First, Mayor Barth:
This ruling does not over turn the approval for the project but will require an Environmental Review.Where is Barth getting her legal analysis? From Lionel Hutz? Does she actually believe that the environmental report is a mere formality that won't require reconsideration of the project and cannot influence the outcome?
Or is she simply revealing the practical reality that the council has pre-determined to ram this project through no matter what the environmental review says?
Secondly, Council Member Shaffer:
Meanwhile, a judge ruled in favor of Olivenhain neighbors who sued the developer, asserting that a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) should have been required before deciding whether to approve a density bonus project referred to as Desert Rose.It's not the developer that was sued and lost. It's the City of Encinitas. The name of the case is Save Desert Rose vs. City of Encinitas. The judge ruled that the city was wrong to approve the project without consideration of an Environmental Impact Report. Shaffer's responsibility as a council member is to oversee staff as a representative of the public, so she should be keenly involved when a judge rules that city staff have done wrong or advised the council incorrectly.
We hope that Council Member Shaffer simply misstated the case, and that she's actually aware that this is merely the latest in a long string of costly staff and legal incompetence: illegally censoring free speech, illegally hiding public reports from the public, illegally dumping sediment into the San Elijo Lagoon, claiming to have a financial plan when they have no such thing, etc. We hope that Shaffer and the other council members are holding staff and the city attorney accountable for this stuff, but we haven't seen any evidence of that yet.
We'd be inclined to chalk up Shaffer's comment to a simple misstatement, but we're beginning to see a pattern of Shaffer linguistically distancing herself from responsibility for her actions. Remember when she was "sad at the divisive tone and misleading messaging" about Prop A?
I was dismayed by each comment written in each of their newsletters. Barth seems to be reacting out of anger and will not accept any blame for her own actions. Shaffer is quick to criticize anybody but staff. Both have made snarky comments in pointing the finger of blame towards the public.
ReplyDeleteI still maintain that it is the city manager in his weekly briefings with each council person who is influencing their views. And it's not in a direction to benefit the public.
Two linguistic twists: When rulings are cited, it's usually "the court ruled." Shaffer says "a judge ruled." And the court didn't "assert." It ruled that the City should have required an EIR.
ReplyDeleteReally, Shaffer set forth three disambiguations.
Delete1. Shaffer said the SDR neighbors sued the developer. Not true.
2. Shaffer said a judge ruled in favor of neighbors suing a developer. Wrong because the COURT ruled in favor of neighbors suing the city.
3. Shaffer said a judge ruled in favor neighbors suing a developer, "asserting that a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) should have been required before deciding whether to approve a density bonus project referred to as Desert Rose." More obfuscation. The COURT RULED a full EIR "should have been required before deciding whether to approve a density bonus project referred to as Desert Rose."
The more words Shaffer uses, to incorrectly report the decision, the more she attempts to distance the City from the Court's ruling, and the consequences of the ruling.
Is this cognitive dissonance? Or purposeful manipulation of the public? Does Shaffer think we won't notice?
Could catch 4:25.
That was supposed to be "Good catch, 4:24." But you probably figured that out a couple of days ago.
DeleteBarth is Peter Principled out - she is irrevelant and her "legacy" is of incompetence and failures to make necessary reforms.
ReplyDeleteShaffer is a piece of work - clueless and lost out of the rarified atmosphere of the Ivory Tower. Does someone have to show her where her car is parked when she leaves the office?
It's a city in crisis....
Barth honestly believed that overpaying for PV would leave a 'legacy' for her 8 years on council: and when the truth jumped up and bit her, that she had performed an even bigger mistake than her vindictive accusations the day after she was passed up to be Mayor in 2008, she couldn't believe it: she was and is a woman scorned by her supporters. Many times in the past there were accusations against others, irrational actions that brought pain against others, some very close; that will never be revealed because of State Personnel laws: but this is a constant pattern. Action to take power away from others: believing these action/s are correct/just, but soon learning in surprise that the community/peers find the accusations repugnant causing a public response by the aggressor of outrage, bitterness and white hot vindictiveness. Over and over again, this pattern presents, expecting new results.
DeleteQ:'Was Barth ever qualified?' is an honest question at this point? As for Shaffer's weekly mia culpa, has she considered resigning?
Shouldn't she consider resigning? Obvious that she is unhappy with her powerlessness: and as for the other, staff continues to note one 'flash' of temper after another, during city business; how long before the way of Sheila Cameron repeats?
Why don't you leave Sheila out of it? The rest of your comment could be legit, but that last crack does make you look as though you're Mike Andreen.
