But with time running out for HCD certification and placement on the November ballot, is it too late? Tomorrow night's City Council meeting should be a doozy!
Yeah, god forbid the law worked as intended - right, 2:48? Can't go around producing affordable housing to comply with affordable housing law, nope, can't have that.
You and the city are in agreement on that. How's it feel to be on the wrong side of the issue?
The point was not that we don't need to comply. It was that more than one site under consideration is not appropriate and surrounding neighborhoods can have legitimate concerns without being terrible people.
At the very least, limit the development density to blend into the resident pattern already there - try to make it compatible with the existing neighborhoods. Otherwise, vote NO.
Why not pull the market-rate Echter property off the map instead? Oops that's right, as an "agrihood" Blakespear and Horvath would never let that happen.
3:19, the Echter property is actually the only site that has committed to 20% affordable housing onsite. All of these other sites are only required to provide 15% affordable housing per the newly-approved inclusionary housing ordinance.
10:53 AM Echter property - no mention of deed restricted low income housing in writing. Affordable doesn't mean anything. Did Echter promise in writing the deed restricted 20% low income housing would be built on site?
10:53, yes Echter has committed to 20% low income housing (deed restricted) to be built on site. There are letters to staff in the record reflecting this. Which is more than can be said about any of the other sites and their associated developers.
At this point there are just too many bad sites. Keep the all on the plan which will then be easily defeated in November. This is a failure by the city council but then the Judge will have his word and the appeals will delay things.
City posted new closed session and open session on lawsuits and land swap. Check the agenda. Is L-7 being pirated by the the city council without public input at a regular noticed council meeting. Brown Act violation.
"Pirated"? Discussions on L7 at regular city council meetings have always included a "land swap" as an alternative to provide a city owned high density housing site in a more suitable location.
Our City hope lies with "Encinitas Residents Coalition" and the actions they have taken, are taking and going to take. Of the people, for the people and by the people!
If your not angry, you should be after last night.
Yes vote NO but read the fine print, no may mean yes and yes may mean no. Our city may call this clever but it is deceiving and is the way our city has morphed to change and establish city policies.
9:59 - does your understanding of a land swap include David Meyer approaching Clark St. neighbors and asking them to sign agreements to sell only to him?
He apparently gave the neighbors a sales job that ranged from guaranteeing road improvements to telling folks to sell to him before the city upzones for low-income housing and their property values drop. Some of those who signed under Meyer's false representations barely speak English and assumed he was not taking them for a ride. Bad assumption when the name "Meyer" is involved.
One of the Clark St. speakers showed screen shots of the DCM agreements and asked pointedly why, among all the HEU documents, DCM's paperwork had been heavily redacted. No response, of course.
Nope, zero response from the unfazed council. How many of them knew about this? Stand to benefit from his shell game?
Something tells me the voting public won't take it as lightly as the council seems to.
No. I didn't know about Meyer misleading people. I'm still hoping for a viable win-win swap. The last info. I saw was in Coast News http://www.thecoastnews.com/potential-l-7-land-swap-discussed/
Anything once considered viable now comes with the taint of backroom deals.
First the Meyer mess, then the Harrison screw up. Haven't heard about that one? Also revealed last night, it goes like this:
1) Keith Harrison, local developer who owns the land under the old Frog's Gym (now EOS) decided at the last minute to throw his property into the ring. He asked that it be included on the map and Harrison, being a favorite of Blakespear (and Shaffer before her) has no problem getting his property added.
2) Residents, as usual doing staff's job, discovered that EOS has an 11-year lease on the property and there's no way anything can be built on it for at least 11 years.
3) Whoops! Harrison property now not viable. When asked, staff admitted they'd had no clue. No, they said they took Harrison's word for it that the property was good to go. No HEU basic due diligence coming out of Brenda's department, that would be too much to expect.
4) Mosca says the Harrison parcel obviously has to come off the map and...you guessed it, Blakespear says no, it stays. Horvath agrees.
The lack of professionalism and basic skills among staff and Council is astonishing. Who knows what special favors and whoopsies lurk under every parcel on the map?
New groups of people for the self righteous low income housing advocates to vilify.
ReplyDeleteYeah, god forbid the law worked as intended - right, 2:48? Can't go around producing affordable housing to comply with affordable housing law, nope, can't have that.
DeleteYou and the city are in agreement on that. How's it feel to be on the wrong side of the issue?
This has absolutely nothing to do about "affordability" and all about high density over reach for maximum developer profits.
DeleteThe point was not that we don't need to comply. It was that more than one site under consideration is not appropriate and surrounding neighborhoods can have legitimate concerns without being terrible people.
