We still do not have an adequate focus on climate change mitigation and adaptation, especially with regard to sea level rise.Mitigation is obviously preferable to adaptation. If the council can put in place city policies that will slow or stop global warming, adapting to its effects becomes less necessary. The city's approach to global warming up to this time has been to encourage "Smart Growth," putting high-density development near public transportation in the hopes that people will give up cars and ride buses and trains. This approach appears to be a failure so far, as Smart Growth projects like Pacific Station and the Moonlight Lofts appear to be populated not by Coaster-riding commuters but by wealthy out-of-towners who use them as vacation party pads (and obviously burn lots of fossil fuels coming and going from Orange County, Los Angeles, Arizona, and beyond).
But even if we built high-density units near public transportation at prices that working families could afford, what evidence is there that the new residents would give up cars and rely on public transportation? Is there any realistic chance that buses and trains will so efficiently and conveniently get these people everywhere they want to go that they will forgo cars? It seems to us that if the City Council is serious about climate change, and not just using it as an excuse to approve big development, it would work toward policies disallowing parking spaces and car ownership at any new high-density projects.
But if our City Council doesn't have the power or will to slow or stop global warming, how will we adapt to rising sea levels? The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shows that mean sea levels are rising at 2 millimeters per year. If these trends continue, by the time our grandchildren are living in Temecula in 2064 and paying $50 to park at Moonlight Beach, the average sea level will be 2 inches higher. That's about the amount that the tide will rise over 15 minutes of incoming tide today. What will we need to do to adapt?
Stop building concrete sea walls that reflect wave energy such that sand is scoured out to sea.
ReplyDeleteEveryone within five miles of the coast should be willing to kick in a few bucks a year into a fund that will compensate blufftop owners when their home is condemned. I'll make that money back in my property value living near beautiful, natural, concrete-free beaches.
Spoken like a true communist!! Why not just condem all land within 5 miles of the coastline and force relocation on the population?? What a maroon!!!
DeleteIs a maroon a variation of a red or a pinko?
Delete7:39, defender of private property rights? Fine.
DeleteThen build it from your property. All the heavy equipment needs to stage on private property-nothing on the public beach. Private property rights stop at the lot line--no one has a "private property right" to drive heavy equipment onto land they don't own.
Likewise, private property ends at the mean high tide line. Everything below that elevation is public property. There should be no sea wall footings poured below mean high tide, because it's not your property. And has global climate change causes mean high water line to move up, your sea wall will likewise have to move up.
In short, if you want private property rights, then keep everything on your property. Build it from above, and hang the weight of the wall on the bluff--no footings on property you don't own. Good luck.
I cannot fathom the thinking that "private property rights" entitle blufftop owners to drive equipment and pour concrete on land they do not own.
It's insane.
As a true communist 7:39, I take issue with your depiction of one the capitalist war mongers on this board as a member of the red brigade.
DeleteSincereley,
Vladimir Iliych Lenin
Concrete abutments do very little to change the ocean dynamics. It is the massive change to the course of the inland streams that once carried sediment to the coast - and the harbor developments. The theory that bluff erosion adds significantly to the beach sand is wrong; it has been the river sand deposited off shore that was washed up by wave action. Federal studies and Scripps have come to this conclusion, in spite of what SurfRiders or any other misinformed group contents.
DeleteYoo are parroting lawyers for landowners almost verbatim, especially in your attack on Surfrider. Academic science disagrees with you. http://ca-sgep.ucsd.edu/focus-areas/healthy-coastal-marine-ecosystems/explore-beach-ecosystems/coastal-armoring
DeleteAgain with the data cherry picking! Two mm a year? That is ABSOLUTE global sea level rise. The ocean is not static, and yes, we still have storms, which are getting more severe and frequent.
ReplyDeleteAbout a third of the earth lives on a coast, as do almost half of Americans. Have you noticed that the 101 is only a couple of feet above sea level in Cardiff and La Costa, as are the coaster tracks in Torrey Pines and the I-5 at several points in SD county? I guess if you live long enough to see them wash out (and they will) you can make it to the Stater Brothers by driving down Leucadia, but I think the shelves might be a bit emptier than you will like.
