Others noticed it too.
From the Inbox:
"Sabotage" is a word usually reserved for headlines during world wars to describe the enemy's stealthy lethal destruction of our military factories. Of course, for the side that leads the attack those "brave special forces" are not saboteurs, but heroes. During such existential conflict language itself is in the service of stoking hatred against the enemy; so any talk of their legitimate motivations borders on treason.
I was a bit surprised by Monday's headline of the mass mailing by the "Save Pacific View" movement, featuring the accusation of the minority faction's "attempts to 'sabotage' the purchase." Yet it was effective. Hatred, rage at the "other" with all of the associated attitudes, along with the danger of escalation is very much a characteristic of our human species. If I cited examples, it would turn this little article into long sad list, one we all know too well.
The three acres described as Pacific View is not something to be saved or sacrificed, or land that may fall into the hands of our enemy- by sabotage. It is a property that has many potential uses, one of which is under city ownership that ironically is now only an idea, with the purchase predicated on this vague idea being transformed into something concrete that will be approved by future voters.
Most Americans decry the increase in partisan acrimony on the federal level, but without great disposable wealth an individual can do very little about it. Thus a city such as ours presents an opportunity to speak to those who make our laws and spend our money more directly. This makes the tone of conversation about this particular purchase of real estate all the more disturbing. "Rage displaces rationality" is a well known aphorism that is almost too self evident to validate.
Once we transcend the image of Pacific View as a living icon to be saved, we can consider its end use, now visualized as an arts center or performance space. Was there any conversation about the performance complex two miles away at the San Dieguito Academy, that unlike Pacific View has plenty of parking space and a new theater with acoustics for drama and music of all varieties. Did anyone from Encinitas even begin preliminary negotiation for a long term option on leasing time slots for this auditorium, something that would potentially benefit both the city's and school's financial needs.
I suppose my bringing this up could be considered a type of "sabotage" by some, which I regret for those who think this way. Yet, our political culture has descended to this mentality pretty extensively, meaning those who try to buck it or either ignored, if lucky, or become targets for those who seek objects for their ire.
Personally, I keep trying, leaving articles up on my personal website that I know will enrage one side or the other---with a hope that a few may take heart that such type of writing is still possible in our day.
Al Rodbell
Encinitas CA
Teresa Barth has never taken personal responsibilty for one thing she has ever done to the City of Encinitas.
ReplyDeleteShe and Tony and Shaffer wish to change the subject because they have buyer's remorse.
If continuing to promote fiscally conservative approaches to tax increases, incurring additional debt and increasing fees dramatically is to be construed as 'sabotage', then we might as well have Lynn, Juile, Donna, Lisa and Kathleen run the City... because they will run it off a cliff financially... oh, they already did. What? The Staff says that the City has plenty of money? Well, why didn't you say so? Never mind.
You are still trying to polarize, and sabotage, the conversation, 5:37. I know that I have tried in every way to have the City be fiscally prudent and financially responsible, including now, in negotiating better terms for purchase of Pacific View, with EUSD carrying the loan for 30 years at zero percent interest. Please don't call out our names without revealing yours. And please don't lump me in with Lisa Shaffer, if that's the Lisa to whom you are referring.
DeleteAt least they proved Al's point!! LOL. And Lynn, let's walk it like we talk it, EUSD isn't going to carry the loan for 30 years at 0% interest. Let's move along and come up with constructive ideas that might happen..
DeleteEUSD can't agree to something that hasn't been proposed, and insisted upon, by the City. It's not going to happen with a bunch of know-nothing naysayers sabotaging the suggestion.
DeleteOK, get it proposed. Your idea, your responsibility to make it happen.
DeleteTeresa Barth has never taken personal responsibilty for one thing she has ever done to the City of Encinitas.
ReplyDeleteShe and Tony and Shaffer wish to change the subject because they have buyer's remorse.
If continuing to promote fiscally conservative approaches to tax increases, incurring additional debt and increasing fees dramatically is to be construed as 'sabotage', then we might as well have Lynn, Juile, Donna, Lisa and Kathleen run the City... because they will run it off a cliff financially... oh, they already did. What? The Staff says that the City has plenty of money? Well, why didn't you say so? Never mind.
Double up, double up...
ReplyDeleteI think the public should be more involved in terms of what they would like the property of PV to become. I keep hearing about a cultural arts center, but I would like to hear more ideas other than just one. The author is correct in that there is a similar type of set up not too far away from PV that is already use.
