A bit of a non sequiter, but it would be interesting if the administrator of this blog allowed Thumbs Up/ Thumbs Down voting for particular comments on this blog. That would give an indication of who people think is making a good argument and who is not. http://xenonnet.blogspot.com/2012/04/h-ere-is-new-thumbs-up-thumbs-down.html#.WzWbQtVKjIU
This recommendation is from a city worker or someone else who is trying to push through the disaster of a Housing Element. Opt-in surveys are invalid and meangingless. That is the main problem with everything that the city does. They spend millions hiring consultants to do invalid surveys so that they can create a desired perception.
WE are over this game. Vote NO on the Housing Element in November!
Data mining so someone can go to the city hall meetings and provide "statistics" based on fictitious "friends 'n' family". Gotta give credit to you moles. You're getting smarter!
Fun with math is actually the city's specialty. Remember when it hired fictitious persona services for Measure T? Talk about "friends n' family." The city invented the "this is what everyone said they wanted" lie.
That forecast is a bit premature. Give us a chance to read the final measure and the ballot arguments and see who signs the ballot arguments. Our local custom is for members of the Planning Staff to quit before the election, when this happens we will know for sure.
I don't think that you need to read a ballot measure to know that it won't pass. Not sure if personnel changes have anything to do with the question, 11:30 AM.
The city council will push hard for the upzoning. The city has too much debt and a council that has no common sense. Spend, spend, spend. The current outstanding debt: •2017 Lease Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series A (2010 Park Bonds) •2015 Lease Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series A (2006 Library Bonds) •2014 Lease Revenue Bonds, Series A & B (Moonlight Beach Lifeguard Tower & Pacific View Property) •2013 Lease Revenue Bonds, Series A (Park Construction Project) •2010 Lease Revenue Bonds, Series A (Park Project) •2002 Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2002-1 (Association of Bay Area Governments) •1997 Certificate of Participation (Civic Center) Now the council wants to borrow $30 million for the Leucadia Streetscape. The payments come out of the taxpayer's pocket. Write the council and tell them to cancel the $30 million dollar Streetscape project. Go back and scale it down to what money has been set aside. No roundabouts, reverse parking, and removal of driving lanes. Then vote the council members and mayor out of office in November.
I don't think debt has anything to do with the City's push for the HE - it has more to do with compliance and the desire to maintain control over land use decisions. Nice try, though........
Sculp the city apologist as ever. The HE as the city designs it has everything to do with developer favors, period. If it wanted compliance it would not be giving us son of T.
Please tell us which of the hundreds of compliant housing elements you think represents a decent starting point. It doesn’t have to be perfect. Just good enough.
The one the HCD consultant was proposing about four months back. Just before the developers began their wish list meetings with "staff." Just before the HCD guy suddenly reversed himself without explanation and began quoting Measure T. That one.
Any plan that makes us look like HB won't pass. Two stories (maybe a small portion at three) and no intrusions into our neighborhoods.
9:27: Although the policies may look similar, the thought behind where to put housing is much different. Some cities don't have to rezone. Some cities rezone in smart locations, like near transit. Some rezone to the minimum needed. And some don't let property owners push for profits. We don't ask for much.
And yes, it has to be perfect. "Just good enough" will give you Oceanside.
HCD has the last word on what is acceptable. The state legislature assigns HCD the role in interpreting the state housing element statutes. The city can ignore HCD's ruling and defend their plan in court but the courts give great weight to HCD certification. HCD also listens to the development community as to what factors and constraints go in to making 30 units per acre feasible. Therefore, HCD requires the R-30 zone to allow 3 stories.
It wasn't the developers "wish list" meeting with staff and the consultants. It's HCD.
10:40 the sites that were selected benefit a few property owners! The rationale for their selection is extremely suspect as it doesn't follow common sense.
If you want to build affordable housing, put it in locations where they will be strong candidate sites for grant funds or tax financing programs. To do so, they need to be served adequately by transit. Some of the sites are no where near transit. End of story.
