraisal from June 6, 2007, which the 2009 letter from EUSD to the City relied upon. That appraisal was based on two EXTRAORDINARY ASSUMPTIONS. The Pacific View property was to be exchanged NOT sold (hence the claim the Naylor Act didn't apply; however, it applies from when a School District's Board of Trustees INITIALLY determines to LEASE or to sell property no longer being used as a school). The second extraordinary assumption was that the property was worth $13.5 Million, at that time, if it were to be rezoned to mixed use, commercial/office/residential.
Pacific View was initially leased, as approved by Council and the Board of Trustees, according to the lease, effective December 1, 2003, but with lease documents signed by Doug DeVore and Kerry Miller on February 2, 2004. The school was permanently closed in June of 2003. The applicability of the Naylor Act tolls from when the schoolsite was first leased in such a manner that the playing fields and playgrounds were paved over. The Naylor Act is designed to give public agencies, "right of first refusal" to purchase open space at a significant discount. For donated land, 30% of it could and should have been purchased at 25% of the fair market value. But, again, that didn't happen because EUSD Superintendents, DeVore and King, made up the pretense that the property would NOT be sold, but traded, so the Naylor Act didn't apply.
However, in the 2009 letter from King, the City was, for the first time, given the option to purchase. But during a time of severe recession, when the Real Estate Market had just collapsed, more or less, nationwide, Lean King insisted that taking into the account the appraisal (we only now know was from 6/6/07) and then allegedly calculating in the non-applicable Naylor Act, to arrive at an asking price of $10 Million to the City! Remember, this is in a recession. It's ANOTHER bait and switch, as in the Naylor Act doesn't apply, but if it did apply, you would still have to pay $10 Million.
The second letter offering Pacific View to the City was by Tim Baird, in March of 2010, soon after he became the new Superintendent, when King retired. No price was named. Public agencies, in accordance with Education Code, were given 30 days notice that the District intended to dispose of the property. Allegedly, the Naylor Act was no longer applicable, which is false. Again, the time of applicability tolls from when the school was permanently closed, the property was initially leased, and the playing fields were paved over. I would much rather have Kristin Gaspar recuse herself on this issue, or abstain, rather than her voting to rezone the property, as Stocks and Bond did, and as Dalager would have, had he not recused himself.
Moreover, EUSD FAILED to comply with Education Code; it didn't declare the property surplus until February of 2010, and didn't thereafter notice its intent to dispose until the next month, when Baird officially changed the past superintendents' "tune" from, the Naylor Act doesn't apply because PV's going to be traded "down the line," to, now it doesn't apply because it's too late!
Lynn Autumn- keep it short, you are not paid by the word.
DeleteI'm not paid at all. Details take time to share. As I've said, before, skip my comments if your attention span is lacking. This is not Twitter.
DeleteJust to make things clear, Dalager and Gaspar were not on the council at the same time. Dan had to recuse himself on the Pacific View site because he owned property across the street at Third and F Streets. Gaspar didn't when she came in. She didn't recuse herself on any of the Hall property vote because Stocks and Bond needed her vote.
DeleteLynn can make her comments short or long. I appreciate the fact she researches and presents the facts. It helps us to understand better. If you don't like what she posts, then close your eyes. No one is making you read the posts.
DeleteAgain you Lynn zealots fail to look at the big picture, I said she should keep her comments concise. Every post of hers is like reading 100 pages of War and Peace. If you don't like my comments too bad. Go away.
DeleteLynn autumn- my attention span is not lacking... Your posts are too long. The only bright part about your post is you didn't tell us who doesn't receive a pension.
You remind me of theatre critic Robt Q. Lewis when he said of the Rod McKuen show.....too long.
I think Lynn is doing us all a service by spending her time and energy helping rather than putting her head in the sand and pretending everything is OK, or pretending she knows something she doesn't. Thanks Lynn. I appreciate what you post, and I know you are not just spinning it.
DeleteLynn, appreciate the background as always. The problem with some of these Codes and Acts that you site is that clearly they are a.) being ignored by all involved and b.) possibly not enforceable.
DeleteClearly Baird and the EUSD have not given one moments thought to complying with any of the rules and bylaws of these types of processes. The city, in turn, has also been ignorant of things like the Naylor Act or straight out negligent.
The ship has sailed at this point, and from what I've seen, once the ink is dry on a transaction, election or otherwise in this city, that's it. See the Dallablabber hand slap for trading favors at El Banko for evidence...
