Shaffer is asking whether Murphy has considered impacts on schools. Jeff Murphy telling false information again that it will be included in the EIR. It is Murphy's job to provide an analysis on each parcel before council makes any decision.
As long as Bonde and Ehlers are winding up the Bates Nut Farm Sisters, Denise and Susan, and sending them up to make ridiculous accusations against the council and be consistently rude: and not in any amusing way, why shouldn't Andreen continue?
It's pretty clear that both Martin and Turney are incapable of understanding the law: ANY laws, telling the millinneals to move to Pacific Beach was hilarious.
When is Denise gonna shake her dirty air-filter in the council's faces again.
Marco Gonzales and Andreen might be getting together to sue the city over the Housing Element if the city council doesn't approve a Housing-Element. Tag Team, Gonzales-Andreen versus Cameron and Bonde, WWE this next Monday night.
Gonzales' lawsuit threat was laughably predictable and Andreen incoherent and irrelevant as always. No surprise that this meeting lured them out...they have incomes at stake here.
Let the land grab begin, step right up and rezone, folks! There's gold in them thar underutilized parcels. Be the first on your block to step right up, take the money, and move to RSF!
So much for Ruben Flores' prediction that if you upzone, no one will want to...whoa, watch out, Ruben! There's a stampede a-comin' your way!
Nothing is ever gonna be allowed to be approved by the voters that would be worth investing millions upon million of dollars without knowing for a fact that you would make your money back.
I'm guessing that that was what Ruben was trying to say.
Low light of the night, Kathleen Lindermann kissing Ehler's hand, literally.
Note-Carry airsick bags to next City Hall public hearing.
Whether the voters will approve anything is a different issue.
The point is, if the upzoning happens, it's gonna get built.
Perhaps Mr. Flores would be so kind as to share with us examples of where R-30 upzoning happened in an expensive, built-out coastal city, and didn't get used.
Planning commission - useless. Check out their decisions. They rubberstamp everything. At least 2 of them are off the commission for a year. Grossclose and Shannon - don't let the door hit you on the way out.
There's nothing that doesn't confuse him, is there? The fact that the underlying zoning would change to 10x the current completely escaped him...and Murphy & Co. did not see fit to enlighten him.
One targeted property for up zoning Sprouts center. The owner was on ERAC? Another property is Ralphs. The representative was on ERAC? Another is the burn dump behind the Sheriff's station. Great place for market rate or very low income families. So who owns the other properties? Why didn't Jeff Murphy do his job and write up the full analysis for each property instead of telling the council it will be done by the environmental consultant? Another $400,000 taxpayers are footing so Murphy can avoid doing his job.
Doctors call this delusions of grandeur. Also interesting, Tony emulating Dalager and developing city owned property on Quail Gardens Drive: without the knowledge of the staff or council.
Council wants to destroy city hall for high density market rate apartments with underground parking after they eliminate the coaster parking for more market rate apartments on those lots.
sounds good to me. I would call that wise redevelopment. City Hall is poorly designed and wasted space. It right next to the train station. It should be higher density. Top units would sell for big bucks with those nice ocean views.
The city hall property should become something like Del Mar Plaza, with park-like, ocean-view plazas open to the public, and extra public parking underneath for downtown, coaster, and special events (parades, street fairs, cruise nights).
With underground parking, Pacific View has enough space to accommodate a new city hall, integrated with the arts facilities. Conference room by day; gallery at night. Performance space Tuesday; Council chambers Wednesday.
Pacific View with underground parking??? Obviously the advocate of this absurd notion hasn't been there - it is almost immediately adjacent to the sandstone bluffs. You don't start digging holes in that fragile geological environment, unless you want to spend untold millions on questionable reinforcement augmentations. It is a neighborhood - not suitable for additional heavy traffic loads or non-compatible business activities.
Perhaps you can explain how the underground parking beneath the condos on Sealane Drive (two blocks south of PV, and closer to the bluff edge) have remained for decades with no problems.