HCD does not have last word. The city does. And potentially a court would, if needed.
And just where would those sites be? Besides the city owned L-7 site, what other site would be a location that would be a strong candidate for grant funds or tax financing program? I didn't like all the sites either but I didn't hear any besides L-7 that would be slam dunk affordable site. And since there are few vacant sites left in the city, let alone near transit, there are few that meet all the criteria.
Few sites besides L-7 won't benefit the property owner. While it's technically true that the city will have the last word on adoption, from a practical standpoint, failure to meet state requirements will just leave us open to more lawsuits and I'm tired of the shelling out money to lawyers. So if you want to keep fighting this start a defense fund and make a big donation.
1:18 PM Please stop using the term affordable housing. The state wants low income housing. These upzoned 30 units per acre apartments/condos will be market rate. That defeats the increase in density for low income housing. The mayor may say she doesn't want to defend against more lawsuits, but she and the council had no hesitation on directing the city attorney to fight several lawsuits brought by citizens. This last agreement with David Meyer had him paying some attorney fees to the city.
The Role of the California Department of Housing and Community Development
The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) plays the critical role of reviewing every local government’s housing element to determine whether it complies with state law and then submits written findings back to each local government. HCD’s approval is required before a local government can adopt its housing element as part of its overall General Plan
There are a few cities who disagree with HCD on the legality of their plan who have passed an HEU that HCD would not approve.
If those cities are sued, they are free to argue the legality in court. They may win, they may lose. But defending the legality of a housing element with an approval from HCD is pretty much a slam dunk, as the courts are deferential to HCD.
L-7 is not eligible for grants or Low-Income Tax Credit Financing. It is not near transit services or commercial areas. It was only a good site because the city was in control over what is built there. And it could fully subsidize the cost of land to reduce overall construction costs.
There are many eligible sites in the city for tax financing. Just follow the bus around. It serves areas near commercial areas. All of those properties would score well in a tax credit application. Think ECR and Encinitas Blvd and Hwy 101. Not Pireaus and not RSF.
It's easy to throw around general locations that would be good for affordable housing but it's another to identify specific parcels with owners agreeable to that type of development or redevelopment. Did a property owner in the specific locations you pointed out seek to have their site included but were ignored? I don't remember any. Remember, with the new laws half the sites have to be vacant and all sites should be able to be developed within the current cycle. The Frogs site had existing leases that extended past the cycle period and therefore could not be included. Because the city hasn't had a HE it only has 3 years remaining in the cycle.
I don't care for some of the current locations either, none of which are near me, but most of the speakers who object to any site near them always claim they are for affordable housing, just not near them.
And the objection is frequently that they are really going to be "luxury" condos anyway. Would that objection be any different if it was guaranteed that all the units on that site were affordable? The L-7 response says no.
5:04 PM HCD doesn't certify. HCD will check for substantial compliance. Substantial Compliance Legal Definition | Merriam-Webster Law ... https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/substantial%20compliance : compliance with the substantial or essential requirements of something (as a statute or contract) that satisfies its purpose or objective even though its formal requirements are not complied with.
@5:26. At some point, City staff needs to not spend any time (tax dollars) on prospective ballot measures. Planning Commissioners, Council members and consultants included.
Yes, HCD will certify (or attest, confirm, etc. if you prefer) that a city's HE is in substantial compliance with state law. No matter how you word it the result is the same.
The Law Dictionary Featuring Black's Law Dictionary Free Online Legal Dictionary 2nd Ed.
What is CERTIFIED?
A qualification or attribute meaning to being officially attested or authoritatively confirmed as being genuine or true as represented, or complying or meeting specified requirements or standards. A certificate may or may accompany this qualification. From the June 12 HCD letter to the city:
Paragraph 3: “The revised draft element meets statutory requirements of state housing element law.”
