This article is a piece of poorly researched trash presented as factual information when it's nothing but a whiny apologia for cry baby developers. Facts are utterly ignored in order to make the citizens look like the bad guys when the truth is that greedy multimillionaire development interests are attempting to monetize every square inch of SD county to enrich their bottom line and destroy OUR quality of life! There is NO AFFORDABLE HOUSING produced by these schemes and VOSD has been shown the facts repeatedly but they refuse to listen. Then they keep dunning the reader for donations throughput their insults. Let Lilac Hills Randy Goodson and Encinitas David Meyers and their ilk support VOSD! Don't give them a stinking dime! And tell them why!Most recent VoSD article here, which refers to earlier reports by Maya Srikrishnan. We have no idea where she got her ax to grind, or why she has repeatedly written articles telling only one side of the story.
UPDATE: Here is Maya Srikrishnan's view on "journalism" (highlighting in original):
She doesn't have to tell Measure T opponents' side of the story because she's already decided they're all like Trump.
Maya Srikrishnan wrote the first article on the topic. She got the facts and the angle wrong. Other VOSD writers have been referencing the first article since. The first and subsequent articles have been largely wrong because VOSD doesn't want to admit its errors and correct them.
ReplyDeleteThis is the first article 10:50 cited:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/government/years-of-defying-state-affordable-housing-law-gets-encinitas-sued-again/
I wrote back an e-mail reply to VOSD at the e-mail address from which I was notified about the article. I shared that I don't care for the use of the word NIMBY's, as a derogatory term.
ReplyDeleteIt's sad how developers are trying, and often succeeding, in exploiting the issue of affordable housing as a means for optimizing profit, at existing residents' expense.
Amazing how Srikrishnan can twist things to make developers as the ones trying to do the right thing when nothing could be further from the truth.
ReplyDeleteDavid Meyer is a trusted source of hers, so not hard to see whose version of the story she's telling, and why.
Maya got it wrong re density bonus and T, and she and her colleagues at VOSD have reinforced those errors since, but I think EU has misinterpreted her false equivalency point. EU has it backwards.
ReplyDeleteHow backwards? Seems pretty clear that the meaning of the quote is that the Trump case is a cautionary example, and journalists should generalize that for other issues going forward and not present both sides of an issue if they believe one side is wrong.
DeleteWhat am I missing?
It's about false equivalency. She pointed out that "between" was used in citing vitriol going one way from Trump toward Obama. For true equivalency, the vitriol would have to go both ways.
DeleteSeems to me she's just taken the "false equivalency" thing one step further: not only does she not have to present both sides as equal, she doesn't have to present both sides at all.
DeleteWhat is the advantage of even day lighting all this? If Measure T is constantly in the news or this blog, more people will talk about it. If more people are talking about it, people will wonder why we don't need to do a housing element. Which may attract unwanted attention. Cause and Effect.
DeleteShe's saying false equivalencies should not be created for the sake of "balancing" news reports. She's not saying that various points of view shouldn't be covered.
Delete10:30 your preference is the usual closed-door, back-room deals our city usually engages in?
DeleteNo one is wondering why we have to do a housing element, not even those of us who opposed Measure T. It's state law and there's no question there.
What is not state law are all the developer goodies packed into Measure T. What is not state law is the complete lack of additional affordable housing required.
So no one is wondering about not doing a housing element. At the same time, 56% of voters knew this one was good for developers, bad for residents, and had to go down in flames.
11:09,
DeleteCorrect. And then she goes on to write news articles where she covers only one side of the story.
For example?
DeleteJumping in from the sidelines, but Pam indicates that there is nothing affordable about the Housing Element. A citywide inclusionary program is applied to rezoned areas. Therefore, new development would generate more deed-restricted housing. Taken quite literally, you are wrong.
DeleteOthers here on this blog are suggesting that if say there was a higher inclusionary requirement then you and others would support former Measure T. I hardly think that is the case. Because, that is an easy thing to fix.
I don't want a housing element because I don't want more cars in our city. Period. Low income people drive cars just like you do buddy. El Camino sucks as it is. I can't believe people even want to live near there. With freeway widening construction coming, more regional cars will be on our roads. El Camino Real is dead to me for the next ten years. Unfortunately I can't escape the 101 and Vulcan. And yes, the freeway mess is a bigger issue than all of this fake housing stuff that we have been talking about since incorporation.
Requiring more affordable housing than the paltry 10% inclusionary already mandated would have made a big difference with most voters. The guy from HCD said 25% was possible, and "an easy thing to fix," yet our city chose to let developers call the shots and not make that fix. The gamble did not pay off so down went T.
DeleteInclusionary housing is already required. Any subdivision built right now if more than 10 units must included 10% affordable housing or pay in lieu funds at a price level that's a bargain for developers. The defeat of Measure T doesn't change this.