Also, the current City Hall is in Encinitas Highlands, surrounded on three sides by residential neighborhood.
Yup, sell city hall to developers and convert PV into the NEW and IMPROVED city hall. Just as Shaffer and Kranz have planned. As has been predicted on this blog by those that know.
The sales tax, property tax, and proceeds from sale of the current city hall parcel would probably be more than enough to fund all construction at Pacific View.
8:14 AM And how many parking spaces is that? What is needed for a City Hall? Size matters. This location (PV) is deeper into the neighborhoods - the current location was previously commercial. PV never was.
Gaspar's criticism of E-Townhall has me scratching my head.
Conventional wisdom holds that Gaspar owes her political success to backers from business and development sectors. I would think her base wants the HEU to run smoothly to a 2016 yes vote, which would open up new opportunities for profitable development and new business creation in the multi-use spaces.
Last night, Gaspar's little spreadsheet undermined the usefulness of E-Townhall as a public polling tool. The "yes" side of the ballot prop would like to have a long list of effective tools and processes used to gauge community opinion in the HEU. Voters who really don't follow local politics are more inclined to trust the process and vote yes if they think everything reasonable has been done to build the HEU with community consensus. "Just trust us--We did all of these things to assure the best HEU."
Gaspar's criticism of E-Townhall didn't expose anything new or particularly interesting. But the fact that it came from her will be used next year to argue that at least one major part of the process was hopelessly fouled up, and therefore the HEU cannot possibly reflect the will of the community.
Basically, Gaspar's analysis gave some support to the "no" side of the ballot prop, which seems to act against the interests of her presumed backers.
Is she more independent/neutral than thought? Is she not smart enough to realize how her analysis would affect the debate? Is she nuts?
I was thinking exactly the same. She had me confused on this. She almost seemed to reach out to the no side. Did she get a head trauma we don't know about?
Conventional wisdom can be wrong. I think Gaspar was refreshingly and amazingly honest last night in her genuine disappointment that the "community-centric" input she was looking for had not been produced by the e-town hall approach. It was even more impressive for her take such a stand because it was counter to the conventional wisdom about her.
Only Jeff and Manjeet think that e-Townhall was wildly successful. The very first public speaker showed the figures of only about 100 participants for each of the five communities. And a portion of those were in support of "no build." All the rest were anonymous and elected to not complete the survey. No reasonable person can say it gave any usable input. Gaspar gets credit for being realistic whatever her ultimate motives are. When her buddy Mike Andreen fumbled his way through an incoherent ramble, she had no choice. It's her political future after all.
The majority of people don't give a damn. As long as you're not taking their SSI, food stamps or pensions they are a get along go along society. No amount of community input matters. Money talks and the whiners will whine....
Why was Mikey at a secret meeting with Gaspar and property owners on Saxony with the Housing Element candidate map before anyone in the city had seen it? Gaspar already stated in a meeting she was "required" to be there, but why is Andreen involved?
The luncheon being asked about was a Network luncheon, in April of 2014: Andreen's 'Map' was created from the 'maps' included in the September 25 2013 City Council presentation (Pages 4,5 and 6) by the Planning Department. Anyone seeing the Candidate Map during the hearing could identify the most of the proposed properties. All it takes is an MLS book. Just because Andreen reads the Council Agendas doesn't mean anything is secret: the map, made public in the 9-25-13 council hearing was made up of the GPAC 1 and 2 maps, Erac map, Planning Commission map and state tax benefit locations for affordable housing. Over 90 lots were identified by staff on 9-25-13: Andreen wanted to make sure that each and every property owner was aware they had been targeted: by the citizens on all 3 public committees, Gpac, Erac and PC and, in fact, several of those contacted by Andreen had missed the City's flyer on the subject and contacted the city for more info.
As for the luncheon meeting, the Network, is a private group that does not receive city funds) and Mrs. Gaspar was a guest, period.
Otherwise, just because Andreen wasn't asleep at the wheel like Pam and Bruce, blame them, not Andreen.