Paragraph 4: “The revised element will comply with state housing element law ...”
Paragraph 6: “Any subsequent revisions to the draft element, related documents or new information may impact the Department’s finding that the element meets statutory requirements.”
So no, HCD doesn’t stamp the HE or provide a certificate, they merely issue an opinion which attests to the fact that their review finds the HE in substantial compliance which has great weight in court. The HCD review letter attests to, confirms or certifies (in the common use of the word) the substantial compliance.
11:05 AM You have a problem with understanding the definitions of legal terms. HCD doesn't attest to anything. Write to them and ask if their letter attests to their opinion of the HE. Remember - HCD doesn't certify. HCD doesn't attest to anything. HCD can only find substantial compliance.
Housing-Element Process: • Update previous housing element. • Submit draft to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review/approval. • Revise and adopt (or adopt without changes). • Submit adopted housing element to HCD.
So HCD itself says it has the responsibility to approve. By that I'm sure they mean that they determine that the HE is in substantial compliance. As they also say, the city/county may or may not accept any recommended changes. The statute allows a city/county to argue, contrary to HCD recommendations, their HE is in substantial compliance even without HCD's approval. That defense faces a uphill climb in court without HCD's approval but it is possible to be successful.
Yes, it wold be a problem if I was trying to use "certify" in a legal sense but I wasn't. It was you that interjected that. What you haven't done is explain why it should make a difference. What is the practical difference that will effect the city's course of action?
3:04 PM That is from Palos Verdes Estates and not from HCD. PVE has a housing element that is 78 pages long compared to the Encinitas housing element of 400 pages. Why couldn't the Mayor and staff of Encinitas start with the PVE housing element. You lose. Get an HCD document that states they certify.
I'm not sure if you're 11:24 AM but I'm not 11:26 AM. I am 3:04 PM and just wanted to note that the link didn't work. So if you are 11:24 AM where is the explanation detailing how it matters whether we use the strict legal definition of "certify" or the common usage? As the PVE Q&A highlights, using "certify" to describe the HCD determination is common. So please enlighten us.
But our draft Housing Element DID change since it was reviewed by HCD. So therefor it won't be certified, ratified, approved, endorsed, or any other terminology used to show HCD is ok with what we are doing. They need to look at it again and weigh in on it before it is voted on. Otherwise it doesn't comply with that aspect of law. It may also not satisfy with other state law requirements, but that is another topic of debate.
All I know is, there was not one, not tow but 3 secret meetings so far. The two that Glen busted at our own city hall, and the other with Mike Andreen and Kristen "Hot for Trump" Gaspar. Were there any more? The cat is out of the bag, developer groupies.
The limit per person per election is $250. If a developer and his wife contribute the limit, that's $500. Do you really think a City Council candidate sells out for $250 or $500?
Look at the 460 forms on the city's website and see how many developers contributed how much to any current member of the City Council.
Oh yeah? Dan Dalagar told me himself that he liked Maggie Houlihan but didn't want his name on her list of contributors, so he gave her $99 so it wouldn't get reported. That could've been a lie, but if anyone knew how to bend rules, it was that guy.
It was great going to the campaign debates during the scandal. Dalager looked like a deer in the headlights and rambled incoherently; it was like a Trump speech, without the bluster.
A contribution in Encinitas of $100 or more directly to a candidate is required to be reported, as are the expenses. However, a lot of money is contributed indirectly to candidates through a PAC, which then spends the money for the candidate, as long as it's done independently. Reporting is required, but the rules are easy to bend. There is no way to prove if the expenditures of the PAC are coordinated with the candidate.
Right, PACs are gonna give a ton of money to a CC candidate, none of the watchdogs are gonna find out about it, and then the PACs are gonna control the candidate through the term.
And developers are gonna get hordes of people to donate $99 each so they can control the candidates too.