ReplyDeleteThere is a forum on SavePacificView.org where many are offering specific suggestions. Why don't you check it out and leave your own suggestions? I have.
DeleteI, like Al Rodbell, am disappointed in the tone of the latest e-mailing. In a way it seems like a reality show, where drama, including hyperbole and rhetoric become valued above the facts, for entertainment's effect. I am very grateful for Scott Chatfield's website and for all those participating in the conversation.
But I don't feel that Mark Muir's agenda item was any kind of sabotage. I agree with Mark and Kristin that it would be fiscally prudent to consider how much the City, including the public, wants to spend on Capital Improvement Projects, before we consider hiring more employees, or increasing salaries, by passing intent motions with respect to operating expenses.
There is a difference between sabotage or being "obstructionistic," as Teresa Barth claims, in her most recent newsletter, and wanting to understand the big picture before dishing up slices of the whole pie.
Teresa's out guys, I would generally ignore what she says and does at this point, within reason.
DeleteThe problem with Muir's agenda item is it contradicts everything else he's done, or more accurately, not done in terms of fiscal responsibility.
it's a purely political move to please his masters, or look good during an election there. Muir is only on the council to look out for his pension, the FF's, and the development interests of David Mayer. Until he leads some true initiatives, I'll continue to write him off.
-Mr. GJ
Do what you want, green one, but Teresa still has a lot of influence, because she will continue to be the "leader" of the majority of Barth, Shaffer and Kranz, until she leaves in December.
DeleteI won't ignore what she says or does, at this point. I will after she leaves office, finally.
I agree that Muir's rise in power and pension was influenced by the corruption of our previous majority, although Maggie went along with the excessive pay raises, and increases in unfunded pension liabilities. By the way, we need a fourth tier of new hires who receive 2% pension of their compensation averaged over their entire time working for the City, not only the last three years. That is the way private unions work.
Because Muir's high pension is locked in, he is actually more independent than many are, or were, including Stocks. He doesn't need to rely upon developer money, as they did. You are no one, green person, to sit in judgment of just whom one's "masters" are. Who are your masters? The best thing that happened to Muir and Gaspar was for Stocks to be voted out of office, so they could separate themselves from his corrupting influence.
Write Muir off if you want, but your recommendations would have more standing if we knew who you are. Your anonymous endorsements, or lack of endorsements are actually irrelevant, and humorous, to me, although they may make for interesting reading, and could open further conversations, on this blog.
Whatever Muir's motivations, his recommendation for a hiring freeze was financially prudent and was and is appreciated, by many.
Gaspar and Muir have not separated themselves from Stocks. They are usually at parties together so he still has his hooks into them and they adore each other's tidbits on Facebook. I'm sorry you can't understand this Lynn and you are being fooled by them. The rest of us get that they continue to be his puppets. You will realize this one day.
DeleteThank God the bus boys and girls are taking notes at all these soirees.
DeleteWow, interesting take on Muir. You're actually backing him because his outrageous pension makes him immune to the tentacles of corruption, as if to say he's so corrupt he can't be further corrupted?
DeleteI have to say if Teresa's the leader of the triad, it's not much a leadership profile, not in the way it was under Bond, where and Stocks commanded Dallager or Guerin. It looks to me like a disjointed mess....
And actually, I do get to sit in judgment of Mark Muir because he's a public servant, one who gets to retire at age 55 at an ungodly high amount for his pension, and then sit on the City council and do nothing but guard that pension and the interests of firefighters.
I support the efforts of FF, especially after the week we've had, but the pensions, the OT the firestation costs are all UNSUBSTAINABLE.
I am my own master, I work for myself. And as I've said before on this blog, when you actually work today, especially as I do in the web world, you can't have your name out there on a blog. A lot of clients, businesses and prospective clients don't want to see your name out there. Hence, it can't happen. This is not a knock but a statement of fact, you clearly don't work or you would understand this. I have retired friends, and they don't get it either.
You still can't separate Muir from Stocks and Bond. Same goes for Gaspar. I'll be the first one to stand up and cheer for Muir if he leads the charge on a true pay freeze and becomes a beacon for fiscal responsibility, but so far, it's not true, it hasn't happened. And to give the other side of the coin, I haven't seen it from Kranz or Shaffer either.
I guess your reasons for supporting Muir are yours and yours alone, and we'll have to wait to see how it plays out.