-Mr Green Jeans
4:23 You are not Lynn's keeper nor does she have to get your permission to post concise or wishes to elaborate. So, get off this post if you don't like what she says. No one is forcing you to stay. Your choice. But, we like what Lynn has to say, whether it's short or long. She is opening up many eyes as to the city hall doings. You remind me of someone who needs something to do.
Delete4:23 sounds just like $tock$. Always trying to tell someone what to do.
Delete5:39, 5:41.... Blah blah blah. Always wanting to restrict freedom of speech and expression. And let me guess, as a zealot you can't help but be a victim. Yep that's it... You are a victim, isn't that who exists on " planet crazy"?? Sure it is....victims.
Delete8:08 What are you smoking or drinking? It was YOU who wanted to restrict freedom of speech by requesting Lynn keep her posts short and concise. I think you are the one who is on "planet crazy". Your posts indicate that is a strong possibility. Let us know when you come back to earth.
DeleteAgain you cry victim..... Waaaaa waaaa I'm a victim. A victim of planet crazy. Enjoy the ride, hopefully you'll get trapped in a never ending roundabout.
DeleteI think we need some group therapy:)
Delete8:36 SICKO
Delete1:56 and this is why we have a lame council that needs to go. We need 5 people who can do the job. We don't have that now. They are all too busy grandizing themselves.
ReplyDelete2:24
ReplyDelete"By definition of Prop A, it is upzoning,"
Can you quote the part of Prop A that says that exactly?
Fred: Here it is. Read third bullet point.
DeleteSUMMARY: This proposed initiative, to be known as the Encinitas Right to Vote Amendment, would amend the Encinitas General Plan and Zoning Code to require voter approval, by a majority vote of the electorate, for a Major Amendment to a planning Policy Document. The Phrase “Planning Policy Document” is defined to mean the Land Use Element of the Encinitas General Plan, Land Use Policy Maps of the Encinitas General Plan, Encinitas Zoning Code, Zoning Map of the City of Encinitas, any specific plan or development agreement. The term “Major Amendment” is defined as any amendment that:
• increases the number of permitted dwelling units on a residential lot
• increases the number of separate parcels that may be created from an existing parcel
• changes zone type for a parcel from Agricultural, Public/Semi-Public, Ecological Resource/Open Space/Parks or Open Space to a different zone type
• changes zone type for a parcel from a non-mixed-use zone to a mixed-use type zone, in certain circumstances
• changes a parcel from any residential land use to any non-residential land use
• increases the allowed maximum height of development or how height is measured
• increases the maximum allowable commercial or retail square footage for a parcel
• repeals any Planning Policy Document
Thank you!
DeleteMaybe. "Major Amendment" still looks to be arguable since a residential property requires upzoning to become a school.
DeleteFred, I don't understand your comment, here. Either rezoning from public/semi-public to residential, or vice versa, are both DEFINED as Major Amendments by our General Plan as updated by Prop A. I believe the only exceptions to a Major Amendment would be if a more intensive use were changed to Agricultural, Ecological Resource/ Open Space.
DeleteYou are correct, because in our city, schools are zoned public/semi-public, then rezoning from residential would require a public vote. But why does that make "Major Amendment" arguable?
In the case of Pacific View, only changing public/semi-public to any other zone was applicable as upzoning. Specifically, changing public/semi-public to residential OR mixed use would require a public vote.
Thanks for advocating both for Prop A and for saving Pacific View, Fred.
Nothing is ever as simple as the written word, everything's subject to interpretation, or the finagling of a good lawyer..
Delete-Mr Green Jeans
spoken like a lawyer green jeans -
DeleteNot sure if the lawyer we are all reminded of is usually described as "good."
DeleteActually if it was a lawyer talking, he wouldn't be talking on this blog. Why? They're not dumb enough to muddy the waters of something they'd be working on. Please, get a freakin' clue. If I was a legal illegal, I'd be driving more than an old, beat up four door.
DeleteHowever, if you'd like me to represent you at trial, I'd be willing to do it for half the going rate.
-Mr Green "If the Glove Does Not Fit"....
Legal Eagle, er beagle, er Sneagle....
DeleteNot from memory, Fred. But I read that, when I read the initiative, before I signed and helped circulate the petition to qualify the ballot for a Special Election on June 18, 2013.