Look at the 460 forms on the city's website. This is from that site:
The City of Encinitas has local contribution limits as follows (Encinitas Municipal Code Chapter 2.16)
No contributor shall contribute more than $250 total to any candidate or their controlled committee, for any one election.
No contributor shall contribute more than $250 total, for any one election, to any committee, as defined in Section 2.16.010B, formed to support or oppose a candidate.
OK, did that. If all those people who contributed $100 could have given $99 instead and then wouldn't be on the form and could have saved the candidate from the paperwork the form requires, wouldn't they have gone that simpler route?
The way they get around this restriction is by using PACs Political Acvtion Committees. The Democratic and Republican Parties can bundle huge amounts and give thousands and thousands to candidates. There are also other PACs as well.
"No contributor shall contribute more than $250 total, for any one election, to any committee, as defined in Section 2.16.010B, formed to support or oppose a candidate."
A. The provisions of this chapter are applicable to persons, including candidates and committees, participating in an election within the City and, in addition to the requirements of the Political Reform Act as amended, whose provisions, definitions and interpretations are to be relied upon in administering this chapter; except as otherwise provided for herein.
B. As used in this chapter, “committee” shall include any person or combination of persons who directly or indirectly receives contributions or makes expenditures or contributions for the purpose of influencing or attempting to influence the action of the voters for or against the election of one or more candidate. (Ord. 97-24)
9:33 PM And yet....our perfect system is flawed!! Say it ain't so!!! Remember which of our famous council members said this about his double dipping from Barrett Homes? "I guess I'm a better politician than a book keeper." (hint: he had to give the money back)
The council and staff suck up to anybody who increases the city's sales, property and transient occupancy tax revenue, not to people who contribute $250 to a candidate's campaign.
Right, the council candidates have been taking money under the table since incorporation in 1986, and none of the watchdogs have found out about it and exposed the culprits.
Figure out the difference between your and you're.
It shows on the City Meetings web site as a canceled meeting. Is this another secret meeting?
ReplyDeleteWe shouldn't expect our elected council members to schedule their vacations around the regularly council meetings now should we?
ReplyDeleteEven you Mark. Maybe you can use some of the time off and help take down Mo's campaign signs at this too late already date.
Frack. Just pay someone and get 'er done. Real classy. Maybe there should be a fine imposed for those that don't take them ALL down within a week.
I believe the next council meeting is not until the middle of July. Party on.
When council meets, you whine and complain.
ReplyDeleteWhen council doesn’t meet, you whine and complain.
I’m detecting a pattern.
When someone says something that you don't approve of, you whine and complain. You're like a bad date.
DeleteOr a city worker.
DeleteFolks here enjoy complaining almost as much as they enjoy doing nothing about it.
DeleteThat actually describes our city workers, 10:19.
DeleteCity workers are complaining?
DeleteYes, they're apparently perpetually overworked. ROTFLMAO.
DeleteA bit of a non sequiter, but it would be interesting if the administrator of this blog allowed Thumbs Up/ Thumbs Down voting for particular comments on this blog. That would give an indication of who people think is making a good argument and who is not. http://xenonnet.blogspot.com/2012/04/h-ere-is-new-thumbs-up-thumbs-down.html#.WzWbQtVKjIU
ReplyDeleteThis comment brought to you by, folks who think “like”ing a post is the same as doing something in real life.
DeleteThis recommendation is from a city worker or someone else who is trying to push through the disaster of a Housing Element. Opt-in surveys are invalid and meangingless. That is the main problem with everything that the city does. They spend millions hiring consultants to do invalid surveys so that they can create a desired perception.
DeleteWE are over this game. Vote NO on the Housing Element in November!
7:41 - Go to hell.
DeleteAll that means nothing. It's a forum. Why the need for a pat on the head or a swat on the ass?
ReplyDeleteData mining so someone can go to the city hall meetings and provide "statistics" based on fictitious "friends 'n' family". Gotta give credit to you moles. You're getting smarter!