As far as my relevancy, I haven't given a thought, it's the exchange of ideas on here that's important to me, this isn't my bully pulpit where I measure my self worth. If I have to go off my rating here, I'm in trouble!
-Mr. GJ
Green person, please stop twisting my words. I said nothing about "backing" Muir. I said I appreciated his agenda item, and feel that whatever Muir's motivations may be, his proposal for a hiring freeze was and is a good idea. It was also supported by Bob Bonde, on behalf of the Encinitas Taxpayers' Association, ETA.
DeleteCan you take the politics out of your need to judge people and to write them off completely? Let's talk about his proposal, not him, personally or politically. To my knowledge, Muir's not running for any office this time around.
DeleteHuh? It's ok for you to ask who my masters are, but I can't question you support of Muir. Okey Dokey. My point is, Muir's proposal is hollow, because he doesn't have the political will to back It up. It's a ploy, a stunt, gamesmanship.
I want to see him continuously propose money saving, outside the box alternatives to what we have now. To whit, I want to see Muir do some work, he has done nothing so far. Zip, zilch, nada. Throwing out a hiring freeze right now doesn't play. The timing is all wrong. Get that thought on the agenda at the appropriate time, or in private, but don't throw it in there in the wind and then expect a pat on the back.
Muir seems like a decent guy, I've talked to the man, but I DEMAND more from my elected reps. I'm keeping my comments on Muir strictly on his record, actions, or lack of actions on the council. I have a right to say what I want, just as you do.
Right now, he rates a D in my book, Gaspar an F, Everyone else a C-/D+. Like I said, right now, this council doesn't have the will or the skill.
It's Muir's ball to run with, we all know he used FF and David Mayer style backing to win, now he has to prove to ALL of us in Encinitas he can serve all the people. So far, he's a fail.
Your thoughts?
-Mr Stern Jeans
The radical fringe sees conspiracy around every corner.
ReplyDelete0900 Mr GJ, How does "Muir look out after his own pension"? His retirement is complete, he's paid by the state, we can't take it from him. If I'm wrong please correct me with facts.
ReplyDeleteIndeed.
DeleteIn Stockton, where Gus Vina began his career and learned about financial management, it has taken bankruptcy to even consider cutting vested pensions.
Despite hiring Stockton's finest, Encinitas is still nowhere near Stockton's situation.
Why is Muir on the council if not to serve the interests of Mayer and Stocks, who supported him get that higher pension back in the day? It's all tied together, and yes I know his pension is locked in, but we wouldn't want the light of days shone more on that pension through declining revenue, would we?
DeleteIf you keep development rolling, money flows into the city, and everyone keeps dancing. If development slows down and revenue issues becomes more apparent, perhaps that huge pension, shiny new fire station(s) and those other votes become a bit of a problem.
If you don't get why Muir is on the council, you haven't been paying attention. It's not out of civic duty, or he wouldn't be out with stocks at 11pm putting up campaign signs.
We have to do better, this guy is a joke....
6:48 AM
Delete"Despite hiring Stockton's finest, ...". So who are these people?
Wikipedia says: "Sabotage is a deliberate action aimed at weakening a polity or corporation through subversion, obstruction, disruption, destruction, or underhand tactics. In a workplace setting, sabotage is the conscious withdrawal of efficiency generally directed at causing some change in workplace conditions."
ReplyDeleteRealignment of the majority during an election counts as a change in workplace conditions.
Muir sought to weaken support for the existing council majority by creating the perception that PV forces reduction in service levels. He used an asymmetric proposal to do it.
Judge for yourself.
IMO, the email above mischaracterizes the current common meaning of sabotage. Silly word games.
The "perception" that PV forces reduction in service levels? In a world of limited resources, how could PV not result in a reduction of service levels?
DeleteBy your definition, any policy disagreement is "sabotage."
Not my definition--Wikipedia.
DeleteIf city revenues are expanding fast enough to accommodate additional debt service and/or the city can sell other assets to offset PV, then it's entirely possible to buy PV without reducing services. The economy is rebounding and parcel assessments are back on the rise. One might argue that there are better ways to spend the money, but it's not a zero sum game. Both sides of the balance sheet are dynamic.
Wikipedia didn't characterize a simple policy recommendation as "subversion, obstruction, disruption, destruction, or underhand tactics."
DeleteYou did.