DeleteWhat Measure T didn't do is add any ADDITIONAL affordable housing to what is required now. This means we get mostly market rate housing from the upzoning. Great for developers, but very bad for low and very low income families. Instead we get increased traffic, congestion, worse air quality, and more carbon emissions. Srikrishnan missed this point and continues to miss it.
Is this the same Pam Slater-Price (who doesn't live in our city) that was a Republican on the Board of Supervisors that supported Republicans, supported developers and even married a developer (Hershel). I bet she never tried to stop one of Hershel projects (none that were affordable). Give me a break!
ReplyDeleteHow did Pam get into this thread. Am I missing something?
ReplyDelete9:56pm sounds like a scorn developers crony.
- and I am no lover of Pam Slater
PS- All developers like Price shit in other communities and then take their profits and buy properties in the areas like Del Mar, Rancho Santa Fe and Coronado where the most stringent development standards exist.
They just want to continue to keep shitting in Encinitas. Like that ugly ass walled subdivision on Saxony by David Meyer. Yuck. Elizabeth Ecke should be ashamed for allowing her boy to develop such crap. He should be removed from the Ecke family.
The post cited is Pam Slater's post on Encinitas Votes. I agree with your comments. Pam posts a lot on Encinitas Votes.
DeletePam is going to get the city sued with insidious comments. She DOESNT even live here!
Delete"Get the city sued with insidious comments?" What a laugh, 10:27.
DeleteLook to the rapacious Meyer, Gonzales, and BIA for your culprits.
We are lucky to have Pam is our corner. How is she going to get the city sued? If anyone is getting the city sued it is Meyer and is cronies. Pam was on one of the first Encinitas City Council's, and had been active in our community, including getting the Cardiff library funded, when she was Supervisor. Pam posts on Encinitas Votes because people have to put their real names on the site, unlike this one. There are a lot of horrible people out there and Pam is not one of them.
ReplyDelete10:27 wasn't saying that Pam will sue. And I actually see where the poster is coming from. It is true that others will sue, but Pam's comments could draw interest from another camp that will....
DeleteBest to say this, JUST STAY OUT OF THE MEDIA.
Yes 11:43, we understood that 10:27 thinks Pam's commentary would somehow "draw interest from another camp." That other camp is under siege and rightly so. Sounds like you don't like the attention it's getting. Too bad.
DeleteWho exactly should "just stay out of the media" (your ranting all caps omitted)? Those who expose the building industry's greed? Just let them continue to have their perspective be reported on as fact? Not a chance.
I wouldn't expect Hershel Price's ex-wife to say anything positive about Pam based on what she did to her - just say'n.
Delete11:43 responding to 11:55.
DeletePam should be more general about exposing developer greed, say comment about county issues or del mar. Something that doesn't draw attention to Encinitas.
I'm glad someone is talking about the developer benefitting from this. That is good. Why use Encinitas as a lead example to fight against something that is far bigger than our little city.
Stop talking about the housing element. Saying "nana booboo" may get more than D Meyer to try to take us down.
@2:27. Good point.
DeleteI think you are all right to some degree.
DeleteGo drink some eggnog and enjoy the new year. At the end of the day the City will be sued, or not. Comments from a former resident won't swing it one way or another.
The city will likely be sued by Meyer and possibly others, but even if it weren't, the council is moving forward on the HEU. Hopefully by working with residents to come up with a good HEU, but possibly by unilaterally adopting a bad HEU and then fighting residents in court.
DeleteNot talking about it will not make it go away.
No, it won't. 2:27 makes some weird comments that sound like warnings, but as he/she seems to be on the developer side of things or at best oddly out of touch, mean nothing.
Delete2:27 doesn't seem to know we've been talking about these issues, quite publicly, for years.
to 5:54... you can have the same conversation, sans Encinitas as lead example. The nature of discourse is considerably different today than say 2005, don't you agree?
DeleteYes 9:56, the same Pam Slater-Price who was Mayor of Encinitas in 1990 and on our Planning Commission before that.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, her husband was a developer - but she is not and never has been.
Trashing Pam is a non issue with this subject. Grow up.
DeleteThe article is irrelevant.
ReplyDeletePam's comments don't matter.
The only thing that counts now is what happens in a court room.
The rest is noise.
Sounds like Marco just slimed in at 12:36.
ReplyDeleteIf Pam is so convincing, why couldn't she talk her own City of Del Mar into passing their version of Prop A. It FAILED!
ReplyDeletePAM - WORK ON YOUR OWN CITY AND STAY OUT OF OURS!!!
Pam worked on our city for many years. What were YOU doing?
ReplyDeleteIn all fairness Pam was unable to get a housing element approved when she was on Council.