ReplyDeleteI was elated, at the time, because I knew, then, upon reading the wording of the initiative, that it WOULD apply to Pacific View! I believe you can look up the exact wording of the Right to Vote on Upzoning Initiative through the City's website, because it was posted, verbatim, along with the Rutan and Tucker Report, etc.
3:00
DeleteThanks.
Prop A is now part of our General Plan. The Rutan and Tucker Report is just another wasted $50,000 that Gus Vina hired out and then had the council vote on after the fact. Does anyone see a pattern?
ReplyDeleteIf we are going to talk about a "hate fest," let's talk about the hatrid that the city is showing its residents and taxpayers. They waste our money, lie, and cover up to keep the fraud ticking along. They must live in constant fear that their cover will be blown and that actual illegal activity will be brought to light.
ReplyDeleteI've got to admit, as much as I like Fred, I think before he puts out a 9 million dollar offer was in the wings, he should either not say it or say who put it put it out there. Sealed bids were what Baird wanted. So how do you know Fred. This blog is already filled with so many rumors and speculation, I thought you would never do that. I guess I am wrong.
ReplyDeleteI just spoke to Captain Kangaroo, and apparently Mr. Moose and Bunny Rabbit put in a bid...
Delete4:31
DeleteSorry you feel that way.
with all respect Fred did you let something slip? It is my opinion the barth shaffer kranz spin machine is spreading BS to hoodwink the public. Is it possible Fred stepped in it?
DeleteFred always watches his step, his Keds and his mind are both clean......
DeleteThanks. My mind and keds could be cleaner but I didn't step in anything soft.
DeleteIf the reserve, meaning the minimum, bid was $9.5 million, how could there have been a bid for $9 million?
ReplyDeleteProp A requires a public vote on *any* change in zoning. It has been repeatedly mischaracterized as applying only to upzoning.
Barth and Shaffer are failing Encinitas, no matter how much they want to spin it and justify their boneheadedness in their "dualing" newsletters.
Deletebarth and shaffer have propaganda newsletters that tell untruths and misinformation - they are joined by Vina who is being outed each week by residents
DeleteVina has a propaganda newsletter as well, it is sent out from city hall with taxpayer money
Deletesee how it works
To the extent that personal opinion/viewpoints are propaganda, yes, Teresa and Lisa's newsletters are propaganda. You're really catching on....
Delete-Mr Green Jeans
and lies - tereas wrote the tax survey will be 20K on 3/15 how does she know that, the lew edwards estimate kept from the council and public was 168,000 can you explain the misinformati ?
DeleteI can't, because my name isn't Teresa Barth. Her email address is on the city address, I suggest you use it and talk to her about her transgressions, not me. I'm not voting for Teresa next time, and that's all there is to say. She's in office until she's not. Case closed, Hatefest closed, stream of repeated nonsense closed.
Delete-Mr Green Jeans
5:04
ReplyDelete"Prop A requires a public vote on *any* change in zoning." Too bad it doesn't say it like that.
"how could there have been a bid for $9 million?"
The same way Art Pulse bid $7.5 million.
Hi Fred I know about the art pulse bid, it was public info. You made a claim that to my knowledge is not public info. Please explain, that you.
DeleteBy including every possibility, in effect, it *does* say that.
DeleteWhen did Art Pulse bid $7.5 million? When the reserve had been stated as $9.5 million for this month's auction? Doubtful since the bids are supposed to have been sealed.
Hello- I think the art pulse bid of 7.5 was a year or so again and teh deal fell thru, I don't think they re-bid, in fact that bid would have been sealed.
DeleteI think Baird had at best a few bids but more than likley no bids- Barth ran down there with our checkbook and overpaid. By teh way, when is she going to hold Vina accountable- he is horrible.
The City's $4.5 million and Art Pulse's $7.5 million bids were both made prior to EUSD's minimum bid request of $9.5 million. Less than two weeks ago Mr. Baird publicly announced there were 40 interested parties. Did you know that was made public?
DeleteThe point with Art Pulse is they didn't actually HAVE the $7.5 million to bid with.