And if revenues are growing so fast, why are they still neglecting road maintenance and pension liabilities, and zeroing out the capital improvement budget?
DeleteActually, I believe I said judge for yourself.
DeleteI can't even get No Parking signs installed on my street, that's how bad revenues are...
Delete6:48 AM, Don't you mean, 'Muir sought to try and stop the financial spillage after Kranz/Barth/Shaffer's upsetting the City's Bucket List by believing in a fake auction'?
DeleteIt's called 'The Short Con' in literature. The City could have had the property for between $4 and $6 million... No one was poised to overpay because they all have to make a living, no professional that is.
Think of Kranz as Pinocchio and Baird as Mr. Fox or Mr. Wolf.
And Pacific View as Boy's Land.
Hee Haw....
How does someone propose a citywide hiring freeze and then in the next breath talk about converting overtime at the Olivenhain fire station to three new full time fire fighters? If the council had followed the original agenda sequence the freeze proposal would have followed the budget discussion. Talk about inconsistency.
ReplyDeleteTalk of a hiring freeze before knowing what impact the PV purchase will have is jumping the gun. Once the terms are known, if the deal does go through, that is the time to discuss budget impacts. Until then it does look like grandstanding. Also, even if we can afford PV given current funding, that still means we can't expand in other areas. There will be trade-offs.
ReplyDelete?? Does not compute. ??
DeleteWouldn't a temporary hiring freeze make a lot more sense than ADDING STAFF before we know the impact on the budget?
A temporary hiring freeze is easy to cancel if it turns out the budget is fine, but it's politically impossible to fire new staffers right after they are hired (and insensitive and disruptive to the lives of the employees affected).
Actually, it isn't impossible to fire new staffers who have just been hired. Cruel yes, impossible no. If their positions become unfunded, unless there is another unfilled funded position for which they are qualified for then they will be let go. I've seen it happen. Sometimes it's higher level positions that get eliminated and they have bumping rights to lower level positions. The trickle down effect. Now maybe council won't have the political will.
DeleteAlso, you don't need an official hiring freeze to wait on filling positions. The city manager can direct HR to get approval before recruiting for an open position. The effect is the same but it allows more flexibility (which you may not agree is a good thing). This often happens around budget time (as it is now) and there are questions about funding. It's in the city manager's prerogative to tell a department to wait on filling a position although the council could explicitly direct that the position be filled immediately.
Purchasing PV is going to require trade-offs whether the council frames the discussion that way or not. If not in current project funding then future funding. You can't make a $10M purchase that doesn't have an impact on a budget the size of Encinitas. Whether you think purchasing PV for $10M is a good thing or a bad thing (I lean to the latter), it will have an impact and trade-offs will be made.
re: ". . .it's politically impossible to fire new staffers right after they are hired (and insensitive and disruptive to the lives of the employees affected)."
DeleteNow please explain why Muir's proposal was retroactive to 17 months ago.
"Positions, which have been approved by the council since January 2013 and any future
positions. . ."
http://encinitas.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=7&clip_id=991&meta_id=38747
I believe you just declared Mark Muir's proposal "politically impossible."
8:51 AM
DeleteAs I understand it, council still would have to approve the final PV purchase agreement where the terms are spelled out. That is the time to bring up a temporary hiring freeze especially when they are in the middle of budget review.
9:19,
DeleteHe didn't propose laying off anyone or making a "freeze" retroactive.
He proposed an analysis of needs including recent hires.
Seems like quite a reasonable proposal to me.
When you are in the middle of the budget approval process, the council is by default doing position review whether they think of it that way or not. The council shot down turning the part-time code compliance position into a full-time position during the current fiscal year. The change, if approved, will be in next fiscal year. All the talk of filling unfunded positions are for the next fiscal year start July 1.
DeleteThe only position currently being recruited is a temporary/seasonal nutrition coordinator. While there may be other open positions that have closed but no one been hired yet or the position hasn't been recruited yet, but there doesn't appear to be much going on in that area. I would assume Muir asked the city manager how many positions are open and intended to be filled during the current fiscal year.
On the face of it, a hiring freeze during the current fiscal year would have little effect.
9:29,
Delete"Analysis of needs including recent hires" is exactly what Council and City Manager do in a budget process. If that's what he meant, then he could have issued a simpler proposal: "I propose we do our jobs."
I happen to think he connected it to a hiring freeze for a reason.
Hey, I'm all for it, the freeze that is, the problem is Muir has no credibility of traction with his fellow council members.
