Encinitas has been hit with yet another legal challenge to Proposition A and the city’s failure to adopt a housing element update.It should be pointed out to the supposed affordable housing advocates that adopting Measure T against the will of the voters would require zero affordable housing, and would result in the development of primarily luxury condos and vacation rentals, none of which would appear to help Ms. Del Rose. Whereas if they took a chill pill and allowed the Blakespear-Ehlers task force to develop a plan, there would be actual affordable housing requirements.
This time, a group of attorneys specializing in affordable housing law on behalf of the low-income community has issued a letter to Encinitas demanding it adopt a housing element by March 30, or be sued.
The four-point legal demand dated March 15 argues that the city has repeatedly failed to meet it’s state requirements to zone appropriately to meet its regional affordable housing needs. The letter then takes aim at Prop. A, the 2013 voter initiative that requires a public vote on major zoning changes or changes to the Housing Element, which the attorneys argue directly conflicts with state law.
“By continuing to require voter approval to adopt an updated housing element, the city continues to be without a housing element that complies with applicable state law, and will not be in compliance for the foreseeable future,” the letter states.
San Diego Volunteer Lawyer Program, Cozen O’Connor P.C. and the Public Interest Law group represent Lorraine Del Rose and San Diego Tenants United in the case. Del Rose is described as a San Diego County resident who has struggled to obtain affordable housing due to lack of supply.
But maybe affordable housing isn't the real goal here.
Not everyone needs to live at the beach....
ReplyDeleteI'm with you, 7:22. People NEED housing, they WANT it at the beach.
DeleteSo many problems arise when we confuse needs with wants. The source of much unhappiness.
Amen. Well intentioned policies (like affordable housing) that ignore market and economic realities either a) fail, b) are exploited by others (high density market rate developers), or c) consume resources far beyond the benefits provided.
DeleteWait, what?
ReplyDeleteI thought there were no consequences to being out of compliance with state law. Someone need to tell these lawyers and the judge.
Mandate affordable units from developers or else market rate housing is all that we will get. Simple. Yea right. Never going to happen.
ReplyDeleteThese sycophants who claim to represent the less fortunate are all nothing but whores for market rate production.
Until this city mandates affordable units, nothing will happen to provide anything but more market rate housing.
I agree with you, but what annoys me is that some of the same people who (rightly) slammed Measure T's lack of affordable housing will switch arguments when the next effort hikes the affordable housing requirements.
DeleteYou're going to see two arguments. The first is, "it's not enough." Unless every single new unit produced is under a formal deed restriction, there will be a bloc who will slam a housing element. Of course, most of them don't actually give a rip about affordable housing, they just want to use the poor as a convenient pawn to make unit construction financially unfeasible. The second argument will be against "those people" who don't deserve to live among us. "They" are less well off because of poor life choices and should live among their kind inland. I hear they bring violent crime, drugs, lower property values, bad schools, and third-world diseases.
It's all BS.
I hope the next rev contains some real affordable housing, and I hope the mix with market rate assures that it actually gets built.
8:16, instead of hoping, why not show up at the next task force meeting and tell Blakespear you will only vote for a plan that includes required, not "planned for" affordable housing?
DeleteYou make an impact when you show up and speak up.
11:47, I agree. Already engaged and doing my part.
DeleteThank you, 12:36! Me, too.
Deletebut we have built affordable housing, even without a plan. More than other cities with a plan. What are their actual damages, none. The city will settle, it has already been decided. We should fight it all the way to the Supreme Court where It will end with the developers will get nothing but a fat legal bill and criminal charges. Didn't Cunninghams handler end up with jail time?
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, just for the threats, we should adopt the most restrictive plan possible. We need to send the message that it is only our council that is corrupted, not the whole city.
This affordable hosing BS is on its death throws anyways. So this pricks just want to cash in while they can.
The city always settles, that's how the developers were trained to know they can count on a spineless council and bad legal advice to come back for more.
Delete"on its death throws"
DeleteCan you list pending legislation or court cases that will undermine or repeal current state housing law?
Here are the points some of you are missing, either on purpose or through ignorance:
ReplyDeleteNo one said there were "no consequences" to not having a compliant HEU. The majority who voted down Measure T simply didn't feel they needed to take their marching orders from litigious, market-rate profit developers. When it was revealed by residents that it could be developers and not the State that might sue, the majority decided a handful of greed-driven builders should not be calling the shots.
"Some of the people" will not say there's not enough affordable housing in the plan because this time, residents are getting the upper limit straight from HCD. This time we are not getting the "we can't require any affordability" line from city staff. What the State says, goes. What staff says is suspect, won't be believed, and won't be voted for - that's what we saw with T.
You'll hear the "those people" argument from one person in particular: Marco Gonzalez, who thinks he can paint those who want more affordability as racist. In this way he serves his market-rate builders, not the low-income folks and not residents who think the spirit of the law should be implemented, not winked at.
So, you make decisions on whether to litigate a dispute based on your feelings about your opponent, and not based on an objective assessment of the strength of your case.
DeleteThat you, Marco?