They proved their incompetence by promoting Sheila and Julie for office, don't you think?
So you DO acknowledge there WAS a meeting in April 2014. Exhibit A. Thank you!!! And you are called The Network and now you confirm Gaspar attended. Doesn't take much for people like you to "take the bait", does it?
The only 'bait' is, once again, some folks cannot figure out 'How' the municipality legally works. Should have stayed sober during those Civics classes, Bruce, but airplane glue and paper bags were so cheap and accessible back then, weren't they? Still campaigning from the office?
A business association, not subsidized by a government agency such as the city, doesn't have the same kind of noticing requirements. The meeting wasn't "secret." Apparently, from Council, only KG was present, as a guest. Nothing illegal or unethical there. In this case, MA, did help property owners to receive notice, which he garnered through examining public documents.
Don't agree. By bringing up her concerns about the e-Town input, Gaspar was the only one from council, planning commission, and planning staff that voiced any hesitation to accept the flowery report by staff about the community input. She changed the course of the discussion; she was hardly going along with the rest of the huffing and puffing going on. She should be commended for that. Her analysis made sense, and was beyond what anyone else on council or the planning commission had attempted.
I agree strongly. The small sample size means that only a handful of people can totally skew the results. The vast majority of citizens either couldn't use it or maybe they don't care. Keyboards can't replace face-to-face discussion.
Yes, both Gaspar and Muir opposed the contract with Peak Democracy, from the beginning, and objected that when it came before Council, it was already a done deal. They both were consistent on that on Tuesday and Thursday nights.
Gaspar is now voicing her concern over E-Town because her friend $tock$ had his name used with it. Anything else she said, is just for show. If she is the only one against something, she stands out. That is all people remember. Follow her previous votes on council. It is not hard to figure what she is doing.
She stated that she had expected to see that the majority of responses would come from people living in the community who were expressing what was in their best interests, but instead found that the majority of responses were from those outside of the community. If it is anything like the Health Element that was thrown out, City staff were recruited to participate--which is a very bad thing since they are prone to support programs that benefit them and which citizens will have to pay for.
I thought that Shaffer, Blakespear, Kranz and Flores were all fighting to see how far they could lower the bar on acceptable behavior. They are willing to rubber stamp ineptitude or the appearance of fraud.
Oddly odd that the "resident preferences" map matched nearly exactly to the city's planning dept/developer-chosen one. Very odd. Some might say suspicious.
2:10 How odd that Gaspar would expect responses from people living in this community, when during her campaign the money was flowing in from outside of this community to support her election.
Here's a question. You have a use permit for your property. You buy the next door property. The next door property needs a use permit to fix it up. You can't legally get a use permit on the new property because of financial issues. Because you already have a use permit on the one property will the city allow you to use that permit to fix up the new property?
Marco goes on flash. Either way, he will represent one side of an argument and still make money. The courts system has its flaws and most attorneys are a big part of the flaws. That is why we all no lawyers suck!
Everyday must be groundhog day since you always flail and repeat, nothing original to contribute to our community. Oh i get it, sister must have caste a long shadow.
Here's a question. You have a use permit for your property. You buy the next door property. The next door property needs a use permit to fix it up. You can't legally get a use permit on the new property because of financial issues. Because you already have a use permit on the one property will the city allow you to use that permit to fix up the new property?
The answer is yes. The use permit you have for one property can be used for another property that has financial issues and you don't want a use permit under that new property number. The planning commission, planning directors, and the city attorney all say yes.
EU's comment on Leichtag reminds me that Kranz and his wife were recipients to a trip to the Holy Land around the same time that Tony voted to change zoning to benefit Leichtag. Interesting coincidence!
Manjeet Ranu, the faux deputy planning director, is spinning false information to the council.
ReplyDeleteRanu is showing maps without identifying the properties. Too much work for the deputy planning director and planning director.
ReplyDeleteShaffer is asking whether Murphy has considered impacts on schools. Jeff Murphy telling false information again that it will be included in the EIR. It is Murphy's job to provide an analysis on each parcel before council makes any decision.