DeleteYou can't sit there for several years, then suddenly try and turn into an activist and get support from your fellow council members, and in turn, the public.
You have to walk the walk. So again, I'll applaud Muir when he can get traction and get a permanent spotlight turned on wages and costs at city hall. As JB said "Saying it and doing it are two different things".
-Soul Brother GJ
My point exactly, Muir is grandstanding during an election year. He's not a fiscal conservative. If he's really got balls, let's see him cut some waste in the fire department....
ReplyDeleteAs to letting new employees 'go', recently a 'probationary' employee of the Encinitas Fire Department proved in under 90 days that he wasn't up to snuff and, in fact, could be a danger to his fellows: but, no one in the City of Encinitas could recognize that the term itself, 'probationer' comes from probation, meaning the young man was getting a try out.
ReplyDeleteBecause no one in Encinitas had ever let a probationer 'go', it took several months and had to be executed by... wait for it...the City Manager of Solana Beach... True story.
No one in Encitas City or Fire department knew how to 'let him go'.
Lesson, boys and girls, that's why they call it 'probation'.
This makes no sense on two levels. One, that no one in Encinitas knew how to lease a probationary employee. And two, the the city of Solana Beach's city manager could release a city of Encinitas employee. It's too cute by half.
DeleteEvery employee that isn't hired by contract is on a six month probationary period. Releasing them for failure to perform is, comparatively, easy. I've done it.
What may have complicated matters is that there was no evaluation or worse, positive evaluations that turned out to be wrong. While the criteria during the probationary period is lower, the action can't be arbitrary without risking a lawsuit.
As for the solana beach city manager, unless you mean he came up with the steps to follow, he couldn't execute releasing an Encinitas employee. If that position was assigned to solana beach and they did away with the position, I could see that working if there were no open spots in Encinitas fire.
Oops. I meant "release" in the second sentence not "lease".
DeleteAsk a firefighter from Encinitas before you judge, remember, the new Chief's position was empty for a while. CSA-17 covers 4 cities.Babaji!
DeleteHomework children! Or an eye exam...?
Doesn't matter. An Encinitas employee, is an Encinitas employee. The Solana Beach city manager has zero jurisdiction in Encinitas. However, maybe the incident refers to a contract employee in which case that may involve multiple jurisdictions.
DeleteWhile the vacant chief's position may effect the handling of paperwork, HR has the final say. It may be that the employee passed the probationary period without any action from the fire dept. due to chief vacancy. That would complicate things.
So once you're in at the Encinitas FF department, you're in. Classic story, thanks for sharing....
ReplyDeleteA hiring freeze can be recommended or proposed at any time. If there is great doubt that current finances will not sustain hiring more employees, then a hiring freeze would be in order to take a look at the financial situation.
ReplyDeleteDue to the recent purchase of PV and other projects that have been purchased and now need to be maintained on an ongoing basis for years and years, it makes sense to not hire any additional staff until the city knows exactly where they are financially.
Where will the funds come from for PV? Where will the funds come from to maintain the new park? These are questions that need to be answered. Will funding these newer projects take away from the other very necessary things that need to be done, such as, fixing our roads which are in terrible condition. Compare our roads to some of the cities around us and our roads are a disgrace in some areas.
I can not understand Muir's proposal for a hiring freeze, only to approve hiring more FF and additional staff for Parks and Recreation. A request is in for a Senior Planner. Is Muir going to be part of that approval?
Muir talks one way, but yet his actions speak differently which leads me to believe he is full of soot and ashes.
The city hasn't officially purchased PV yet. They've only committed to trying to purchase it which they can still back out of and lose $50k or not be able to secure funding and walk away with their (our) $50k.
DeleteIt would be unlikely that they would back out now after all the political wrangling. I for one think it wouldn't be a bad idea to sacrifice the $50k and go back to square one. Let the School Board twist in the wind then and figure out how to sell that property...
DeleteNo way will they back out on the deal. They have to save face and besides they need another "trophy" project to brag about.
DeleteI don't think the City should take the risk of losing Pacific View. However, Council should not be making decisions out of fear. Any decision, any action, involves some risk.
DeleteThe City should ATTEMPT to be a strong negotiator, by ironing out better terms. A knowledgeable friend, with an accounting background, sent me this suggestion, by personal message: "Hi Lynn, one strategy that the council might use in buying Pacific View is to offer at full price of $10M. One half on $5M is all principal the other $5M is prepaid interest.