DeleteNo. But if I was, would it help you determine whether to litigate or settle?
DeleteChallenge the State law as an illegal override of local mandate. There is no such thing as "affordability" in the more preferred localities. It is just a ruse of open up zoning for high density building in the remaining open space or redevelopment in "outdated" areas. This law is a gift to the developers and has nothing to do with the public good.
ReplyDelete"an illegal override of local mandate"
DeleteYes. Because that sounds legal-ish words type talking.
"Your Magesty if it please the court, we offer pro-ratta and pro-forma evidence that heretofore and whereas, on the dates in question, the State of California did hereunto perform such acts as has been alleged to be an illegal override of a local mandate.
Your Excellency, case dismissed, and we rest our case."
(much cheering)
Someone's hitting the bottle before 5.
DeleteWhat can Lorraine Del Rose afford to pay? Bet I can find something in city limits within her budget and for sure with in the county. Does she need an ocean view? We need to help poor Lorraine make more money because some how her lack of income is Encinitas tax payers fault.
ReplyDeleteIt's a shake down plain and simple. If we settle, something criminal is going on and we need to recover any settlement money from the personal accounts of those involved. One way or another the truth will come out in court.
12:20, spot on.
DeleteIt is a false front to try and legitimize it as coming from some "common citizen". Don't those consortiums of lawyers just have big hearts?! They serve only the down-trodden.
DeleteThere is nothing that prevents the council from adding in stricter affordability requirements to the Measure T plan. It would need to get HCD's blessing but I don't see that as a problem.
DeleteAccording to HCD it is not a problem. We just need to settle with them on the max allowable. There are other cities to compare with to see just how much we can require.
DeleteHere's an example of the internationldo-good law firm Cozen O'Connor representing the "struggling" Ms. Del Rose:
ReplyDelete"Changing Your Skyline
On June 30, 2014, Liberty Property Trust, Cozen O’Connor’s client, and Comcast Corporation closed on a transaction to undertake one of the largest private development projects in the history of Pennsylvania. The planned $1.2 billion Comcast Innovation and Technology Center (CITC) is a 59-story mixed-use skyscraper in Center City with more than 1.3 million square feet of office, retail and public space topped by a 222-room Four Seasons hotel."
How much affordable housing you think Cozen provided? I call BS on Del Rose. She's a front for market-rate developers, no question. How much is she being paid for being a false poster child and where will she be able to live once she cashes the check?
And these mega-conglomerates think these ruses will fly. But in this current loot and pillage form of government catering to big money, it just might. No wonder why outfits like Earth First came into being - the Snowdens of the environment.
DeleteLet's move forward... Mayor Blakespear's proposal for helping to county and legalize accessory units (granny flats) is a good one.
ReplyDeleteThe only change in zoning to allow more units should focus on the box store area of El Camino Real where retail outlets prosperity is bleak. Add a subway connecting this corridor to our trenched and covered citizen owned railroad on the coast and we can make a long term plan for the future.
meant "helping to count" not county sorry no edit feature here.
DeleteGood idea, keep the poor people skyscrapers the same height of the retail big boxes that they will replace.
DeleteAS a citizen of this community of nearly 30 years I know that our top notch council would only hire the finest legal mind to protect us. Bring on the lawsuits, bring 'em!!!
ReplyDeleteA good lawyer won't help.
DeleteMaybe a magician, or a Jedi ("This isn't the housing element you're looking for.")
Believe 10:16 was being sarcastic. Anyone even remotely familiar with our city attorney's "work" knows better than to hope he can or has the will to help residents.
DeleteQuite the contrary....
12:52- 10:16 is being sarcastic, Mr. Sabine can be best described as both our cities highest paid employee and it's most pathetic.
DeleteIt's painfully clear from a suit like this that developers and the BIA have no intention of providing affordable housing.
ReplyDeleteMeasure T's defeat got between them and the killer profits they were counting on. Does anyone really think our planning department did not write T without the developers' helping hands?
Add 25% inclusionary housing requirement and then all is happy, according to some posters.
ReplyDeleteNot all. How about the 200-page developer's wish list of "policy changes?" Those will go under the knife bigly.
DeleteWhile this discussion about affordable housing drags on, The City is green-lighting every built-to-the-max project put forth by carpet bagging developers like Rincon. They are knocking on every single family home west of the 101 in Leucadia to ask, can we buy, tear down and build multiple market price "hip" house on your property. The City has approved their projects on Leucadia Blvd., Diana St., Jason St, and Avocado St....maybe more..there will be nothing west of 101 but these schlock, "hip", shed-roofed, crap boxes. The same developer also is operating unlicensed Airbnb properties. Why can't The City control or direct growth - or even enforce City law?
ReplyDeleteDo the affordable housing proponents buy crossfit memberships for City Planners?
Four $1.5 million houses on the alley between 101 and Neptune along Diana. Each fills its lot to the max, leaving little space between them and tiny yards.
DeleteCheck the existing zoning. It's R-11/RS-11 which goes all the way back to the original General Plan. That zone allows parcel size of only 3,950 square feet. Most original developed parcels are a lot bigger. I too regret the change but it's currently allowed. The only solution is to rezone (down zone)the area.