America has been over-run by defeatists. Fascism, communism, and now Islamic fundamentalism? Not too big to tackle, but since we can't shoot the Atmosphere into submission, we should just kick back and order a larger screen TV from Amazon? "I've got mine, screw you" will look a little less attractive as a life philosophy when the large scale population migrations start in Asia.
This nihilistic attitude, that the problem is so big, so uncontrollable, and so much the fault of everyone else that we shouldn't even try to do anything, is so common that it makes me despair for my children's future. It is NIMBYism writ large.
The people who object to Lisa Shaffer's positions are not denying that there is a rise in sea level or whether global warming is real.
DeleteThe question that we have is if ruining the city in the way that she proposed will actually do anything to stop it! Adding denser housing will INCREASE the carbon footprint and will actually do the opposite of what she claims.
True, Encinitas could run 100% on renewable resources, but if nobody else does anything, it would be a total waste of time.
DeleteNobody is suggesting that Encinitas try to be Atlas Atlas. We don't have to move the Earth ourselves. Lisa's comments are quite productive if you consider the bellweather role CA plays in national and international politics.
Asserting otherwise is self-serving, willful ignorance.
Please explain how Encinitas could run 100% on renewable resources--particularly with the City's plan to increase population and density.
DeleteHow can increasing Encinitas density prevent the pollution that is coming out of China and other manufacturing centers around the world? Only about 4.4% of the world's population lives in the entire United States!!
Intensifying our density in Encinitas at the expense of people who live here could be taken to be self-serving or ignorant if it comes from the City or from developers.
1. That was a rhetorical construction. Of course it can't
Delete2. I don't know, but I have some faith in Yankee ingenuity. Besides, the rest of the world isn't so paralyzed by their exceptional self image that they will not act. Even China is doing something the Republicans refuse to try http://www.bbc.com/news/world-29334807
3. It could be taken that way, but most likely only by people with un-gored oxen.
8:10
DeleteAlso this: "Poor Countries Tap Renewables at Twice the Pace of Rich" Bloomberg News Oct 28, 2014 3:45 AM PT
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-28/cost-competitive-clean-energy-installs-surge-in-emerging-nations.html?hootPostID=ced3afda66c24aaeb1ffcdbd7ab701fe
7:37 your sky is falling scare tactics don't hold water (no pun intended) given the fallacious sky is falling arguments of the past-
Deletewho can forget the time magazine cover of the Ice Age is here ! followed decades later by "Global Warming is here" today there is news and evidence and photos that tyhe ice cap is growing, the polar bears Al- I got mine - Gore cried about are now growing in population-
You can keep your stack and pack densities, and your myth's as well
Go join Al in his Limo and Leonardo in his rocket trip on Virgin- jeez, you would think an environmentalist would oppose using all thsoe fossil fuels of a rocket to get to space- but no Leo
see how it works? I dod
I voted for Shaffer, and I don't read the newsletter. I suggest you do the same. She has already said she won't run again, so you don't even have to gear up to defeat her.
DeleteWorrying about paving the roads and paying for the parks, then tackle the ocean rising. We could be here all day debating global warming, and still be nowhere, because in this country it has become a political football, a front for people afraid of change instead of at least trying to look at the data.
Go Chargers!
11:34 AM
DeleteYou must not have the game on.
Yup, the game of life. Too nice of a day to watch the Stinkin' Bolts....
DeleteIts easy, 8:10. We just drink and water our crops with sea water. I hear its full of electrolytes that make things grow big.
DeleteThere is no evidence that people who will live in these proposed micro-units will give up cars! I did some walking in various residential neighborhoods where it appeared there were families with adult children living at home or adult roommates sharing a house had 3 or 4 cars parked in front.
ReplyDeleteHow would separating those 3 or 4 adults into small apartments solve this issue of adults who have cars? I respect those people who bike to work or who bike to the train station and take bring their bikes with them, but it is a very small number who do this. Most who bike sometimes still have a car for back up.
They would if we made no parking and no car ownership a condition of occupancy in any upzoned properties!
DeleteReally, isn't that something both the Smart Growthers and the community character folks can get behind?
Heck, it would help with the affordable housing thing too because the restrictions would cause the price and rent to be lower!
Maybe if the gazillionaires would allow commercial development anywhere near their precious ocean views, people could walk to the store?
DeleteOnce again, the perfection fallacy rears it's lazy head.