ReplyDeleteQuestion #36. . .
ReplyDeleteAndreen forgot to mention he represents satan.
ReplyDeleteNo, he doesn't represent Bonde.
DeleteAndreen pulling numbers out of his ass ! Amazing!
ReplyDeleteDid he have a point?
ReplyDeleteHe needs to retire. He is so outdated.
As long as Bonde and Ehlers are winding up the Bates Nut Farm Sisters, Denise and Susan, and sending them up to make ridiculous accusations against the council and be consistently rude: and not in any amusing way, why shouldn't Andreen continue?
DeleteIt's pretty clear that both Martin and Turney are incapable of understanding the law: ANY laws, telling the millinneals to move to Pacific Beach was hilarious.
When is Denise gonna shake her dirty air-filter in the council's faces again.
Marco Gonzales and Andreen might be getting together to sue the city over the Housing Element if the city council doesn't approve a Housing-Element. Tag Team, Gonzales-Andreen versus Cameron and Bonde, WWE this next Monday night.
Gonzales' lawsuit threat was laughably predictable and Andreen incoherent and irrelevant as always. No surprise that this meeting lured them out...they have incomes at stake here.
DeleteLet the land grab begin, step right up and rezone, folks! There's gold in them thar underutilized parcels. Be the first on your block to step right up, take the money, and move to RSF!
ReplyDeleteSo much for Ruben Flores' prediction that if you upzone, no one will want to...whoa, watch out, Ruben! There's a stampede a-comin' your way!
Flores came off as either dishonest or incredibly naive.
DeleteDangle that million-dollar upzoning windfall in front of property owners and you really think most of them won't take it?
I'm not saying what people do/don't do. I'm saying Flores' point got flipped on him.
DeleteW.C.,
DeleteNothing is ever gonna be allowed to be approved by the voters that would be worth investing millions upon million of dollars without knowing for a fact that you would make your money back.
I'm guessing that that was what Ruben was trying to say.
Low light of the night, Kathleen Lindermann kissing Ehler's hand, literally.
Note-Carry airsick bags to next City Hall public hearing.
Note to Flores' PR man: you could always just stay home.
Delete9:28,
DeleteWhether the voters will approve anything is a different issue.
The point is, if the upzoning happens, it's gonna get built.
Perhaps Mr. Flores would be so kind as to share with us examples of where R-30 upzoning happened in an expensive, built-out coastal city, and didn't get used.
Andreen is as Ass…. hence his nickname Assreem.
ReplyDeleteRuben Flores has FAILED to represent New Encinitas!
ReplyDeleteShameful.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteActually, no.
DeleteRuben Flores want to cash out. Many people are in his shoes. How do you think Huntington Beach was developed to its 3 story nightmare.
ReplyDeletePer Manjeet Ranu - The upzoned properties when developed will have NO environmental review if covered under this EIR.
ReplyDeletePlanning commission - useless. Check out their decisions. They rubberstamp everything. At least 2 of them are off the commission for a year.
ReplyDeleteGrossclose and Shannon - don't let the door hit you on the way out.
O'Grady - dumb and dumber the more he talks.
ReplyDeleteThere's nothing that doesn't confuse him, is there? The fact that the underlying zoning would change to 10x the current completely escaped him...and Murphy & Co. did not see fit to enlighten him.
DeleteWhat a crew.
One targeted property for up zoning Sprouts center. The owner was on ERAC?
ReplyDeleteAnother property is Ralphs. The representative was on ERAC?
Another is the burn dump behind the Sheriff's station. Great place for market rate or very low income families.
So who owns the other properties?
Why didn't Jeff Murphy do his job and write up the full analysis for each property instead of telling the council it will be done by the environmental consultant? Another $400,000 taxpayers are footing so Murphy can avoid doing his job.
He either can't or won't do his job: pick one.
DeleteGaspar nails it with her comments regarding E-town hall.