DeleteWas one proposed and rejected by voters? Prop A was not in place then, so no vote was needed to adopt an HEU. In that case what are you talking about. 9:01? Details to back up your claim, please.
Delete2:17 paying Encinitas taxes, something Pam is not doing!
DeleteTo 9:32. At one time the elected officials were responsible for setting policy in this town.
Delete11:38 - what is your point about elected officials?
DeleteWe're waiting to hear details from you on the HEU that failed under Slater.
As I understand it, the state housing law implementation and enforcement was delayed during a budget crisis through most of the 90s.
DeleteDuring Pam's tenure, HCD wasn't properly staffed to review and approve HEUs.
As you understand it? Gotta love definitive statements that, when challenged, turn out to have no basis in reality.
Delete"Concerns about the housing element law were never fully resolved after the previous round of housing element updates ended in the early 1990s. But the topic largely fell from the radar screen in the middle of the decade, because of the state’s difficulty in emerging from the recession and its associated budget problems. With state funding of housing element activity postponed during the period of budget exigencies, required housing element update activity was suspended for six fiscal years, from 1992–93 until being resumed in 1998–99. Stopgap legislation was passed during this period to extend the deadlines for regions and localities to undertake their updates."
Deletehttp://wwwww.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_203PLR.pdf
Show some respect, Jackass.
So it "fell from the radar screen" at a state and local level during Pam's tenure? Not sure if this helps your argument. Just because HCD wasn't properly staffed didn't mean that there wasn't a law in place. It just wasn't reviewed by a state body. The law didn't change.... Also doesn't mean that there weren't housing needs here in our city. If you actually think about it, a higher inclusionary housing % back then, when the city was actually growing, would have resulted in more affordable housing today.
DeleteFurthermore, the consequences of not doing anything to address housing issues over the past 20 years has compounded the issues of today, i.e. penalties for previous non-compliance and not having enough land tied to multi-family.
I think we have respect for Pam, you just are over the top; or are Pam. Either way, you need to be a little less emotional over a blog.
By your lights Pam failed to push through an unpopular housing element update at a time when Sacremento had suspended the requirement to do so.
DeleteContortions to avoid admitting you were wrong.
6:44 is a different person. And I am just saying that there could have been more done to promote affordable housing in our town, with or without a Housing Element.
DeleteThere is more to life that protecting Pam, go seek it.
9:46,
DeleteI agree with you. I'm not blindly defending Pam, but accusing her of not passing a compliant HEU is just silly.
However, we (all of us) could and should have done more of the right thing over the years to counteract gentrification. It's frustrating to see the definition of community character boil down to the shape and height of lumber and stucco. It's the people more than anything that define our community. We are changing more demographically than architecturally, and it's not a good thing.
On January 5, 2017 the Planning Commission will be asked to approve another satellite brewery, Culture Brewing Beer Tasting Room out of Solana Beach. The planning staff recommends approval with this justification - "The proposed project, as conditioned, will enhance the Coast Highway 101 commercial corridor by providing a unique community-serving, tourist-related use in Downtown Encinitas. The project will maintain and enhance the existing pedestrian oriented-environment and economic viability of the downtown. The proposed use (beer tasting room) and façade improvements will provide a ground floor use that will contribute positively to the desired pedestrian-oriented environment along South Coast Highway 101." The new façade includes a roll up door and open air design.
ReplyDeleteMayor Blakespear promised to preserve paradise, and what better way than more bars.
Wow a beer joint with no other redeeming value. Zero contribution to our city in any way other than staggering dudes with growlers. Actually the worst idea for 101 ever.
ReplyDeleteAnother alchohal serving establishment?
ReplyDeleteCome on Encinitas City Council- the downtown seen is already packed with bars. This only make Encinitas that much more like PB and Huntington Beach.
Remember Council- We the citizens want to prevent that and keep the home town family feel. Approve something good for the community.
Perhaps government should just tell property owners what kind of business to put in each storefront.
DeleteSpin the wheel.
Laundromat.
Anything but another PB bar.
ReplyDeleteAnother satellite beer room, Modern Times, across from the La Paloma is in city approval process.
ReplyDeleteWhat Culture is proposing isn't a bar... it is a tasting room that closes at 10 p.m. But of course, some of you on this site don't get too hung up on little things such as facts.
ReplyDelete1:16 AM
ReplyDeleteIt is a bar. It is a bar that closes at 10 p.m. People pay 2 or 3 dollars to taste a small amount of beer. If they like the beer, they buy a larger quantity. Those are facts. The customers sit and drink beer. It is a bar.
Hooray! Another beer bar, Culture Brewing, approved by the Planning Commission. The Council's strategic plan of more alcohol establishments in the city is working. Council Kranz, Blakespear, and Horvath truly represent the residents of Encinitas. Thank heaven, they were elected.
ReplyDelete