DeleteAt the very least, limit the development density to blend into the resident pattern already there - try to make it compatible with the existing neighborhoods. Otherwise, vote NO.
DeleteCardiff and Ohain are getting off easy. Look at the site distributions on the maps.
ReplyDeleteQGD was totally different, with too many sites jammed into one small area.
Any council person who gives the time of day to these clowns will get ruined.
As opposed to the L7 clowns?
DeleteWhy not pull the market-rate Echter property off the map instead? Oops that's right, as an "agrihood" Blakespear and Horvath would never let that happen.
3:19, the Echter property is actually the only site that has committed to 20% affordable housing onsite. All of these other sites are only required to provide 15% affordable housing per the newly-approved inclusionary housing ordinance.
Delete10:53 AM
DeleteEchter property - no mention of deed restricted low income housing in writing. Affordable doesn't mean anything. Did Echter promise in writing the deed restricted 20% low income housing would be built on site?
10:53, yes Echter has committed to 20% low income housing (deed restricted) to be built on site. There are letters to staff in the record reflecting this. Which is more than can be said about any of the other sites and their associated developers.
Delete12:36PM
DeleteStrange. No letters from Echter committing to low income housing. Please post the letters.
On a serious note,
ReplyDeleteWhat sites should we keep?
What sites should be removed?
No emotions, only logic.
At this point there are just too many bad sites. Keep the all on the plan which will then be easily defeated in November. This is a failure by the city council but then the Judge will have his word and the appeals will delay things.
ReplyDeleteCity posted new closed session and open session on lawsuits and land swap. Check the agenda. Is L-7 being pirated by the the city council without public input at a regular noticed council meeting. Brown Act violation.
ReplyDelete"Pirated"? Discussions on L7 at regular city council meetings have always included a "land swap" as an alternative to provide a city owned high density housing site in a more suitable location.
DeleteMr. Brown has been violated over and over. This is the mayor's act with the CA watching.
ReplyDeleteI just committed a major violation of the Brown Act after coffee and a bran muffin.
ReplyDeleteMajor.
VOTE NO!!!!!
ReplyDeleteOur City hope lies with "Encinitas Residents Coalition" and the actions they have taken, are taking and going to take. Of the people, for the people and by the people!
ReplyDeleteIf your not angry, you should be after last night.
Yes vote NO but read the fine print, no may mean yes and yes may mean no. Our city may call this clever but it is deceiving and is the way our city has morphed to change and establish city policies.
9:59 - does your understanding of a land swap include David Meyer approaching Clark St. neighbors and asking them to sign agreements to sell only to him?
ReplyDeleteHe apparently gave the neighbors a sales job that ranged from guaranteeing road improvements to telling folks to sell to him before the city upzones for low-income housing and their property values drop. Some of those who signed under Meyer's false representations barely speak English and assumed he was not taking them for a ride. Bad assumption when the name "Meyer" is involved.
One of the Clark St. speakers showed screen shots of the DCM agreements and asked pointedly why, among all the HEU documents, DCM's paperwork had been heavily redacted. No response, of course.
Nope, zero response from the unfazed council. How many of them knew about this? Stand to benefit from his shell game?
Something tells me the voting public won't take it as lightly as the council seems to.
No. I didn't know about Meyer misleading people. I'm still hoping for a viable win-win swap. The last info. I saw was in Coast News http://www.thecoastnews.com/potential-l-7-land-swap-discussed/
ReplyDeleteMeyer is all about Meyer - greedy.
DeleteAnything once considered viable now comes with the taint of backroom deals.
ReplyDeleteFirst the Meyer mess, then the Harrison screw up. Haven't heard about that one? Also revealed last night, it goes like this:
1) Keith Harrison, local developer who owns the land under the old Frog's Gym (now EOS) decided at the last minute to throw his property into the ring. He asked that it be included on the map and Harrison, being a favorite of Blakespear (and Shaffer before her) has no problem getting his property added.
2) Residents, as usual doing staff's job, discovered that EOS has an 11-year lease on the property and there's no way anything can be built on it for at least 11 years.
3) Whoops! Harrison property now not viable. When asked, staff admitted they'd had no clue. No, they said they took Harrison's word for it that the property was good to go.
No HEU basic due diligence coming out of Brenda's department, that would be too much to expect.
4) Mosca says the Harrison parcel obviously has to come off the map and...you guessed it, Blakespear says no, it stays. Horvath agrees.
The lack of professionalism and basic skills among staff and Council is astonishing. Who knows what special favors and whoopsies lurk under every parcel on the map?
Vote NO.
Vote NO - 7:14 PM This is information you won't hear from the city council. Grest report!
DeleteYes watch for Catherine's whitewash in her next "newsletter."
Delete