ReplyDeleteFun with math is actually the city's specialty. Remember when it hired fictitious persona services for Measure T? Talk about "friends n' family." The city invented the "this is what everyone said they wanted" lie.
DeleteWe all know that this housing measure won't pass. A better test will be to see if it beats measure T. 45/55 (YES/NO split) Any over under takers?
ReplyDeleteI say under. 38/62
That forecast is a bit premature. Give us a chance to read the final measure and the ballot arguments and see who signs the ballot arguments. Our local custom is for members of the Planning Staff to quit before the election, when this happens we will know for sure.
Delete40 Yes - 60 No.
DeleteIts more polarizing than the first attempt.
I don't think that you need to read a ballot measure to know that it won't pass. Not sure if personnel changes have anything to do with the question, 11:30 AM.
The city council will push hard for the upzoning. The city has too much debt and a council that has no common sense. Spend, spend, spend.
ReplyDeleteThe current outstanding debt:
•2017 Lease Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series A (2010 Park Bonds)
•2015 Lease Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series A (2006 Library Bonds)
•2014 Lease Revenue Bonds, Series A & B (Moonlight Beach Lifeguard Tower & Pacific View Property)
•2013 Lease Revenue Bonds, Series A (Park Construction Project)
•2010 Lease Revenue Bonds, Series A (Park Project)
•2002 Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2002-1 (Association of Bay Area Governments)
•1997 Certificate of Participation (Civic Center)
Now the council wants to borrow $30 million for the Leucadia Streetscape.
The payments come out of the taxpayer's pocket. Write the council and tell them to cancel the $30 million dollar Streetscape project. Go back and scale it down to what money has been set aside. No roundabouts, reverse parking, and removal of driving lanes. Then vote the council members and mayor out of office in November.
I don't think debt has anything to do with the City's push for the HE - it has more to do with compliance and the desire to maintain control over land use decisions. Nice try, though........
Delete- The Sculpin
Sculp the city apologist as ever. The HE as the city designs it has everything to do with developer favors, period. If it wanted compliance it would not be giving us son of T.
Delete6:45,
DeletePlease tell us which of the hundreds of compliant housing elements you think represents a decent starting point. It doesn’t have to be perfect. Just good enough.
Good luck to you.
I have read several, and they are all similar.
The one the HCD consultant was proposing about four months back. Just before the developers began their wish list meetings with "staff." Just before the HCD guy suddenly reversed himself without explanation and began quoting Measure T. That one.
DeleteAny plan that makes us look like HB won't pass. Two stories (maybe a small portion at three) and no intrusions into our neighborhoods.
Delete9:27: Although the policies may look similar, the thought behind where to put housing is much different. Some cities don't have to rezone. Some cities rezone in smart locations, like near transit. Some rezone to the minimum needed. And some don't let property owners push for profits. We don't ask for much.
And yes, it has to be perfect. "Just good enough" will give you Oceanside.
HCD has the last word on what is acceptable. The state legislature assigns HCD the role in interpreting the state housing element statutes. The city can ignore HCD's ruling and defend their plan in court but the courts give great weight to HCD certification. HCD also listens to the development community as to what factors and constraints go in to making 30 units per acre feasible. Therefore, HCD requires the R-30 zone to allow 3 stories.
DeleteIt wasn't the developers "wish list" meeting with staff and the consultants. It's HCD.
10:40 the sites that were selected benefit a few property owners! The rationale for their selection is extremely suspect as it doesn't follow common sense.
DeleteIf you want to build affordable housing, put it in locations where they will be strong candidate sites for grant funds or tax financing programs. To do so, they need to be served adequately by transit. Some of the sites are no where near transit. End of story.
HCD does not have last word. The city does. And potentially a court would, if needed.
