Shaffer even included a more-whimsical achievement perhaps— the weeklong renaming of a block of Vulcan Avenue “Spock Block” to commemorate the passing of actor Leonard Nimoy, whose heritage on the “Star Trek” television and film series was partly from the fictional planet of Vulcan.
“It may not seem like much,” Shaffer writes of the list of accomplishments, “but it is a lot, especially since we did not have a permanent city manager in place for most of the year.”
Thursday, January 7, 2016
Shaffer reflects on accomplishments
Union-Trib:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
at least she didn't spearhead a 35% increase in every City Employee's pension like $tock$ did in 2005. Winning him the Lo$er of all time award.
ReplyDeleteWe need a gutsy council who is willing to undo the pension mess that was created by council dim wits in 2005.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of accomplishments on this council, I wouldn't rate the "Spock Block" as high on the list of great things, especially when our roads are in need of repair. This council needs to get their priorities in order. So far, it lacks luster.
I can't help myself. I am just laughing. I understand why she isn't running again. No one would vote for her. This Council has no problem spending 10 million on Pacific View, 3 million on a state of the art lifeguard tower, BUT cannot afford to give us sandbags, or even better yet, fic the infrastructure. Of course, no one's name could go on that so there you have it. I'll place a bet that Shaffer will be the next person to have a tree at Glen Park.
ReplyDelete7:47, now you've got me laughing too.
ReplyDeleteThis is lifted 100% from Lisa's last email. If you read that, you've already done the work...
ReplyDeleteDoes she stand in front of the mirror every day admiring herself? Obviously the false adoration heaped on academics within the confines of the Ivory Tower doesn't translate to accomplishments in the hard light of day in the real world - and she is now trying to rationalize her pitiful 4 years of non-achievements with superfluous spin. Give her some Spock ears and show her the door.
ReplyDeleteIt was hard not to pee myself reading that perfectly summarized eulogy of the Shaffer years. While incompetence and hubris are no laughing matter when exhibited by a politician, thank you anyway for the comic relief.
DeleteHer legacy is $13 million in Debt for $4 million dollars of Value. Nothing else. Pathetic.
ReplyDeleteI guess we should feel lucky and thank them for not paying $20 million for a $4 million piece of property.
Not to worry, some day that property will be worth more than the city paid for it and all will be happy. Look at the bigger picture and not so much the gloom and doom side.
DeleteSaid the plywood vendor.
Delete2:36 you are lost. You wanted the Encinitas sensible and successful people blog.
DeleteTotally different.
No, 2:36 could also be one of the three who voted for the idiocy, or MGJ. Those rose-colored glasses are superglued to their heads.
DeleteNo, I always sign my posts. And for the record, I think the PV purchase should have been a no.
Delete-MGJ
My mistake. Easily made.
Delete2:36 = Tony Kranz
DeleteI think you're right. It does sound exactly like the kind of jackass "nothing to see here, move on, it'll all be right in the morning" comment he would make.
Delete2:46 PM Plywood vendor! How appropriate! Pretty soon, it'll be one big patch-work of plywood sheets and squares. Vandals are systematically knocking out glass paines - it is PV tic-tac-toe! Maybe the city can buy shares of Home Depot for a plywood discount!
DeleteI guess you're right. We shouldn't think about the additional $6 million that was spent on the property and what projects could've been accomplished with that $6 million . Who really cares about a wasted $6 million of tax money anyway ?
ReplyDeleteOh happy happy joy joy .
Sounds like you live in the doldrums. You must have a very unhappy life.
DeleteAbsolutely the opposite. I am responsible for my actions. So I do not waist money and I spend money on valuable things for my family.
DeleteHence, I am very happy. Making responsible good choices in life makes one happy.
Wasting ones money on unnecessary items will keep one up at night with a gut wrenching pain.
City Council knows exactly what I am talking about.
Yawn!
DeleteShaffer, the complete idiot. Another in a long line of stupid Encinitas council members. When you spend your life sucking at the govt teat, money means nothing. She brags in her newsletter about the salary negotiations with the city staff, well all those negotiations took place without the light of day. She gave away the baby with the bathwater, meanwhile we taxpayers are on the hook for her folly. She's the complete idiot.
ReplyDeleteDevelopers will always mourn their loss of PV. I think we should all pause a moment for silence as we all say "awwww".