Deletehttp://artpulse.org/creative-pulse/art-pulse-bids-on-pacific-view-elementary-school-site/
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/oct/31/deal-sell-pacific-view-site-falls-apart/
http://encinitasundercover.blogspot.com/2014/03/timmy-liquidators-asset-stripping-of.html
https://thecoastnews.com/2012/11/collapsed-art-pulse-deal-wont-affect-districts-budget/
https://thecoastnews.com/2012/10/viability-of-project-questioned-after-review-of-nonprofits-finances/
Interested parties does not equal bids. And I think the Art Pulse bid you're citing was long before an auction became the method of sale. In fact, wasn't the City's $4.5 million bid also before the auction idea came up?
DeleteUnless you knew you could build on the property, why would you drop a bankroll on it? The bottom line was the zoning, and nobody knew if the zoning would change in favor of development.
DeleteHi Fred yes, baird announced there were bids. Please share with us when he said there was a bid for $9M thank you
Delete7:02
DeleteWhen did I say he did? Thank you.
so who offered 9M fred, you made the statement, please let us know thank you
DeleteProp. A doesn't require a vote on every zoning change. For example. a downzone within residential zoning doesn't need a vote. When City Ventures offered the city $16,000 for the piece of land on Santa Fe Drive and agreed to a downzone from R-11 to RR-1 on the adjacent property, no vote would have been required.
DeleteEncinitas undercover has done one thing for sure, shown Lynn to be way smarter than all the council members put together, and outing them for all the cover ups big& small this city tries constantly.
ReplyDeleteThis city is in crisis!!! Yet a majority of the electorate are clueless.....
DeleteSince these were supposed to be closed bids, whoever told Fred that he or she had put in a bid would be legally disqualified. Or, if nothing else, it is both against the law and does not bode well with the intent of the law.
ReplyDeleteIt's a moot point now, the city is getting the property.
DeleteI don't think breaches of the Brown Act, or malfeasance in office are ever a "moot point." At the very least, the public officials involved need to own up, acknowledge their errors, so they, and we can all, learn from them.
DeleteLearning from mistakes is not on the list of priorities, unfortunately. Schaffer only wants to "move forward," try talking to her sometime about what's gone badly here.
DeleteWhen has a public official in this or any other local town owner up to a major screw-up? That's not how the game of politics is played. Sweep it under the rug, run for another office, get a job with Brian Bilbray, become Sup, that's how it works....
DeleteAn employee for the school district told me that they didn't receive any offers.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if the "offer" is legally binding? It should have been contingent on a legitimate appraisal being done. But the city has $abine as council - ********shudder*********
Delete9:28 so where did Fred come up with his claim Baird had an offer of $9M? Is Fred mistaken or is Shaffer and kranz spreading untruths?
DeleteYou mean lies? Untruths is a word for wimps.
DeleteIf this is the case, we got hoodwinked.
ReplyDeleteCouncil = gang that couldn't shoot straight. Is there nothing they haven't screwed up??
ReplyDeleteIF it is true that there were no offers (and will we ever really know the truth?), this over-paid PV will have a lasting legacy of being the straw that broke the city's financial back. The city won't have the money to do much with the property except raze the buildings and plant some grass. Some legacy.
DeleteOm my gosh. Let's just make a school again.
ReplyDeleteWhat, and dash the hopes of developers?
DeleteSchool District laughing all the way to the bank!
ReplyDeleteGreat. Now citizens not only have a regional sports complex to pay forever, now our city council just signed up for a regional Art Complex all on our small tax base. I love the person who was begging the city for the art complex was a mother from Carlsbad who has shipped her kids into encinitas for the last 20 years for sports and arts. That saids it all. Up until next fall, we do not have the Regional Sports Complex or Regional Art Complex and Carlsbad citizens were still shipping their kids to play at our beaches and in the YMCA.
ReplyDeleteOur City Council is clueless. Sell Quail Gardens to pay for PV and fix our roads!!!
Whoever loses the Mayoral bid is out? So one way or another Barth or Gaspar is on borrowed time? Not like the illegal campaign money taking Dumanis, who retained her DA job while running for mayor. Corruption is a fine art in San Diego - it can replace the opera!
ReplyDeleteI will not vote for Teresa Barth. I held signs for her and gave her money. She is not open - why is Vina hiding things? She is not for participation- why is the public being misinformed aboutt he houysing element? She is not for responsible spending
DeleteDUmp Barth
Dump Gaspar...
DeleteDump Barth and Gaspar-
DeleteTrue, Roger Hedgecock, J David Dominelli, C Arnholt Smith, Susan Golding. The list is a long one. Check out Mike Davis' "Under Our Perfect Sun" for more on the long history of corruption in San Diego.