DOA
12:32 PM
DeleteAnd just where would those sites be? Besides the city owned L-7 site, what other site would be a location that would be a strong candidate for grant funds or tax financing program? I didn't like all the sites either but I didn't hear any besides L-7 that would be slam dunk affordable site. And since there are few vacant sites left in the city, let alone near transit, there are few that meet all the criteria.
Few sites besides L-7 won't benefit the property owner. While it's technically true that the city will have the last word on adoption, from a practical standpoint, failure to meet state requirements will just leave us open to more lawsuits and I'm tired of the shelling out money to lawyers. So if you want to keep fighting this start a defense fund and make a big donation.
1:18 PM
DeletePlease stop using the term affordable housing. The state wants low income housing. These upzoned 30 units per acre apartments/condos will be market rate. That defeats the increase in density for low income housing. The mayor may say she doesn't want to defend against more lawsuits, but she and the council had no hesitation on directing the city attorney to fight several lawsuits brought by citizens. This last agreement with David Meyer had him paying some attorney fees to the city.
10:40 AM
DeleteThe state doesn't certify.
The Role of the California Department of Housing and Community Development
DeleteThe California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) plays the critical role of reviewing every local government’s housing element to determine whether it complies with state law and then submits written findings back to each local government. HCD’s approval is required before a local government can adopt its housing element as part of its overall General Plan
http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/index.shtml
That’s not technically correct.
DeleteThere are a few cities who disagree with HCD on the legality of their plan who have passed an HEU that HCD would not approve.
If those cities are sued, they are free to argue the legality in court. They may win, they may lose. But defending the legality of a housing element with an approval from HCD is pretty much a slam dunk, as the courts are deferential to HCD.
The City only needs to consider HCD findings before adoption.
DeleteHCD also said that if anything changes, they would have to review the plan again. So technically we are not in compliance under the current path.
L-7 is not eligible for grants or Low-Income Tax Credit Financing. It is not near transit services or commercial areas. It was only a good site because the city was in control over what is built there. And it could fully subsidize the cost of land to reduce overall construction costs.
DeleteThere are many eligible sites in the city for tax financing. Just follow the bus around. It serves areas near commercial areas. All of those properties would score well in a tax credit application. Think ECR and Encinitas Blvd and Hwy 101. Not Pireaus and not RSF.
Oh yes, let's quibble about wording. When I enter "certify definition" into Google I get:
Delete* attest or confirm in a formal statement.
* officially recognize (someone or something) as possessing certain qualifications or meeting certain standards.
* officially declare insane.
So whether or not HCD officially calls it certification, the effect is the same. To deny this qualifies you for the third definition.
4:58 PM
DeleteIt's easy to throw around general locations that would be good for affordable housing but it's another to identify specific parcels with owners agreeable to that type of development or redevelopment. Did a property owner in the specific locations you pointed out seek to have their site included but were ignored? I don't remember any. Remember, with the new laws half the sites have to be vacant and all sites should be able to be developed within the current cycle. The Frogs site had existing leases that extended past the cycle period and therefore could not be included. Because the city hasn't had a HE it only has 3 years remaining in the cycle.
I don't care for some of the current locations either, none of which are near me, but most of the speakers who object to any site near them always claim they are for affordable housing, just not near them.
And the objection is frequently that they are really going to be "luxury" condos anyway. Would that objection be any different if it was guaranteed that all the units on that site were affordable? The L-7 response says no.
5:04 PM
DeleteHCD doesn't certify. HCD will check for substantial compliance.
Substantial Compliance Legal Definition | Merriam-Webster Law ...
https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/substantial%20compliance
: compliance with the substantial or essential requirements of something (as a statute or contract) that satisfies its purpose or objective even though its formal requirements are not complied with.
@5:26. At some point, City staff needs to not spend any time (tax dollars) on prospective ballot measures. Planning Commissioners, Council members and consultants included.
Delete6:28 PM
DeleteYes, HCD will certify (or attest, confirm, etc. if you prefer) that a city's HE is in substantial compliance with state law. No matter how you word it the result is the same.