Payments amortize at $33,333.00 monthly for 25 years. Some financial details could be worked out and security for the development loan would have to be lease option bonds secured by other assets. Here is the income stream that Baird wants, he can also sell the loan to others and cash out later. As the poet said `With them the seed of wisdom did I sow and with my own hand labored it to grow and this was all the harvest that I reaped.'"
When I divide $10 Million by 360 (30 years x 12 months), I arrive at $27,777,78 per month, with an interest free loan.
So, using my friend's suggestion, above, the City would be paying $5,555.22 more per month, but much less, I feel certain, than if Council were to float another lease revenue bond, in which case we would be paying the debt service to a for-profit banking institution, and would also have the added expense of obtaining Bond counsel. Moreover, using my friend’s suggestion, the City could also save five years of payments, from my suggestion of an interest free loan, at $27,777.78 per month, for 30 years.
I had written Council and asked for not only a hiring freeze, but also reducing compensation by 20%, down to $100K per year, for all employees and contractors making over $100K per year. So someone making $105K, now, would NOT see a 20% reduction in pay. Also, contributions by all employees for pension and health benefits should be increased. That can be negotiated; currently I believe that the City employees' union is working without a contract? I had also asked, several times, for Council to consider hiring two half time Code Enforcement Officers (CEO's), instead of another FTE (full time employee), for further cost efficiencies. All of my suggestions have been ignored by Barth, Shaffer and Kranz, although Mark Muir did ask that hiring two half time CEO's could be considered.
With respect to tonight's meeting, now is not the time to commit more funding to a fancy new lifeguard tower. Council chose, instead, to use taxpayers' money for a lifeguard garage on the bluffs at Moonlight Beach. Many of us didn't want that; the public wasn't asking for that. The Mossy Public Works Yard is nearby. Under our new City Manager, Gus Vina, Council continues to "shoot for the moon," as Christy Guerin had suggested, with respect to funding and building unnecessarily extravagant new fire stations. Don't pin that all on Mark Muir. He wasn't present when that plan was set in motion. Teresa Barth originally abstained, saying she didn't know enough, but later caved into the pressure, and went along with the plan, although Bob Bonde and the ETA consistently recommended against overspending for each station, which fire stations only have an overnight crew of three or four firefighters at one time.
I'm not sure I follow your friends logic. The city is looking to finance the purchase price of $10M which is the $10M to EUSD. Why would EUSD care about prepaid interest when, as far as we can tell, they aren't carrying the loan.
DeleteSculpin, help us out here.
It appears that no one here cares but the lifeguard tower at Moonlight is too small and is falling apart. They aren't looking to replace it with a "fancy" new one.
Delete1:36 PM
DeleteDo you need glasses? The current lifeguard tower of 1100 square feet at Moonlight beach will be replaced with a Marine safety center of 2200 square feet. The lifeguard tower is too small for what? Watch over the beach and water? How many lifeguards will be in this new castle? How many hours a day? Why not use one of the lifeguard towers that are used up and down the beach? Three million dollars for the new lifeguard building on one small stretch of beach? Crazy, crazy.
2:15 PM
DeleteA castle??
Have you actually been in the current lifeguard tower? Your suggestion that they can just use one of the temporary portable towers leads me to believe you just aren't familiar with all they have to do.
The garage allows them to park their vehicles someplace other than on the beach itself or off-site, as well as providing additional storage space.
Oh and thanks for the glasses suggestion but I just got new ones last month. They work quite well.
Sounds like an interesting idea, but I'm not sure it matters what you call it. Basically, the deal as described by Lynn's friend sounds like $5m down, $5M financed over 25 years at 6%. I'm not sure that's the deal Lynn is looking for.
Delete- The Sculpin
No, thanks for offering to clarify, Sculpin. I think that deal would make sense, but I'm not sure that the City could afford the $5 Million down, without another Bond?
DeleteI'll e-mail and ask if that's what my friend meant.
Sculpin. Thanks for weighing in. I wasn't sure where the advantage was. Does the city have $5M to use as a down payment? If not, then they would have to finance all or part of that anyway. Is the idea that if EUSD carried the other $5M, that Lynn's friend's proposal would result in a better cost for the life of that loan? Hard for me to say.
DeleteBut since they will be talking about it in a few hours, I'm just going to wait until afterwards to see if it makes any sense.