ReplyDeleteSo I leave for a few days to enjoy some quiet time in the mountains with my horse, and y’all go flat out zero to panic is 1.63992 seconds!!!!
ReplyDeleteFirst off, EUSD accepted an offer on terms acceptable to it. That’s the easy part. Today they start negotiations on how to close this thing. Believe me, there will be plenty of opportunities for re-trade and by no means is this a done deal.
So why did EUSD take the city’s offer, especially if they had offers coming in under the auction (make no mistake - they did)? Simple – the city has the best chance of closing the deal. Would you take an offer of $9.5M with an 80% chance of closing over an $11M offer with a 45% chance of closing? - especially if the contingencies are not completely within the control of either buyer or seller?
Now you could argue, as some of you have, that the city is paying too much and should have offered less. Well that was a non-starter from EUSD’s perspective and the price the city is paying for inaction since 1993. Now we all get to see how this deal gets financed – probably EUSD will accept some seller financing as long as the city can come up with enough cash flow. Too bad, because I was really interested in seeing the auction play out.
And what’s the deal with jumping ugly on GJ? You’d think he just got engaged to Lynn or something……….
- The Sculpin
Insightful first paragraph, Sculpin. Happy Trails!
Deletehey fred- got the facts on the $9M you have been talking about? Who, when? Now that would be insightful.
DeleteI think you got jack and unfortunately your credibility is sinking as fast as Barth's.
She is being outed more and more each day as leading a secretive closed government that rewards insiders and hides things from the public -
what a load a crap, at least you and your horse have something in common.
ReplyDeleteyou would have us believe your so powerful or you know EUSD had other offers- right, you mean like the $9M bogus number Fred trotting around on the track of Barth Shaffer Kranz Spin to hoodwink the public?
Thanks for sharing with us how you know EUSD had other offers- so much for sealed bids. Must be nice to be 'on the inside'
Elementary, my dear Anon 9:53 - deductive reasoning! It is fairly easy to gauge the interest in the auction in spite of the bids being sealed. Prior to making any bid, sealed or otherwise, there is a minimum of diligence that needs to be performed by the buyers. To do that, the buyers needs to talk to the seller, the city, lenders, and other parties associated with a deal such as this. So while no one really knows what the bids will be, EUSD can gauge the relative strength of potential bids by the type of diligence performed by the buyers. And yes, lenders talk to each other, as do lawyers, engineers, developers, etc. For EUSD to take the city's offer, it had to weight the benefit of an offer in excess of $9.5M against the risk of that offer not closing. So what's the price of that risk? $1m? - easy $2M - little tougher - $3M - starts to be compelling - $4m? - take that offer! So by reading between the lines of this announcement, I'm betting that EUSD's estimate of bids coming in would not be in excess of $13.5M. Probably more in the neighborhood $10M to $11M, which then made it more compelling to deal with the city at a lower amount.
ReplyDeleteSo, the bids are still sealed, no one knows what the bids are, and you can still rest easy that the integrity of that process has been preserved. Another Anon on this board frequently suggests that a certain poster take a walk and enjoy the outdoors - clears the mind and offers a fresh perspective. Perhaps you should entertain such an endeavor?
- The Sculpin
Hello WCV-
DeleteI would be very interested to know if there is any factual data in the public domain on the offers being presented in this thread. One post presents a $9M number and the post above claims "more in the neighborhood of $10 to $11M". My understanding is the bids are sealed but perhaps I am wrong.
I remember during the Hall Park then Mayor Stocks let it slip at a meeting that the bids were coming in below projections- those were supposed to be sealed bids as well.
I wrote a community commentary on PV the Coast News was nice enough to print and I have also spoken on the subject at city hall.
More recently I retained legal counsel to explore if residents were being under-represented by the city council and EUSD.
I would be quite keen to know if the numerical offer facts provided in this post have merit? Surely the public would want to know. If you are able to get confirmation of competing bids or information that confirms the numbers being posted please post it for all to see.
Thank you
Andrew Audet
On June 6, 2007, unbeknownst to the public, until recently, when it was included in a EUSD Agenda report for a Board of Trustees Meeting, there was THE ONLY appraisal that I have ever heard of being done by EUSD of Pacific View. As I've said, it was before the housing market more or less collapsed in September of 2008, but moreover, it was done under the extraordinary assumption that the property would be rezoned to mixed use.