9:38 AM
DeleteHCD doesn't certify. The result isn't the same.
The Law Dictionary Featuring Black's Law Dictionary Free Online Legal Dictionary 2nd Ed.
DeleteWhat is CERTIFIED?
A qualification or attribute meaning to being officially attested or authoritatively confirmed as being genuine or true as represented, or complying or meeting specified requirements or standards. A certificate may or may accompany this qualification.
From the June 12 HCD letter to the city:
Paragraph 3:
“The revised draft element meets statutory requirements of state housing element law.”
Paragraph 4:
“The revised element will comply with state housing element law ...”
Paragraph 6:
“Any subsequent revisions to the draft element, related documents or new information may impact the Department’s finding that the element meets statutory requirements.”
So no, HCD doesn’t stamp the HE or provide a certificate, they merely issue an opinion which attests to the fact that their review finds the HE in substantial compliance which has great weight in court. The HCD review letter attests to, confirms or certifies (in the common use of the word) the substantial compliance.
11:05 AM
DeleteYou have a problem with understanding the definitions of legal terms. HCD doesn't attest to anything. Write to them and ask if their letter attests to their opinion of the HE. Remember - HCD doesn't certify. HCD doesn't attest to anything. HCD can only find substantial compliance.
11:24 AM
DeleteFrom HCD's website:
Housing-Element Process:
• Update previous housing element.
• Submit draft to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review/approval.
• Revise and adopt (or adopt without changes).
• Submit adopted housing element to HCD.
So HCD itself says it has the responsibility to approve. By that I'm sure they mean that they determine that the HE is in substantial compliance. As they also say, the city/county may or may not accept any recommended changes. The statute allows a city/county to argue, contrary to HCD recommendations, their HE is in substantial compliance even without HCD's approval. That defense faces a uphill climb in court without HCD's approval but it is possible to be successful.
Yes, it wold be a problem if I was trying to use "certify" in a legal sense but I wasn't. It was you that interjected that. What you haven't done is explain why it should make a difference. What is the practical difference that will effect the city's course of action?
See Question and Answer #2, HERE.
Delete11:26 AM
DeleteThat link didn't work so here's the URL:
http://www.pvestates.org/home/showdocument?id=1590
3:04 PM
DeleteThat is from Palos Verdes Estates and not from HCD. PVE has a housing element that is 78 pages long compared to the Encinitas housing element of 400 pages. Why couldn't the Mayor and staff of Encinitas start with the PVE housing element. You lose. Get an HCD document that states they certify.
4:18 PM
DeleteI'm not sure if you're 11:24 AM but I'm not 11:26 AM. I am 3:04 PM and just wanted to note that the link didn't work. So if you are 11:24 AM where is the explanation detailing how it matters whether we use the strict legal definition of "certify" or the common usage? As the PVE Q&A highlights, using "certify" to describe the HCD determination is common. So please enlighten us.
@11:05 AM..
DeleteBut our draft Housing Element DID change since it was reviewed by HCD. So therefor it won't be certified, ratified, approved, endorsed, or any other terminology used to show HCD is ok with what we are doing. They need to look at it again and weigh in on it before it is voted on. Otherwise it doesn't comply with that aspect of law. It may also not satisfy with other state law requirements, but that is another topic of debate.
All I know is, there was not one, not tow but 3 secret meetings so far. The two that Glen busted at our own city hall, and the other with Mike Andreen and Kristen "Hot for Trump" Gaspar. Were there any more? The cat is out of the bag, developer groupies.
ReplyDeleteLet the courts rule on this, then watch the revolution of home owners begin.
DeleteDevelopers pay for the campaigns of their stooges and the stooges deliver - quid pro quo.
ReplyDeleteThe limit per person per election is $250. If a developer and his wife contribute the limit, that's $500. Do you really think a City Council candidate sells out for $250 or $500?