ReplyDeleteGreat Job Gaspar. Shit can Peak Democracy!!
Blakespear doesn't understand that overlay zones are floating zones that screw up neighborhoods.
ReplyDeleteShaffer is wrong. Voters didn't elect her or anyone else on the council to up zone properties.
ReplyDeleteGiven that at the time, her voters were the Prop A voters...um, no. She was not given a mandate to upzone.
DeleteDoctors call this delusions of grandeur. Also interesting, Tony emulating Dalager and developing city owned property on Quail Gardens Drive: without the knowledge of the staff or council.
DeleteCouncil wants to destroy city hall for high density market rate apartments with underground parking after they eliminate the coaster parking for more market rate apartments on those lots.
ReplyDeletesounds good to me. I would call that wise redevelopment. City Hall is poorly designed and wasted space. It right next to the train station. It should be higher density. Top units would sell for big bucks with those nice ocean views.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3B1IQYD4Uew
DeleteThe city hall property should become something like Del Mar Plaza, with park-like, ocean-view plazas open to the public, and extra public parking underneath for downtown, coaster, and special events (parades, street fairs, cruise nights).
DeleteWith underground parking, Pacific View has enough space to accommodate a new city hall, integrated with the arts facilities. Conference room by day; gallery at night. Performance space Tuesday; Council chambers Wednesday.
Pacific View with underground parking??? Obviously the advocate of this absurd notion hasn't been there - it is almost immediately adjacent to the sandstone bluffs. You don't start digging holes in that fragile geological environment, unless you want to spend untold millions on questionable reinforcement augmentations. It is a neighborhood - not suitable for additional heavy traffic loads or non-compatible business activities.
DeleteMaybe staff and council could set a good example by taking a bus to work?
Delete7:50,
DeletePerhaps you can explain how the underground parking beneath the condos on Sealane Drive (two blocks south of PV, and closer to the bluff edge) have remained for decades with no problems.
Also, the current City Hall is in Encinitas Highlands, surrounded on three sides by residential neighborhood.
Yup, sell city hall to developers and convert PV into the NEW and IMPROVED city hall. Just as Shaffer and Kranz have planned. As has been predicted on this blog by those that know.
DeleteThe sales tax, property tax, and proceeds from sale of the current city hall parcel would probably be more than enough to fund all construction at Pacific View.
Delete8:14 AM And how many parking spaces is that? What is needed for a City Hall? Size matters.
DeleteThis location (PV) is deeper into the neighborhoods - the current location was previously commercial. PV never was.
Gaspar's criticism of E-Townhall has me scratching my head.
ReplyDeleteConventional wisdom holds that Gaspar owes her political success to backers from business and development sectors. I would think her base wants the HEU to run smoothly to a 2016 yes vote, which would open up new opportunities for profitable development and new business creation in the multi-use spaces.
Last night, Gaspar's little spreadsheet undermined the usefulness of E-Townhall as a public polling tool. The "yes" side of the ballot prop would like to have a long list of effective tools and processes used to gauge community opinion in the HEU. Voters who really don't follow local politics are more inclined to trust the process and vote yes if they think everything reasonable has been done to build the HEU with community consensus. "Just trust us--We did all of these things to assure the best HEU."
Gaspar's criticism of E-Townhall didn't expose anything new or particularly interesting. But the fact that it came from her will be used next year to argue that at least one major part of the process was hopelessly fouled up, and therefore the HEU cannot possibly reflect the will of the community.
Basically, Gaspar's analysis gave some support to the "no" side of the ballot prop, which seems to act against the interests of her presumed backers.
Is she more independent/neutral than thought? Is she not smart enough to realize how her analysis would affect the debate? Is she nuts?
Interesting.
I was thinking exactly the same. She had me confused on this. She almost seemed to reach out to the no side. Did she get a head trauma we don't know about?
DeleteConventional wisdom can be wrong.
ReplyDeleteI think Gaspar was refreshingly and amazingly honest last night in her genuine disappointment that the "community-centric" input she was looking for had not been produced by the e-town hall approach.