DeleteThere was no condition that the Old Schoolhouse would remain on the property, as I recall. But the other extraordinary assumption was that the property was being valued as a trade, not for a selling price. That amount was $13.5 Million. That outdated, different zoning comp is what Baird and probably the City are relying upon, NOT any "inside information." All of that speculation about whether there were actual bids submitted is pure conjecture.
The City is overpaying, almost three times the only relevant appraised value, in the current zoning, using local comps,in the current time frame. Because of that, and because Superintendents, since DeVore, when the school closed have maintained they do NOT want a one time injection of funds, but a revenue stream, the District should attempt to do damage control and carry the entire loan at ZERO percent interest, for 30 years. Then the District would get a 30 year revenue stream.
Past Superintendents, City Managers, Boards of Trustees and Council Members acted with malfeseance in not acknowledging the Naylor Act and at least considering purchasing 30% of the property at 25% of the fair market value, BEFORE the playing fields were paved over.
Current Superintendent Baird and City Manager Vina acted with malfeasance in releasing confidential closed session information, the irrelevant higher appraisal, in Vina's case, which used Wishire Blvd comps, throwing off the "curve," and releasing the City's confidential $4.3 Million opening bid of one million over the higher appraisal, in Baird's case, when the Superintendent ended negotiations and went to the press, despite a promise for exclusive negotiations for at least six months, which had not been met.
Both Baird's and Vina's vilations of the Brown Act have prejudiced the City, specifically the taxpayers, preventing us from being able to negotiate a more reasonable price. Once again, the higher appraisal should NEVER have been accepted, much less released. Once it's determined that price and terms will be discussed in closed session, then all of Council, or all of the Board of Trustees, or both, if the closed sessions are between joint ad hoc subcommittees, as in this situation, should have agreed.
Tim Baird, Gus Vina and Lisa Shaffer all violated the Brown Act and hurt the taxpayers by doing so. Only Lisa Shaffer has apologized.
Meant to say: Both Baird's and Vina's violations of the Brown Act have prejudiced the City, specifically the taxpayers, preventing us from being able to negotiate a more reasonable price . . .
DeleteThe few people that know if the EUSD did or didn't have bids are not going to risk their jobs, or positions, to let it slip they had a $9 million bid-or would they? Who does Fred know that might be interested in letting that little morsel slip? And why would Fred, who is usually quite accurate, spin it to us? He knows it was a sealed bid situation and the person could get into trouble by telling anyone. What are we missing? Who did Fred praise in the same post about the price? Who wanted PV so badly that they would risk putting the City into potential "super debt"? Who doesn't have kids to think about and what their future might be like with all of the debt we have managed to create in the 28 years we have been a city? He thanked Scott Chatfield, Mary Fleener, Sheila Cameron, Teresa Barth, Tony Kranz, Lisa Shaffer. He left out other major players. Quite interesting to my way of thinking. Did someone violate the Brown Act? And, yes that is a big deal in my opinion if they did do that. And why did Fred feel compelled to tell us that? I like Fred, I just am wondering out loud, or in this case, on this blog.
ReplyDelete10:15 - you are really reaching..........
DeleteI can't speak for FRED - never met the man - but I do know he's run a business for quite some time, and he's well connected in the community - and I'm fairly certain he possess a modicum of common sense. I get all my info on Encinitas stuff from the public domain, and even I know there were sealed bids in excess of $9M! Sheesh.......
- The Sculpin
Sculpin-Can you please provide the links or where the information is that says there were sealed bids in excess of 9 million? Where has this information been published for all of the community to see? Thanks
DeleteWith all due respect, Dr. Lorri - have you read my posts?
Delete- The Sculpin
yes, you pretty much read the post right Dr. Greene. Fred made the post that EUSD had an offer of $9M. Of course the bids were sealed and the art pulse bid was $7.5M so how did Fred get thist number?
DeleteNext comes in the other post from the guy with the horse also saying EUSD had multiple offers-
of course while both spread mounds of spin neither has presented a fact-
you are right to question them both- they have no answers-
11:07 - you are absolutely correct - none of us have presented a fact - what I have presented was my learned opinion. As I have said many times on this board, opinions are not facts. I am curious though: why do you insist on looking for facts where common sense says none exist?
Delete- The Sculpin
Fact-
Deletethe bids were sealed
there are no known other bids
Prove me wrong, give me a fact? I gave you two.