ReplyDeletePerhaps if that were on open, undeveloped piece of land your comment would conform to real world thinking. However, PV was a dilapidated eyesore that should have been responsibly redeveloped.
Delete4:44, there is nothing to say that developers won't get to develop there. Teresa Barth proudly pointed out that it is only "safe" for 10 years, and that after that time they may do something different. Just wait until they are forced to sell it!
Delete4:02, Go ahead and hold your breath.
DeleteAwww… there goes $6 million dollars that could have provided safer more complete streets
ReplyDelete$6 million that could have improved the access and safety to going to Beacons Beach.
$6 million that could have help with flood and beach pollution issues to keep the city from being sued.
the list is endless…...
Your mean that kind of awwwww?
PV is apparently resalable after a certain period of time. Watch for some future council to dump it back onto the commercial market - jam packed condos may still be its ultimate fate.
DeleteThere's a ten-year hold on tezoning, which the council knew full well of from the beginning.
Delete12:01, I couldn't agree more. Developers do have an endless list. But you're going to have to do better than:
Delete1. The fact that ongoing efforts to improve our streets have made and continue to make them safer and more complete than ever before.
2. Millions were allocated to improve Beacons. So what did they do? Gave it all to Moonlight Beach.
3. Tremendous and honorable efforts toward a cleaner ocean and better storm drainage continue, regardless of frivolous lawsuits against Encinitas - if any have ever or will ever be filed.
But it is heart wrenching that a few wealthy people aren't going to get richer off of the last prime 2 acres in Encinitas possible for a private oceanview McMasion project. What a shame. Awww.
After Prop A, PV could NEVER be rezoned without a public vote, period.
DeleteFree money - on the Wednesday council agenda, item 12A -
ReplyDeleteLarry Mizel CEO of M.D.C. Holdings, one of the nation's top homebuilders and president of the Mizel family foundation and his brother, Steve Mizel, want to buy the naming rights in perpetuity for the library.
The Mizel family will issue unrestricted payments totaling $1.5 million to the city and $500,000 to the Friends of the Encinitas Library group. Upon signing the agreement the Mizels will make a $375,000 payment to the city and $125,000 payment to the Friends of the Encinitas Library group and then the payments for the next three years.
Mayor Gaspar cannot vote on this because she has a financial conflict of interest with the Mizel family. Mayor Gaspar didn't reveal the financial conflict of interest.
Does this naming rights deal mean that the current Mizel matching contribution of $75,000 for community grants will cease?
DeleteWill the counci add another $75,000 of additional city money to keep the grant applicants from being disappointed because they won't be receiving the Mizel money?
12:44, Bring it. Pretty damn generous offer to the city. Doesn't mean flattery will get them anywhere. Especially in this town. No doubt will be impressive on their resume in other cities though. And who cares what ties Gaspar has to them? She's rightfully excused herself give her a break.
Delete12:42- What's wrong with the Mizel deal? At least they are putting up a lot of money for the naming rights. What is the downside? Barth's trees cost us money. Mizel has been very generous in this community, and I cannot for the life of me, see why this is a problem. Help me understand why you think this is a bad idea.
ReplyDeleteWho said it was a bad idea?
ReplyDelete1:26 PM
ReplyDeleteDo you know something about the Mizel deal that smells?
1:35- I know nothing of the Mizel deal that smells. Perhaps I misinterpreted 12:44's post. I got the impression that he or she thought it was not a good deal. I guess I got this idea from the last sentence about the Mayor having to remove herself from the vote. Sorry if I interpreted it wrong.
ReplyDeleteRemoval is removal and conflict of interest is conflict of interest. I, too, would be interested in the ties between Gaspar and Mizel.
DeleteAnytime we have an influential family (Ecke, Mizel) or an org (Leichtag), we should all be interested in understanding the connections between the influencers and the influenced.
Remember the pictures of Gaspar at the Ecke Christmas parties? Who do you think this Stepford wife belongs to?
DeleteHow people figure that there is such a thing as Free Money, like some believe in a Free Lunch, is endlessly perplexing. Now if you don't mind, I have to head down to Mizel's Seaside Market to grab a deli lunch, then shoot over to Mizel Park to let the kids get some exercise.