Here is my friend's clarification:
Delete"EUSD would get all of the principal either way, all $10M. If they want to cash out up front then our cost of purchase would double at 5%. 20 year cost of $20M. No deal.
Under them $5M principal value this would meet the median appraisal , the prepaid interest of $5M paid monthly pays the district a total of $10M over a 25 year term payable monthly @$.33333.33 for 300 months."
That should read, above:
Delete"Under the $5M principal value, this would meet the median appraisal , the prepaid interest of $5M paid monthly pays the district a total of $10M over a 25 year term payable monthly @$33,333.33 for 300 months."
2:48 PM
ReplyDeleteWhat all do they have to do?
How did the $1.1 million dollars garage come into the subject?
Because the City chose, in July of 2012, to float another lease revenue bond and raid earmarked city accounts, to gather together $19 Million for the Moonlight Beach Improvements and the Hall Property Park construction as a sports complex.
DeleteAlthough Kristin Gaspar, and members of the public had publicly questioned the wisdom of the parking garage, with Kristin bringing up more pressing needs of improving the lifeguard tower, those questions and objections were ignored.
Gus Vina and Council, including Stocks, Bond, Muir, Barth and Gaspar, decided to go ahead with the $1.1 million dollar garage, and consider the lifegaurd tower improvements, and the funds that had been raided in budget discussions, which were to be forthcoming in May of 2013, so a year ago.
The garage was mentioned by Lynn. She didn't see it in a positive light.
DeleteOne of the bigger areas in the proposed new tower is the first aid area (250sf) which is really small in the current tower. Also, 430sf of the upper level, according to the agenda report, is the deck.
3:12 PM
DeleteLynn, "parking" garage?? It's a storage garage like a typical home has. You'll notice that the current tower has no such facility. Now they do. And they put a deck on it so people can look at the water and they have a place for bands to play during the summer series. Or are you against that too?
I feel the money could have better gone to improving, not replacing, the lifeguard tower, rather than building a $1.1 million garage on the bluffs at moonlight beach. Council must do the hard work of setting priorities, not just approve every request, willy-nilly.
DeletePeople could before stand or sit on the bluff and look at the waves. We didn't ask for and we don't need a $1.1 Million cement structure to stand on as an observation deck.
Also, most of the equipment could be stored at the public works yard. Vehicles, except for the one in use, could also be parked at the public works yard, after hours. It's very nearby. One four wheeler sand vehicle took up less room, on the sand, than the new garage.
All garages are for parking and storage, but all garages aren't built on protected bluffs, and all home garages do not cost at least $1.1 million, which could have been better spent on the lifeguard tower.
ReplyDeleteThat Kristin Gaspar, thank god we have her on the council. She's doing such a great job looking out for our interests. Shucks, she's so wonderful! Let's give her another four years to perform her magic tricks and strut up and down the runway, er sit on the dais!
If Lynn kisses up to Kristin any further, she's going to need more chapstick. I don't think she's going to let you off the hook on the granfathering in of accesory units,your hopes will go down in flames if that's the hope on that one.
Gaspar has done nothing, except participate in the raiding of funds and help the Hall Property park get rammed through. She gets an F here along with everyone else...
According to a recent court ruling, accessory structures are grandfathered in as "legal non-conforming," if they pre-dated the City's incorporation. This is the same principle that elevated pads or three story structures are grandfathered in as legal non-conforming, if they pre-existed the effective date of the Right to Vote on Upzoning and raising height limits Initiative, aka, the enactment and effective date of July 29, 2013, for Prop A.
DeleteSimilarly, off street parking is not required for residential uses which pre-date the newer parking laws which became part of Encinitas Municipal Code in 2002-2003. Although that specific parking code specifically states that existing parking is not non-conforming, only because it pre-dates the off-street parking requirements.
Good luck getting that to fly with the city, hope you have a good lawyer....
DeleteGaspar personally saved New Encinitas and overturned the General Plan Update while Teresa was behind hiring MIG for a mil and Tony and Lisa were leading anti-Prop A meetings. That alone is worth a good laugh. If you weren't addicted to Kirstie Allie videos of Dancing With The Stars, you'd know that, boffo!
DeleteI don't need good luck; because I rely on the truth.
DeleteThe City needs to follow state law, our General Plan, case law, and our own Municipal Code. Recent court rulings and declarations by County officers that the City has not maintained permits that were turned over to them have received official Judicial Notice all the way up to the State Supreme Court level.