The Sculpin put in succinctly, in a way I never could, but I echo the sentiment. The kind of hard facts you're looking for in this situation don't exist..
Delete-Mr Green Jeans
The only reason I care is because it is huge violation of a lot of laws if someone said they had put in a sealed 9 million dollar bid. If they did, they should be outed. Laws get broken all of the time in this City and it might be nice to hold people accountable if they indeed did break the laws regarding the nature of sealed bids.
DeleteHi Sculpin-I thought I had read all of your posts, but perhaps I missed the one where you mentioned this. So sorry. Could you direct me to the post that relates to my comment, or at least tell me what thread it was on? I usually read everyone's posts, but alas, my memory sometimes fails me.
ReplyDeleteNo worries, Dr. Lorri - it's above at 10:13, but let me save you some time. The reason I "know" is because I'm inferring this to be the case based on EUSD's acceptance of the city's offer, backed by my overall knowledge and experience related to real estate transactions. And no, I'm not a Realtor or developer, or attorney.....
ReplyDeleteInferring means you don't know -
DeleteYea - just like when you infer that your kid took the car last night without telling you but he denies it.......that kind of "don't know".....
DeleteI would love to play poker with Sculpin. He would "infer" I had a winning hand whenever I raised, based on his overall knowledge and experience of why someone would raise. Ever heard of a bluff, just like Baird just bluffed his way to getting the city to overpay at $9.5 million?
Delete11:35 some common sense - thank you, you didn't even need to explain how you are not a realtor or developer
DeleteThat is why Baird's bluff worked. He used your confidence in your own "common sense" against you and the council. That's the game, and he won, ang got twice as much as the council needed to pay.
DeleteIt's called the "long con" in case anyone is interested in these things. And, it worked.
DeleteHe 'inferred I had the job' but then I got no offer, I am still unemployed.
DeleteFacts- do you have them? WHo offered $9M ? When was $9M offered? What happened to the sealed Bids-
ReplyDeleteInfer- "deduce, conclude"
I infer you are a liar as you have no facts. I infer you support raising taxes on families to pay for the failings of Barth and the council. I infer you are a spin doctor perhaps even hired by the city to put forth propadanda and misinformation. These things I do know.
Oh well - shame on me - I had an idea who I was dealing with here, but jumped in anyway.........
Delete- The Sculpin
Much debate here about whether the EUSD had other bids above the minimum, or if they were bluffing. I don't have the answer, but it's key to note that if the buyer wanted to rezone the property, they would have to calculate the risk, and discount the offer price from the estimated market value after rezoning to come up with a bid price. There are two key dimensions of risk on this deal: the outcome of the rezoning effort, and the time it would take to reach a legal conclusion on rezoning. On the first issue, a legal analysis would have to be done on EUSD's claim that rezoning is automatic under state law, vs. counter-claims that Prop A. should apply. If the buyer reached the conclusion that the probability of EUSD being right was 80%, they would still have to discount their bid to account for the 20% chance that rezoning won't happen. Then the bidder would have to estimate how long the rezoning process would take, assuming court challenges. The capital used to purchase the site would be dead money until the process completes. That money could have been used to fund other development projects that could achieve a profitable return faster. The bidder would have to calculate the value of the time and cost of rezoning, and discount the bid accordingly. I would think these two dimensions of risk are significant in a case like this one.
ReplyDeleteMy point is this: if the EUSD did receive bids over the minimum, the bidder would have to assess the value of the rezoned property significantly higher than the bid price. Keep in mind that the assessments conducted on the property don't account for the discounted risks.
11:41, somebody is finally talking sense that comes from a knowledge base. Unlike many other posts on this issue, 11:41 has given a rational analysis.
DeleteAll things considered, a measured guess is that EUSD didn't get bids at or above the $9.5 million reserve and that the proposed auction was a way to bluff the City into paying far too much for the property under threat of losing it to a high bidder who couldn't and didn't really exist.
Time will tell what actually happened. And regardless of however it went, there will be consequences.
12:29 I agree. I wondered if 11:41 might be available to do a forensic audit of the city's finances and accounting.
DeleteThank you
Andrew Audet
I kinda think the only way a forensic audit of the city's finances and accounting would happen is if it were forced by a lawsuit. I seriously doubt the city would do it voluntarily because what it revealed would be the truth, and that would be devastating.