ReplyDeleteShaffer and Barth are like a cancer in this community. They prey on good people, convert health to disease, revel in their own blind destruction, and ultimately kill their host.
ReplyDeleteVery well put! They have also managed to fragment their supporters. Congratulations!
DeleteIf they're a disease, what does that make Jerome?
DeleteHay fever? Achoooo!
DeleteThe council could make a counter offer to the Mizel family. For an extra $2 million the city name of Encinitas could be changed to city of Mizel.
ReplyDeleteDon't give them any ideas.
Delete$2 million? Kranz wouldn't think it was a good deal unless Encinitas was the one paying $10 million for another name. Just wait, he'd promise, we'd thank ourselves in 5 years.
DeleteGet down to business, council. The library has a heavy loan that needs to be repaid. Half of the land belongs to the county. Sell the library debt and county option to buy the land to Mizer for $25 million. The Mizer Family Foundation will have complete control and the taxpayers of Encinitas will be relieved of a big debt. Throw in a trip to Denver for Councilman Kranz.
ReplyDeleteJust goes to prove what money can buy. I don't care who they are or how much money these people have, the Encinitas Library should not have their name on it. Why can't they make a serious and heartfelt donation without something in return?
ReplyDeleteThis name thing is getting out of hand. Disgusting.
The only thing we'll ever see your last name on is your trash cans.
DeleteZing.
4:46 How utterly profound.
DeleteZing x 2
I have been following Lisa Shaffer's many odd comments and positions since I made the mistake of voting for her.
ReplyDeleteHer parents must be as ashamed as her former supporters. I feel sorry for anyone who had anything to do with her. She is out of touch and consumed with her own view of things to the point of making up facts to support her votes.
She will have a legacy for sure.....
Shaffer will be gone and long forgotten just as past council members. Their two minutes in the limelight doesn't last long.
DeleteBut the damage they do does.
DeleteHow much damage has a 35% pay increase done to us so far?
ReplyDeleteAsk $tock$ and Muir. Better yet, ask them if they care.
ReplyDeleteMuir is a recipient of that lavish give-away - what do you think he considers it? GRAVEY TRAIN!
Delete8:00 and 9:52 Blame the game, not the player.
DeleteWhat do 5 retired fire chiefs cost the City of Encinitas every year - Nearly $1,000,000.00
ReplyDeleteNo wonder there is no money for any project.
We need a City Council member who will fix this inequity that Jerome $tock$ promoted through his selling out to the unions.
Corruption in the public sector - the peoples' taxes enriching the elite few.
DeleteSo if we fix it, then those 5 retired chiefs only cost the city $740,740 per year - and you would STILL be griping!! You'd also be griping about the legal fees that the city would have to spend to reverse this decision (if it could) - probably about $259,260 - so now you're back to $1M - but at least it's not the greedy fire chiefs getting it, eh? Just the greedy lawyers....... aw jeeze - you just can't win, can you?
Delete- The Sculpin
And you support the status quo, Sculp? Your rant sounds a bit over the top.
DeleteOK - a little over the to - don't support the status quo so much, but railing against these increases is more over the top. There's a better chance of Obamacare being repealed than this. I just don't know how someone can get up in the morning and the first thing that sets them off is the pension increases. The indignation just can't be real - is it meant to be a perpetual poke in the eye? Who's eye? What purpose does this serve? Just move on, and pick another, more worthy battle.....there's plenty of them out there!
Delete- The Sculpin
Whether it's warranted re:pensions or not, we hear "let's just move on" way too much for most tastes. How many times have you heard Shaffer (especially) say that about every bonehead decision the council makes?
DeleteA lot of growing resident frustration stems from the complete refusal of council to cop to anything. And when the city's attempts to raise revenue are driven largely by pension obligations, it's virtually impossible not to want to revisit.
Let the council come up with mitigating actions (severely capped or frozen increases like the real working world experiences) and I bet you'd see a lot less complaining on this issue.
Yeah let's move on and repeal this! All that money and they let every building I ever saw burn to the ground. Still remember that one just blocks from the downtown station, that was impressive.
DeleteSculpin is part of the problem, not the solution.
ReplyDeleteI, along with many residents, will not consent to this past criminal action.
We know you will but those with integrity will not.