The City needs a good lawyer, but doesn't have one. Another broken promise.
What happens on the other beaches where there are lifeguard towers? Does the lifeguard send people over to Moonlight beach for stings? Do all the lifeguards get together after their shifts and shoot the %$#% about their day at the new Marine safety center?
ReplyDeleteTalk about rebuilding the tower at the current size of 1100 square feet and cutting the cost to less than $1 million dollars.
The Moonlight tower is the main tower and the only one manned outside of summer. It is also the central communications facility. All the guards in the portable towers have mobile units and not much in the way of first aid. That is handled at the main tower and if required a vehicle is sent to get them.
DeleteWe could save even more money if we just didn't have lifeguards at all and let the State provide them as they do in Cardiff.
While you're bitching about the money spent remember a good chunk of it came from a state grant which was originally targeted for Beacon but managed retreat got in the way.
How much was that grant? Wasn't it for about $2.5 Million? Or less?
DeleteThe total that was bonded or came from raiding other City "committed" funds, such as Open Space and Habitat, and Flooding funds, was $19 Million.
According to the July 11, 2012 staff report (page 5) $1.9M.
DeleteAlso, no funds were "raided" for Moonlight. Seven million ($7M) was transferred from other accounts for the community park. The shortfall for Moonlight was financed.
DeleteTo be clear above, the $1.9M was from the state grant. The total project cost was $4.8M.
When did the final cost accounting on Moonlight Beach come back before the council?
DeleteGus Vina admitted Wednesday night that other accounts were "scrubbed." You don't have to call that raiding funds, but I will continue to do so. Those were COMMITTED funds, including Open Space and Habitat fees paid into by developers.
DeleteBy managed retreat, you mean bluff failure???
DeleteSo you've never started saving money for, say, a new TV or to go on a vacation only to change your mind and spend it on something different? It can be the result of something unforeseen or a new opportunity.
DeleteYes, the council made a trade-off decision. You happen to not like the project that that trade-off was made for. We heard you on that point. That doesn't mean making the trade-off was unwise.
There are trade-offs being made for PV. While you disagree on the amount, you agree with the purpose. It works both ways.
3:52 AM
DeleteBoy, I thought I stayed up late.
The State Park's plan for the state beach which includes Beacon, states that it will be bound by the managed retreat philosophy and allow no reinforcing of the bluffs. The plan dates back to the '80's but it caused a disagreement between State Parks and the city on how to construct a replacement for the access path at Beacon. They were at a standstill when the city requesting shifting the grant from Beacon to Moonlight or risk losing the grant. Recently, it appears the State Parks is becoming more flexible about Beacon. Stay tuned.
You are comparing apples to oranges, 11:20. Yes, people can change their minds when they decide to shift funds from one account to another, or from savings to more liquid checking account.
DeleteMy point is that some of our City funds, including the Open Space and Habitat fund are funded through developer fees. When that fund was "scrubbed" or as I see it, raided, then the fees that those developers paid for a specific, committed purpose, were transferred over to the General Fund, for a different purpose. This is a kind of bait and switch, and turns those fees into HIDDEN TAXES.
At last Wednesday's City Council Meeting, Gus Vina seemed excited at the prospect of again "scrubbing" allocated funds. He suggested that's the wise thing to do when there is money sitting in an account that's not enough to accomplish the purpose of that fund. Well, if the Open Space and Habitat fund gets scrubbed every couple of years, then there will NEVER be enough money in that account to use the money effectively for the stated purpose. So that kind of "scrubbing" amounts to malfeasance and fraud, in my eyes. The Grand Jury should be informed.
2:22 PM
DeleteFrom the July 11, 2012 staff report:
Habitat/Open Space/Park Acquisition [Fees]
Available Funding to Redirect$ 821,155
The project is acquisition and preservation of habitat/ open space parcels from willing sellers supporting habitat preservation and open space goals. Funds are intended to be used to leverage federal and state funding sources. Proposed funding redirection is from Park Acquisition fees. Although this is not available for park construction, it could be used for acquisition of the park, i.e., reducing the existing park acquisition debt which would free up General Funds for park construction.
So would you be in favor if this was used instead to purchase PV?
If you think the misused these fees take them to court.
5:04 PM
ReplyDeleteYou hit the nail on the head. Let the State provide the lifeguards. Three million dollars save in building and how much in salaries?