It was even more impressive for her take such a stand because it was counter to the conventional wisdom about her.
The public is generally clueless - this "gaff" or whatever it was will probably not adversely impact her core alliances' interests.
DeleteIts not good to fool Mother Nature...
DeleteOnly Jeff and Manjeet think that e-Townhall was wildly successful. The very first public speaker showed the figures of only about 100 participants for each of the five communities. And a portion of those were in support of "no build." All the rest were anonymous and elected to not complete the survey. No reasonable person can say it gave any usable input. Gaspar gets credit for being realistic whatever her ultimate motives are. When her buddy Mike Andreen fumbled his way through an incoherent ramble, she had no choice. It's her political future after all.
DeleteThe majority of people don't give a damn. As long as you're not taking their SSI, food stamps or pensions they are a get along go along society.
DeleteNo amount of community input matters.
Money talks and the whiners will whine....
Mikey does not live in Encinitas. Why was he even there?
Delete9:53- because he is a whiner.
Delete11:19 - because he is paid.
DeleteWhy was Mikey at a secret meeting with Gaspar and property owners on Saxony with the Housing Element candidate map before anyone in the city had seen it? Gaspar already stated in a meeting she was "required" to be there, but why is Andreen involved?
ReplyDeleteThe luncheon being asked about was a Network luncheon, in April of 2014: Andreen's 'Map' was created from the 'maps' included in the September 25 2013 City Council presentation (Pages 4,5 and 6) by the Planning Department. Anyone seeing the Candidate Map during the hearing could identify the most of the proposed properties. All it takes is an MLS book. Just because Andreen reads the Council Agendas doesn't mean anything is secret: the map, made public in the 9-25-13 council hearing was made up of the GPAC 1 and 2 maps, Erac map, Planning Commission map and state tax benefit locations for affordable housing. Over 90 lots were identified by staff on 9-25-13: Andreen wanted to make sure that each and every property owner was aware they had been targeted: by the citizens on all 3 public committees, Gpac, Erac and PC and, in fact, several of those contacted by Andreen had missed the City's flyer on the subject and contacted the city for more info.
DeleteAs for the luncheon meeting, the Network, is a private group that does not receive city funds) and Mrs. Gaspar was a guest, period.
Otherwise, just because Andreen wasn't asleep at the wheel like Pam and Bruce, blame them, not Andreen.
They proved their incompetence by promoting Sheila and Julie for office, don't you think?
Thanks for the bogus explanation, Mikey.
DeleteSo you DO acknowledge there WAS a meeting in April 2014. Exhibit A. Thank you!!! And you are called The Network and now you confirm Gaspar attended. Doesn't take much for people like you to "take the bait", does it?
DeleteThe only 'bait' is, once again, some folks cannot figure out 'How' the municipality legally works. Should have stayed sober during those Civics classes, Bruce, but airplane glue and paper bags were so cheap and accessible back then, weren't they? Still campaigning from the office?
DeleteAndreen ran for council once and lost. Now he has a mouthpiece.
DeleteA business association, not subsidized by a government agency such as the city, doesn't have the same kind of noticing requirements. The meeting wasn't "secret." Apparently, from Council, only KG was present, as a guest. Nothing illegal or unethical there. In this case, MA, did help property owners to receive notice, which he garnered through examining public documents.
DeleteGaspar will go whatever way the wind blows as long as it is is in her favor and makes her look good.
ReplyDeleteAfter all, she is trying to become the Mayor of San Diego, the Governor of CA or the President of the US.
All Barbie has to do is find her soul mate, Ken.
Don't agree.
ReplyDeleteBy bringing up her concerns about the e-Town input, Gaspar was the only one from council, planning commission, and planning staff that voiced any hesitation to accept the flowery report by staff about the community input. She changed the course of the discussion; she was hardly going along with the rest of the huffing and puffing going on.
She should be commended for that. Her analysis made sense, and was beyond what anyone else on council or the planning commission had attempted.