Please 12:54 - get over yourself - while the pension increases were excessive even by the standards of the day in which they were awarded, they are clearly NOT criminal. To say so is to engage in hyperbole and otherwise distractive behavior, which in and of itself, is part of the problem. If you want a solution, try buying them out of their retirement contract with a lump sum payment discounted 7%-10% over their life expectancy. I guarantee you that's a much cheaper solution in the long run than anything you have come up with.
Delete- The Sculpin
Nope Sculpin. Again part of the problem.
DeleteThe state will eventually pass a law which taxes those with pensions over 75% of pensions over $50k per year. They will withhold the tax from the pension payments so it doesn't matter what state the retiree resides. Sorry problem Sculpin your words make no sense.
8:55 - exactly what does this law do to lower the City's current pension obligation? Isn't that he problem you wish to address?
Delete- The Sculpin
3:21 The time value of money and discounting future cash flows makes sense in the Keynesian fantasy world of monetary policy where we can print money out of thin air to pay future obligations now at a lower cost of capital (in this case a depreciation tax) than the discount factor. Perhaps Sculpin owns a currency printing press.
Delete9:39 - since when is defeasance of a debt obligation "Keynesian"?!?!?!?
Delete- The Sculpin
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWho will be Encinitas first $300K man/woman. In San Diego a 4 year firefighter pulls down $130K in salary and an additional $210K in overtime....Poor, poor Encinitas FFters....
ReplyDelete12:54: There was nothing criminal in this action when Jerome Stocks proposed a 35% increase in pensions. Go to San Diego La Rostra and read about what he said yourself. While I was appalled it happened, where were you and your friends when it went down. Many did protest but to no avail. Sculpin is right. We must move on. If you want something to get upset about go to Tasha Boehner Horvath's newsletter about the 3 different kinds of zoning that they are thinking about. She explains it very well. However, if we are not on this, there will be nothing on the Nov. 2016 ballot stating that you can say NO to upzoning. Now, that's something we can do something about because of Prop.A. If no one pays attention, citizens will not know that they can say NO so it's time to educate people now.
ReplyDelete4:38,
DeleteThat's not correct. California has legal definitions of ballot initiatives, and they must be a binary choice for or against a specific proposal.
It's not possible to craft a ballot proposition that asks which of your children you'd be willing to part with. That kind of forced choice between two alternatives is not allowed. Nor are multiple choice initiatives allowed.
The 2016 ballot will have a single Housing Element Update proposition, and voters will be asked to either pass it or reject it.
That is not necessarily true. There could be more than one map on the ballot, as separate questions, each with a yes or no vote possible.
DeleteIf there are questions which are conflicting, which individual ballot measures each receive a majority vote, then the one with the most votes becomes the new law.
I am under the impression that Council and staff are attempting to come up with a single map, single question, rezoning and undermining Prop A, effective all over our city. Sadly, there are no guarantees that the zoning changes, which would absolutely put more stress on crumbling infrastructure, would ever create the desired effect of more affordable housing.
To take that a step further, if there are two measures on the ballot (one from the City, one an inititative) and neither gets more yes than no votes, then then there will be no housing element this year. Voters are of course likely to vote for their favorite and against the other.
DeleteIs this the correct understanding?
6:23, 12:14, and 3:36-Take a look at Section K of the "Floating Zones" around page 65. No one is going to read all of these documents, but this is where they will gut Prop.A.
DeleteIt would be very hard to get an initiative on the ballot, again, and those who worked so hard to qualify Prop A for the ballot would certainly be against anything that would undermine those efforts.
DeleteIf there are two measures on the ballot, whether one is an initiative or not, and neither gets more yes votes than no votes, then neither would become law.
The City should have an alternative plan to achieve a certified housing element. Bob Bonde published another good editorial in the Advocate, where he talks about counting more existing accessory units as affordable housing, and making that easier for homeowners to accomplish, by relaxing some of the fees and regulations that can make anyone's coming forward more expensive and less likely.
Jeff Murphy, former Planning Director, misspoke when he misinformed Council that existing affordable housing had been counted through the Census. That's not true. Residents are counted, not residences.
4:38, I'd like to read the AGENDA item description for that one. Sometimes Greek is easier to understand.
ReplyDeleteEncinitas need a ballot measure on pensions cost reductions and I will only support a candidate that supports substantially lowering pension costs. For that matter all personnel costs. Fire the deadwood would be the easiest way to cut the costs.