DeleteSome New Yorkers still have a car, and use it a couple of times a month. So I guess public transport in New York is a failure, right EU? Because only zero car use can be considered a success, right?
Math question: If access to good public transport options directly causes Resident X to use her car 40% less, then her use of the car has:
(a.) increased
(b.) decreased
(c.) stayed the same, because she still has a car
(d.) I'm too lazy to figure it out.
8:15,
DeleteHow many bus and Coaster trips does the typical Pacific Station resident or vacation home owner take in a month?
Want to survey them?
If the city is going to assert that high-density development near public transportation significantly reduces car travel, I think the burden of proof is on their side.
Want to survey them?
This is assuming that all other things stay the same! The City wants to increase building density and bring in more people. More people and more density INCREASE the carbon footprint--even if they are taking the future train and living in smaller apartments. This is not about the perfection fallacy. This is about diminishing returns or even negative results from policies that claim to do one thing and have the opposite impact!
DeleteEU,
DeleteAbsence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
We don't know if smart growth in Encinitas actually works. That's not evidence that it's not working.
I agree that there should be some test of the theory, some acountablity and measurement of results. If it's not working, then the next proposed project should have a pretty good explanation of what went wrong, and what's being done differently to remedy. This is how it works in the private sector. Try; measure; improve; repeat. If the results don't get better after a few attempts, then stop.
You must admit, your suggestion that zero car use is a rational definition of success is a lazy rhetorical trope. You are smarter than that--act like it.
8:21, you hit the nail on the head. This is about diminishing returns, those of property owners and Encinitas NIMBYs who have seen decades of amazing returns on their luck.
DeleteGawd forbid we try anything difficult or altruistic if it isn't a guaranteed outcome!
This looks like pretty good evidence of absence to me:
Deletehttp://encinitasundercover.blogspot.com/2013/11/smart-growth-fail.html
So let's take your suggestion, put the ball in the city's court to demonstrate whether Pacific View and Moonlight Lofts are working to reduce emissions, and figure out what went wrong before proposing any more high density.
8:21,
DeleteIf people do not move here, do they still exist, or will they be killed?
In my estimation, they will still exist somewhere else, and they will be producing carbon.
So, excluding people keeps local traffic down, but it doesn't reduce carbon.
EU 8:36, agreed.
DeleteWhy is it that you sound less altruistic and more self-serving than those of us who bought into a great place and want to keep it great? Are you a developer? Are you hoping to get subsidized housing like Shaffer and Kranz say that they want for their own adult children? Those ideas are not altruistic at all but are seeking financial or family benefit on the backs of taxpayers.
Delete8:39 Most who want to "keep it great" wish to do so without any additional effort or cost to themselves.
DeleteI am not a developer, in fact I personally oppose high density development on the coast. I'd prefer that people have ready access from everywhere, preferably on low impact transit systems, and that the lucky ducks who got there first would be forced to provide easements and infrastructure so the rest of us can get to what rightly belongs to everyone.
WC,
DeleteApparently, the senior housing on Via Cantabria has a condition of no car ownership for 50% of the apartment rentals. The development was built with limited parking. See how that is working out.
EU,
DeleteLet's also agree that what should be measured is not Coaster or bus rides by Pacific Station residents as you suggest. If the goal of smart growth development is reduction of carbon and environmental footprint, use of public transit is one small part of a larger whole.
If the residents buy their groceries at Whole Foods, and do their dry cleaning at Surf Cleaners, and but their clothes at Hansen's, and dine out at Q'ero, then those are all trips on foot. From an environmental perspective, that's even better than taking a bus or train, right?
Similarly, many of those residents have shared walls, ceilings, and floors not exposed the heat or cold of the outdoors, so their use of electric or nat gas for heating and cooling should be lower. Also, without a big lawn, their water consumption per capita should be considered.
If we really want to have measurement and accountability for a smart growth project like Pacific Station, the measure should look at the total average monthly car miles, water, electric, and natural gas consumed per resident--compared to those same figures for a cross section of residents living in more traditional single-family detached homes.
Right?
8:52, I don't understand what you mean here:
Delete"the lucky ducks who got there first would be forced to provide easements and infrastructure so the rest of us can get to what rightly belongs to everyone."
What is preventing people from getting to "what rightly belongs to everyone?"