DeleteAndrew: I cannot actually remember how many times I have asked the City to do just what you are asking. Jim Bond said he trusted our Finance Dept., Barth has not answered my request, and so on and so forth. I don't know any way to get a independent audit for forensic audit from this city. Seems like they protest way too much. The money that we have spent on other silly things, like Peak Democracy, the Lew Report, Rutan and Tucker, etc. could have been spent how finding out exactly what our books really look like. It also seems that the City Council of Encinitas does not want this, nor has it ever wanted this.
Delete10:24,
ReplyDeleteThought I'd ask you this before anyone else did...
"And just WHO told you there were bids in excess of $9M? Hmmmm? !!! Must feel special to be in the inn crowd. I've got a pretty good idea of WHO and I've got half a mind to post their full names soon for all to read!!! I used to respect you but now you've shown your true colors. So if it wasn't Captain Kangaroo, please tell us all WHO told you that. Pretty please with sugar on it? Thank you."
.
Hi Fred: I think you should post any names you feel like posting including the person that said he or she had put in a 9 million dollar bid. Thank you for all that you do for us.
DeleteThe developer who bought that pacific station property paid ten million for it one acre. The PV property is two and a half acres and has an ocean view,two blocks closer to the beach and you don't think they had other bids or it's worth 9.5 million dollars.Please explain!
ReplyDeleteSimple: PV is zoned public/semi-public and to be developed, it had to be rezoned to R-15 or something like that. That rezoning was by no means assured. That's the bottom line of the issue.
DeleteThe Pacific Station property was NOT in the public domain. Also, the City didn't do due diligence in requiring the amount of parking that it should have.
DeleteThe Pacific Station property involved a transaction between private parties. The Pacific View property transaction is involving a transaction between two public agencies.
for opener's John Dewald did Pacific station and even he walked away from a PV bid with art pulse at about $7.5M
ReplyDelete]
Second- consider that the council years ago re-zoned the 101 from commerical to mixed residential. That new zoning designation gave developers the right to increase densities by state law that trampled on local law- a good gig for developers, a hand out or bailout to increase value - the public lost their community characther, and Tony Kranz later ran around town spreading the misinformation that no upzoning had happened without a vote of the people- misinformation at best / an untruth at worst.
The PV was zoned semi - public not residential.
Very good question if one has not been following the story.
Incidentally, that same John DeWald, the guy who built what is arguably the ugliest building in Encinitas, is now president of the Encinitas 101 Main Street Association. The City gives that org $20,000 of taxpayers' money per year. The City also gave DeWald some kind of, hey, you're a really cool developer award.
ReplyDeletewhy isn't barth and shaffer giving more the community groups taht come down every year?
DeleteAs part the art pulsa offer Dewald agreed to pay 4 million dollars for five house lot and still you don't think it's worth 10. Million dollars . Really , I think your wrong
ReplyDelete2:22, if by "it" you mean the PV property, it was worth nothing to a private developer unless it was rezoned to permit development.
ReplyDeleteIf I am not mistaken 2:22, DeWald agreed to 3 million but that's really not the point. When the Art Pulse deal was on the table, why didn't it go through? Who held the title to PV? Was Prop. A passed? I would have to look all of this up, but this seems to be a different scenario, as the property at this time is not zoned for houses and cannot be rezoned, if the City goes through will all of the paperwork and EUSD accepts it. Perhaps now would be the time to ask more about how this is going to be paid for, and by who (or is it whom)? One cannot buy something without having some money to pay for it. At least that is what we citizens are told.
ReplyDeleteWe wanted this property dearly,three on this council stuck there neck Out and we have it maybe. How about GOOD JOB -----WAY TO GO ----- WE KNEW YOU COULD TO IT.
ReplyDelete2:40 with all respect you sound like the sucker at the poker table- just had to have it, willing to pay any price-
Deletetell me the boneheaded move of waiting until the 11th hour to make an offer- after Baird had watched the discussion from tthe comfort of his home while the council sweated helped Baird's position at all-
I didn't want it enough so that my kids will have to pay for it. Maybe you did 2:40, but a lot of us are struggling to make ends meet and the City is going to add a TUT tax, probably Weds. eve.
ReplyDelete2:40 Perhaps the three who stuck their necks out could also stick their wallets out to pay for this over priced piece of property. Now that would be considered a good job, and I'd give them a WAY TO GO at that point.
ReplyDelete