DeleteIn my eyes, and the eyes of many who voted for her twice, Sheila was a good mayor. She is the only ex mayor who has remained active, speaking at Council Meetings. Well, Dennis Holz did, a couple of times, on behalf of SRF, primarily.
Sheila Cameron is like Winston Churchill! He was a leader in war times and also had his down times in his career. I wish that Sheila would come back as mayor. It is about time we had someone to support citizens!
DeleteI love Sheila in a lot of ways, but the time has past, and we will have to settle for having her opinion at our disposal. Sheila running again would be a non-starter. once you're out, you're out. Ask Jerome, ask Lou Aspell...
Delete-Mr Green Jeans
Sheila has always represented the citizens of Encinitas. She has a strong personality, but give me that over a focus of so-called "civility!"
DeleteLeaving multiple foul mouthed threats on both staff and at will employees' phone message machines, probably means she would be removed from her council seat again if she were reelected, don'cha think?
DeleteSheila is to Winston Churchill as Mersa is to anti-biotics: whoever wrote that needs help.
DeleteI don't know which one of these two works without a brain. It is a very close race. Giddyup!
ReplyDeleteDog and pony show.....
DeleteCouncil and staff, and the City Attorney, who is a contractor, cannot learn from their many mistakes if they don't own up to them. They never have been able to, since the lies and disambiguations told in ballot statements in Prop A.
ReplyDeleteI will vote for any candidate that will fire GusVina.
ReplyDeleteVina is the one selling out the whole city. Vina needs to go back to N. CA and collect his huge Pension fund. Sad But True.
Do not reelect any incumbents .....period.
ReplyDeleteThe people of this city, county, state and nation must take back OUR govt .
Vote them OUT!!!
Dear Lisa,
ReplyDeleteYour statements were the ones that were wrong in Prop A. You told the voters things that were not true.
Ethics 100 - be truthful. Shaffer flunked.
DeleteTeachers need to learn what they teach!
ReplyDeleteShaffer continually tries to rewrite history - or is it reality? - when she "reminds" folks she abstained in the DR vote. She abstained in the full knowledge that her vote would count as a yes. So she voted yes in reality, knowing that's what she was doing, and I guess is counting on folks not to remember?? Too many were there that night to forget, good luck to her wiggling off the hook.
ReplyDeleteWhen Shaffer abstained on the Desert Rose vote, she did not know her vote would count as a yes. Sabine had to tell her that it did. Her abstention turned out to be symbolic, but that wasn't her intention.
DeleteShaffer lives on another planet. EARTH TO SHAFFER. Please call home!
DeleteShe DID know - Sabine told her and she continued with her yes vote "abstention," thus carrying out her real intention - otherwise why not say "no?" Agree on intention.....
DeleteShaffer did not know abstention meant yes before Sabine told her. When she found out, she could have changed her vote to no, but that would not have been in keeping with her reason for abstaining, which was that staff hadn't provided enough and good enough information to prompt a vote one way or the other, hence her neutral stance of abstention.
DeleteI just hope Gaspar doesn't miss any meetings when she's mayor in the next six months. We can't have Tony Kranz running the meetings, as the deputy mayor. If you want to see confusion on the dais, just wait for that to happen.
ReplyDeleteThe Union will supply liquid concentration for him.
DeleteShaffer and Fred should join forces on the art of obfuscation of facts with vague abstractions to meaningless analogy.
ReplyDeleteMusta hit a noive again with my eloquent neighbor who won't answer my left turn question. Oh, the sounds of silence.
ReplyDeleteBy "eloquent neighbor," do you mean Lynn?
DeleteThere is no safe left turn regardless of an eloquent neighbor. That's why ( shee can't say the word on this blog ) work.
DeleteI count 20 places to turn left onto 101 from west of 101 between A St. and Bishop's Gate. That's not counting Leucadia Blvd., but it is counting Marcheta because those north-south stop signs will go away if Streetscape is implemented.
DeleteCircular thingies are planned at four of those 20 left turns. So how is it that circular thingies at 20% of the left turns is going to be such a great boon to safety?
Are you expecting that everybody who wants to turn left onto 101 from west of 101 will drive to one of the circular thingies or to the light at Leucadia Blvd. to ensure their safety?
3:20
ReplyDeleteNo. Its either a neighbor or Alex Tribek, that tosses out those four hundred dollar college word categories like obfuscation.
6:20
Sparing the irritable choice of irregardless, That'll sit well with some here.