9:03 Have you been to Grandview in the past six months? One set of stairs and about 60 parking spaces is a great layout great for keeping up the privacy of the bluff dwellers, but it's hardly ready access.
DeleteNow the bluffies want to build seawalls. I say fine, they won't last anyway, but these cliff squatters should also be forced to provide well-constructed beach easements and parking, showers and bathrooms, lifeguards and trash service for the rest of us.
An absolute exception would be granted to the Luiseno, Cahuilla, Cupeno, Kumeyaay, and Northern Diegueño tribes, who are the only ones with legit claims on those bluffs.
EU,
DeleteWhere'd you go? I thought we were having a productive conversation. You were enthusiastic about measuring the environmental impact of smart growth until my 9:02 post, but then you suddenly disappeared.
I wonder why.
Agree with 9:02. Let's survey car odometers and utilities over a month.
DeleteBut don't include part-timers in the per-capita count. They have more carbon footprint in their primary residences too.
9:12 - you sound envious and jealous- try earning your quality of life, not expecting others to pay your way. You want beach access that is easier for you - there are miles and miles of beach in Encinitas
Delete9:02- hey Einstein- why do you think each "unit" at Pacific Station has 2 car parking? Because Pacitic Station knows people don't want to live like third world chinese peasants and ride bikes- thye want freedom
DeleteTell you what, I will support a hihg density project and upzoning when there is no parking for any units and purchasers of the "units" are required to sign udner oath that they don't own a car
8:15 compared Encinitas with New York City- waht a joke, intellectually dishonest.
Delete10:21 I have a doctorate that I paid for myself and I spend my days developing drugs to treat cancer and heart disease. If I chose to squander my income on a house near the beach, I certainly could. Instead, I acknowledge that there are more important things in life than high profile consumerism and exploitation of resources.
DeleteSo, other than reveling in your perceived superiority, how do you spend your days, asshole?
10:50 wow, you have really built yourself up into something- jeez, to think you might be, as you say, a "bluffie" - yet you claim not to be concerned with consumerism, it sounds like you actually are.
DeleteI spend my days not worrying about what others have, telling the truth and treating others the way I'd like to be treated-
I don't lose sleep over people at Grandview, and there are miles and miles of beach access for all of us along the coast
10:21 EU,
DeleteTotally agree. Second homes should be excluded from both the condo and SFD counts. An empty house or condo uses very little power or water, but that doesn't mean the lifestyle of the homeowner is environmentally friendly. They could be busy during the winter months bulldozing and burning Amazon rainforest for all we know.
"I spend my days not worrying about what others have, telling the truth and treating others the way I'd like to be treated- "
DeleteBwah ha ha ha. Sure you do.
12:3. I'm not the one calling others ass**** and "bluffies" . Peace
Delete10:24, perfect example of the perfection fallacy.
DeleteAnd I will support capitalism only when every stock in the Russell 2000 is green for the year. Otherwise, capitalism is shit.
No, you said "try earning your quality of life, not expecting others to pay your way." Was "Peace" your intention there?
DeleteI stand by my initial characterization of you and your self-entitled ilk.
2:53, you support Capitalism every time you make a purchase. Leave the culture wars somewhere else...
DeleteQuit the childish bickering, we all have it pretty damn good...
9:12 AM Environmentalist by convenience and happenstance. Given this person will never own such property, (s)he can be self righteous about its use and ownership. Lower economic class disgruntlement obviously is the basis for this attitude.
Delete5:49
DeleteSo, the 1% demanding their "rights" to continue extracting from society is standing their ground, but the 99% trying to stop them is class warfare?
The tragic thing is that your type of defense is a conscious strategy to allow unfettered greed to continue for a small, dying group of narcissists, while billions suffer from your inaction. Nero would be proud of you.
Muir says to lash all his empty In N' Out styrofoam containers to the edges of the city limits and float the place, sort of like Waterworld.
ReplyDeleteEncinitas is a great place to visit for everyone. The best thing we can do NOW is keep it a great place to visit. The roads are in shambles here, more development equals gridlock and wear to already failing roads. More development means the ruin of what everyone likes about encinitas, you can hear the compliments from visitors at any coffee hang out. All effort should be on controlled growth at this point or we all lose... residents, vacationers, visitors. Ok development / social engineering crowd, have at it.