DeleteRight, the zoning is R11. The parcel is 13,266 sq ft. That's 0.3 acre. 3.3 houses allowed, four built. They rounded up. If the house lots are the same size, that's 3316.5 sq ft each.
DeleteThe houses are across the alley from a noisy bar.
There were originally four units already on the site so it was legal nonconforming. The new development didn't add any more units although they are larger than the original units.
DeleteThere are now four separate houses. Not so before.
DeleteMore invasion of the community by Rincon.
With all the projects and business that Rincon has in the city, one would think they'd at least respect basic permitting law but that is not the case at 130 W Jason. There, Rincon has an unregistered and therefore illegal Airbnb property. Clearly, Rincon has no regard for the city, its' law, neighbors or neighborhoods. So, why does the planning committee and the city planners ok everything Rincon requests?
DeleteAll show for the developers to try and slam high density in town and maximize profits at existing residents quality of life and home value.
ReplyDeleteThe state affordable housing laws are wacked. The City needs to join a coalition to get the laws changed.
Back in 1997, when there was more actual need for affordable housing for greenhouse workers, the City was sued by affordable housing advocates, and won. Rutan and Tucker, who later wrote a special report for previous Council to utilize in opposing Prop A, successfully defended the City in this 1997 lawsuit.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's wise for Council to assume it doesn't have a winnable case. Prop A does not prevent Council from finding a way to, within the law, update our housing element, without requiring densification through citywide upzoning, which the electorate would not support.
The problem isn't Prop A; it's really greed, along with misinformation and ignorance, which have created an atmosphere of fear and mistrust. Council should not continue to base its decisions on fear. Councilmembers should not assume that a viable defense could not be presented.
The City is trying to pass an updated housing element. More pressure isn't needed. Assumptions are being made that are demonstrably erroneous, based on incorrect SANDAG projections. SANDAG, currently, has a very poor record regarding its projections.
In court, a good case could be made that population projections are incorrect, and that the count of existing affordable housing is off. This could result in our city's being able to prevail in court, without settling, by demonstrating that we are in the process of updating our housing element, without forcing unwanted densification throughout our beloved neighborhoods.
Furthermore, the actual law is about owner occupied upzoning.
DeleteAlso, the law is based on adding transportation infrastructure to make it work. We are getting one carpool lane and more freight trains. The state needs to live up to their end of the bargain.
The law makes exceptions for farms and environmental sensitive areas. We are surrounded by marine reserves and important wildlife corridors.
SANDAG has shown a pattern bullshitting, that is relevant.
damages to Del Rosa have to be proven. We have built more affordable housing than our larger neighbors with a plan. A Craigslist search will show there are many places up for rent. Any developer is free to build what they want but any zoning changes need to be approved by voters. This needs to go to court and if it does, expect more people to start jumping ship.
Call bs on SANDOG and do it now, especially since their tax plan failed. This is one dog that should be kicked when it is down, figuratively speaking.
ReplyDeleteTheir lying future population numbers should be attacked in order to reduce our RHNA requirements, the next time. It is too late to question the numbers we already have from SANDOG, unless our city attorney Barbara is mistaken. Next time council should grow a spine and question our allotments.
Typical. The BIA threatens to sue the city (again) for the vote of the people. That right there should spark any judge to realize Encinitas City Hall has NOTHING to do with the vote of the people and are therefore not accountable for ANY alleged "lack of housing" (which is a ruse in itself spawned by SANDAG, the BIA and others inflating a never ending balloon of "required housing" for Encinitas). Its not city hall's fault its citizens don't want LA here. In fact, they've spent TONS of money trying to appease the BIA. What a waste of a city's time and money but especially for frivolous lawsuits like these that rob judges of their time, making them look deep into baseless allegations. Makes a few lawyers rich though so its not all bad. Hmmmm. Maybe they're the only ones encouraging these lawsuits.
ReplyDelete"Affordable housing" is nothing more than a Cultural Marxist ploy for socialist and communist-style equality but America has never been for equal outcomes, only equal opportunities. Rent for a 3 bedroom 2 bath house in Las Vegas is only $1,400 All the poor people need to move out of state if they cannot afford to live here. Everyone wants to live in ocean view La Jolla or Encinitas but cannot and shouldn't be given any opportunity to unless they can pay for it. Don't take the bait, let's start a petition to repeal the socialist-created "State Mandate" that NO ONE ever likes to talk about.
ReplyDeleteOk There he is, with his Cultural Marxist reference, Thomas Roger Ogden, the antisemite who spreads his hate here o your local blog from his hovel down is San Diego. Go away. Stay away.
ReplyDeleteWhere do low income Encinitas workers live?
ReplyDeleteI know of many living situations commonly used in Encinitas:
Delete1) accessory units, legal or otherwise
2) with parents
3) with roommates
Drive around certain neighborhoods in Cardiff and New Encinitas, and you'll see 3-4 cars parked in the driveway and on the street for a single-family home.