DeleteLook at the 460 forms on the city's website and see how many developers contributed how much to any current member of the City Council.
$99 here and $99 there adds up, and isn't reported.
DeleteIt's all reported.
DeleteBlanket statement much, 9:10?
DeleteSimple response is residents vote no. Yeah.
ReplyDeleteOh yeah? Dan Dalagar told me himself that he liked Maggie Houlihan but didn't want his name on her list of contributors, so he gave her $99 so it wouldn't get reported. That could've been a lie, but if anyone knew how to bend rules, it was that guy.
ReplyDeleteWas he cooking up a steak on that free deluxe range he got for his vote?
DeleteIt was great going to the campaign debates during the scandal. Dalager looked like a deer in the headlights and rambled incoherently; it was like a Trump speech, without the bluster.
DeleteA contribution in Encinitas of $100 or more directly to a candidate is required to be reported, as are the expenses. However, a lot of money is contributed indirectly to candidates through a PAC, which then spends the money for the candidate, as long as it's done independently. Reporting is required, but the rules are easy to bend. There is no way to prove if the expenditures of the PAC are coordinated with the candidate.
ReplyDeleteRight, PACs are gonna give a ton of money to a CC candidate, none of the watchdogs are gonna find out about it, and then the PACs are gonna control the candidate through the term.
ReplyDeleteAnd developers are gonna get hordes of people to donate $99 each so they can control the candidates too.
Look at the 460 forms on the city's website. This is from that site:
The City of Encinitas has local contribution limits as follows (Encinitas Municipal Code Chapter 2.16)
No contributor shall contribute more than $250 total to any candidate or their controlled committee, for any one election.
No contributor shall contribute more than $250 total, for any one election, to any committee, as defined in Section 2.16.010B, formed to support or oppose a candidate.
OK, did that. If all those people who contributed $100 could have given $99 instead and then wouldn't be on the form and could have saved the candidate from the paperwork the form requires, wouldn't they have gone that simpler route?
ReplyDeleteThe way they get around this restriction is by using PACs Political Acvtion Committees. The Democratic and Republican Parties can bundle huge amounts and give thousands and thousands to candidates. There are also other PACs as well.
Delete"No contributor shall contribute more than $250 total, for any one election, to any committee, as defined in Section 2.16.010B, formed to support or oppose a candidate."
DeleteQuote policies all you want. Candidates still find way to get around the rules!
DeleteThat's a city ordinance, not a policy.
Delete2.16.010 Application.
ReplyDeleteA. The provisions of this chapter are applicable to persons, including candidates and committees, participating in an election within the City and, in addition to the requirements of the Political Reform Act as amended, whose provisions, definitions and interpretations are to be relied upon in administering this chapter; except as otherwise provided for herein.
B. As used in this chapter, “committee” shall include any person or combination of persons who directly or indirectly receives contributions or makes expenditures or contributions for the purpose of influencing or attempting to influence the action of the voters for or against the election of one or more candidate. (Ord. 97-24)
So............. I guess that the council has never been influenced by donors...right?
ReplyDeleteIf you think they can be bought off for $250, give each of the current candidates the money, and report back about how much power you have.
ReplyDelete...$99 here and $99 there adds up.
ReplyDelete9:33 PM And yet....our perfect system is flawed!! Say it ain't so!!! Remember which of our famous council members said this about his double dipping from Barrett Homes? "I guess I'm a better politician than a book keeper." (hint: he had to give the money back)
ReplyDeleteThe council and staff suck up to anybody who increases the city's sales, property and transient occupancy tax revenue, not to people who contribute $250 to a candidate's campaign.
ReplyDeleteYour silly if you think that's all they get. A rule can be broken, you know, like a law that says you have to have a housing element.
DeleteRight, the council candidates have been taking money under the table since incorporation in 1986, and none of the watchdogs have found out about it and exposed the culprits.
DeleteFigure out the difference between your and you're.