ReplyDeleteAre you arguing that Starbucks patrons should dictate social and economic policy?
DeleteSince we're talking in ridiculous absolutes, imagine if every single person who moves to Encinitas to live in "socially engineered" communities were somehow involved in reversing or mitigating the effects of climate change, taking the coaster to Sorrento valley to their engineering firms. Would you still oppose anything but the status quo?
Not everyone views the world as a place that is here to serve their every desire.
Of course not, Pannikin / Lofty patrons.
DeleteThe City will be using Peak Democracy with its hired fictitious personas that the consulting firm Parallax has been retained to create. Peak Democracy allows for responses to be changed or removed if the administrator doesn't like them.
DeleteConsidering what the Planning Department is doing for the Housing Element, I might actually trust local Starbucks patrons more than the City and the consulting firms that they have already spent another $300,000 to bring on!
Anyone dumb enough to drink Starbucks around here shouldn't have any say so. We have stellar coffee options around here.
DeleteThe roads aren't a shambles in Encinitas, they are in San Diego. We have some spots that need repairs, and they're actually doing it right now.
DeleteThis will always be a great place, why, the weather and the beach. Any other questions on why this isn't Escondido?
The token vote suck up road repairs are just that, an election ploy. Just like sealing the 101 a year ago, road shakes any car unlike, Carlsbad's excellent fix north of ponto, real road repair which is desperately needed throughout Encinitas!
DeleteI only buy my Joe at Stellar Coffee Options.
DeleteAs is usually the case everywhere, nobody addressed the fundamental problem: too many people. We're well on our way to killing the planet because there are too many of us.
ReplyDeleteContinued population growth will overwhelm and render any efforts to reduce damage ineffective. The only way to stop then reverse the negative impacts is to radically reduce population through attrition and halved birth rates.
10:58 how does Ebola fit in with that plan, along with ISIS and the rise of genocide in the Middle East? Is Ebola a UN population control measure to reduce population and control governments?
DeleteNo Ebola talk, that's for shut-ins who can't read. Let's stay on topic.
Delete11:10's post is especially stupid and irresponsible.
DeleteNo…. Ebola many eliminate millions of people. People are the problem. less people, less pollution. Its that simple.
DeleteMore agenda items for Shaffer -
ReplyDelete1. Intergalactic space alliance with the Greys.
2.Colonization of the nearest inhabitable planet.
3.World peace.
4. Putting 2 feet on the ground....
Wanna see the sea level lower 2mm per year? Take half the fricken boats out.
ReplyDeleteOr all the fricken surfers.
DeleteI never realized just how many people are so green with envy of those who live on the bluff. But if you don't like sea walls there, you don't have to live inland. Talk to any neighbor of someone planning a seawall on Neptune. There should be a lotto for the very day Beacon's Beach is barbed off.
ReplyDeleteBeacon access should be closed now. It's unsafe and puts the city at risk of a giant lawsuit when small little Bobby and Betty surfer smurf get crushed by tons of rock and clay.
DeleteI choose February 17, 2017. No wait, the city won't be open that Friday.....
ReplyDelete12:48,
ReplyDeleteWhat's not to love about yet another bailout for the richest 1%, this time for idiots who live on a cliff over a powerful, rising, and increasingly destructive ocean. I hope the coastal commission forces the seawalls to be torn down altogether. They are an eyesore and a reminder of how there are really two sets of rules in this country, one to protect the rich from any risks to their wealth, and another to help them acquire more wealth on the backs of 99% of Americans.
I'll ignore that second sentence,that must have been a good vintage.
As for Beacons, I think we all know who should rightly be paying for the upgrades necessary to make that beach truly accessible. Build a seawall in Encinitas, pay a surtax to improve Beacons. Otherwise, put in an easement and maintain a set of stairs to allow safe public access to the beach. The value in those homes makes for great collateral.
Borrow the money like the rest of us have to do just to stay afloat in a rising sea of inequality.
6:18 AM Hope Prop F passes so that you can get the mellow out dope for your attitudinal affliction.
ReplyDeletewhich attitude, exactly 6:26? The practical one regarding the wisdom of trying to hold back the sea with teaspoons, or the fact that the rich deflect criticism by claiming the charges are simply the result of bitter and envious emotions from their social and intellectual inferiors?
DeleteYour ad hominem attack tells me which side you're on.