I agree strongly. The small sample size means that only a handful of people can totally skew the results. The vast majority of citizens either couldn't use it or maybe they don't care. Keyboards can't replace face-to-face discussion.
DeleteYes, both Gaspar and Muir opposed the contract with Peak Democracy, from the beginning, and objected that when it came before Council, it was already a done deal. They both were consistent on that on Tuesday and Thursday nights.
DeleteI agree. Gaspar did good .
ReplyDeleteI agree w 11:57am
ReplyDeleteGaspar is now voicing her concern over E-Town because her friend $tock$ had his name used with it. Anything else she said, is just for show. If she is the only one against something, she stands out. That is all people remember. Follow her previous votes on council. It is not hard to figure what she is doing.
ReplyDeleteGaspar did good!
ReplyDeleteShe stated that she had expected to see that the majority of responses would come from people living in the community who were expressing what was in their best interests, but instead found that the majority of responses were from those outside of the community. If it is anything like the Health Element that was thrown out, City staff were recruited to participate--which is a very bad thing since they are prone to support programs that benefit them and which citizens will have to pay for.
ReplyDeleteI thought that Shaffer, Blakespear, Kranz and Flores were all fighting to see how far they could lower the bar on acceptable behavior. They are willing to rubber stamp ineptitude or the appearance of fraud.
Oddly odd that the "resident preferences" map matched nearly exactly to the city's planning dept/developer-chosen one. Very odd. Some might say suspicious.
Delete2:10 How odd that Gaspar would expect responses from people living in this community, when during her campaign the money was flowing in from outside of this community to support her election.
DeleteInteresting. Very interesting.
Here's a question. You have a use permit for your property. You buy the next door property. The next door property needs a use permit to fix it up. You can't legally get a use permit on the new property because of financial issues. Because you already have a use permit on the one property will the city allow you to use that permit to fix up the new property?
ReplyDeleteStupid question. Separate property separate permit. You a top stupid to own property . You better sell.
DeleteWow the lawyer expresses everything WE DON"T WANT! and you like Pacific Station? Go to PB for the party we don't want.
ReplyDelete5:41 PM
DeleteAre you referring to 5:21 PM?
Marco goes on flash. Either way, he will represent one side of an argument and still make money. The courts system has its flaws and most attorneys are a big part of the flaws. That is why we all no lawyers suck!
DeleteHow can you tell when a Lawyer is lying?
--When their lips are moving.
When their lips are moving!!!
DeleteBwaaahhh!! That is so clever. Did you make that up yourself?
I'm totally with you. Lawyers are terrible human beings because they represent the legal positions of their clients.
New rule: only people with popular positions are entitled to legal representation. 5:59 and I will decide which positions fit that description.
I feel better already.
Yeah. Like the client who didn't want fireworks.
DeleteEveryday must be groundhog day since you always flail and repeat, nothing original to contribute to our community. Oh i get it, sister must have caste a long shadow.
ReplyDeleteHere's a question. You have a use permit for your property. You buy the next door property. The next door property needs a use permit to fix it up. You can't legally get a use permit on the new property because of financial issues. Because you already have a use permit on the one property will the city allow you to use that permit to fix up the new property?
ReplyDeleteNot likely, Leucadia.
DeleteThe answer is yes. The use permit you have for one property can be used for another property that has financial issues and you don't want a use permit under that new property number. The planning commission, planning directors, and the city attorney all say yes.
DeletePlease elaborate. What was the situation, and is this some kind of bro deal like the council changing the ag zoning rules for Leichtag?
Delete5:52- Stupid question. Separate property therefore separate permit required. You seem to stupid to own property, so you better sell.
DeleteEU's comment on Leichtag reminds me that Kranz and his wife were recipients to a trip to the Holy Land around the same time that Tony voted to change zoning to benefit Leichtag. Interesting coincidence!
DeleteWhere is the witch Shaffer's summary of the meeting last night? Waiting for her twist on how Gaspar outclassed her last night.
ReplyDelete