Is this their end run plan against the majority of voters wishes? Is this the sell out for developers? They are heading for litigation if they go against voters.
They're already making noises they're not listening this time, either.
Blakespear's weekend newsletter revealed her points of view to be tightly in the grip of developers and their attorneys.
That she and Marco almost went in for the hug at last Wednesday's meeting tells how deep their relationship is and how hard it will be to get her to gain some objectivity.
Prepare not to be surprised. Like the Mosca coronation, this has all been carefully planned. As a matter of fact, they're both a part of the same process.
The anti prop T folks need to insist that the council define what the MINIMUM state requirement is for compliance. This would be a good starting point.
12:16, will you be there to help the anti-T folks get the message out?
The more the council hears from Vina's "28 identified activists," the more the city claims it's just a "handful" (Boerner) of "naysayers" (Shaffer) and "obstructionists" (Barth) making all the noise.
Last Wednesday night's numbers and new faces/voices should have gotten the Council's attention - should have. That said, I'm prepared not to be surprised.
12:16PM made a valid point. Sorry that isn't good enough for you. Maybe that poster contributed money to the prop A and No on T group, maybe that poster has been to hundreds of meetings already. Don't be so quick to judge.
This is an area where Bruce Ehlers' idea of benchmarking other cities can help. We should survey 10-20 approved housing elements of other cities of similar population and demographics, to get an understanding of acceptable buffer size.
The state specifically says no buffer is required, period. Kautz even reiterated that to the council - the first time a city-paid worker was honest in that regard.
Clearly Tasha didn't hear this as she's back repeating in yesterday's newsletter that we need a buffer. She was probably thinking about what she was going to drone on about next instead of listening.
Pack the hall and make sure council hears us this time.
ReplyDeleteHaving any of them trying to defend their past behavior and support for the failure of a rotten plan is unacceptable.
Keeping Measure T and deleting the most objectionable parts, is not the way to go. Toss that over-bloated waste of our dollars where it belongs.
Simplify.
I prefer no govt to bad govt. Encinitas is BAD govt.
ReplyDeleteIs this their end run plan against the majority of voters wishes? Is this the sell out for developers? They are heading for litigation if they go against voters.
ReplyDelete"They" are heading for litigation either way, so pick your poison!
Delete- The Sculpin
They're already making noises they're not listening this time, either.
DeleteBlakespear's weekend newsletter revealed her points of view to be tightly in the grip of developers and their attorneys.
That she and Marco almost went in for the hug at last Wednesday's meeting tells how deep their relationship is and how hard it will be to get her to gain some objectivity.
Prepare not to be surprised. Like the Mosca coronation, this has all
ReplyDeletebeen carefully planned. As a matter of fact, they're both a part of the same process.
The anti prop T folks need to insist that the council define what the MINIMUM state requirement is for compliance. This would be a good starting point.
Delete12:16, will you be there to help the anti-T folks get the message out?
DeleteThe more the council hears from Vina's "28 identified activists," the more the city claims it's just a "handful" (Boerner) of "naysayers" (Shaffer) and "obstructionists" (Barth) making all the noise.
Last Wednesday night's numbers and new faces/voices should have gotten the Council's attention - should have. That said, I'm prepared not to be surprised.
12:16PM made a valid point. Sorry that isn't good enough for you. Maybe that poster contributed money to the prop A and No on T group, maybe that poster has been to hundreds of meetings already. Don't be so quick to judge.
ReplyDeleteHasn't the minimum requirement been firmly established as 1,093?
ReplyDeletePlus buffer, which is unclear.
DeleteThis is an area where Bruce Ehlers' idea of benchmarking other cities can help. We should survey 10-20 approved housing elements of other cities of similar population and demographics, to get an understanding of acceptable buffer size.
The minimum state requirement is 1,093. The state doesn't specify a buffer amount.
ReplyDeleteBrian, who spoke at last Wednesday's meeting, and others have already surveyed a bunch of comparable California cities.
The state specifically says no buffer is required, period. Kautz even reiterated that to the council - the first time a city-paid worker was honest in that regard.
DeleteClearly Tasha didn't hear this as she's back repeating in yesterday's newsletter that we need a buffer. She was probably thinking about what she was going to drone on about next instead of listening.