ReplyDeleteForget what Sculpin says. Anyone who says move on can not be taken seriously. The pension costs are a drain on the financial resources of this city. Maybe Sculpin would like to pick up the entire tab. Then, and only then, we might move on.
ReplyDeleteAnything that is done, can be undone. We need a council to fix this problem.
The pension and staff costs are the biggest issue for our City. Staff is draining the coffers for the City. What percentage of the budget goes to staff costs? it should be less then 40% of total City costs. What is Encinitas like 60%?
ReplyDeleteWe have fire chiefs that retire every 2 years that spike their pension to over $180k per year for life and then move over so the next guy can do the same. For the Employees, its not about bettering the community, its about bettering their wallet.
Sculpin and all other bottom feeders need to move on.
We need a City Council and City Manager that is focused on thinning City Staff costs so our City can pay for its infrastructures needed projects. There is sooooo much deadwood in the City. First cut should be Art Director- phhh - that position does very little value for the City.
Please ask the candidates for City Council, what is the current % of staff costs on the total budget and what is your plan to reduce staff costs to provide for more money for City projects.
What you are looking for is a TCOW analysis (Total Cost Of Workforce.)
DeleteEvery time an organization hires a body, they have a direct salary cost, but they also have other costs. Health and retirement benefits costs, obviously. But also the cost of office space for a desk, electricity that person will use in the course of their duties. Then there may be a computer, and the IT cost to support that computer. The person may need a cell phone and monthly service. The person may need use of a City vehicle. Some types insurance carried by the city may be affected by the headcount overall. Then there's the cost to train the person for their job, and could be a productivity hit during the first few months while the new hire gets up to speed (TCOW is higher in organizations with high staff turnover). There could also be travel expenses related to the job.
It's very difficult to pin down the total cost of each specific person, but it's not too difficult to study in the aggregate, and understand the average TCOW per FTE.
You can also isolate TCOW of full-time vs. part time or direct employees vs. outsourced vs. contractors vs. offshore, etc.
When you do the analysis, you generally find that a larger proportion of total expenses are associated with labor than most people would think.
You'd probably need some data or explanation of line items in the annual financial report from the Finance Director to do the analysis properly.
You'd probably want to repeat the analysis for a few peer cities to understand whether TCOW is high or low relative to other cities.
It's not difficult, but it does take a lot of time to do correctly. Time I don't have.
The hiring of outside consultants should also be reviewed. I'm sure costs could be reduced if city staff were capable and did their job. Seems like we have an over abundance of staff for a city this size.
Delete10:50,
DeleteThe point is, for any specific function or role, TCOW analysis gives you the data to know whether contractors or consultants make sense. If the task is specialized, and a contractor has more experienced staff, specialized software, and mature methodology, they may be able to more efficiently complete the task with a higher level of quality. Then again, the contractor will be using methods and tools that were developed for general use, and may not serve the unique and specific quirks of Encinitas.
It's not a matter of good and evil. It's a matter of who can do the work most effectively and efficiently. It's also a matter of benchmarking our quality and cost against cities with similar demographics, services, and budgets.
There is never one correct answer.
Just coming in demanding to slash willy-nilly isn't helpful. TCOW removes the emotion and subjective opinion from labor decisions, and substitutes objective data.
You cannot properly manage what you don't measure.
11:10 We are well aware of what it takes. You have not taught us anything new, but thank you for your suggestions. Those don't always work in a government situation.
DeleteWho is this "we," 1:30? You have a mouse in your pocket?
DeleteIf by "we," you mean some of those who work at the City, "we" residents are well aware of their aversion to doing real work.
1:30,
DeleteForgive me. I posted because I've never seen any discussion of how to conduct a proper analysis here, nor any evidence that a proper analysis has been conducted.
If you "are well aware of what it takes" to do the job right, and yet choose not to do it, then what are we to make if that?
Section K, around page 65 on "Floating Zones"-This is where they will gut Prop A. Check it yourselves.
ReplyDeleteFirst few pages of Draft housing element also includes Prop A reversal. Ask your favorite council member why the city thinks putting the info where they know Joe Citizen won't bother looking is "transparent."
DeleteChicago public school $500M underfunded, the entire Chicago education system is about to implode....coming to a little beach town near you. Pensions people, it's all about the pensions.
ReplyDelete