The voter turnout was only in the 30-some percentile? How disappointing! Americans just don't get it - those "in-charge" forge our mutual destiny. Money rules again - most of the big spenders benefited from the support of special interest groups. I am surprised how close Measure U is - the developers targeted voters in the areas spared the congestion quagmire - let other areas shoulder the burden of over-development. Also, Mark Muir is losing? He played it too low key; but he gets about $200K/year in retirement benefits, so he will just need a new hobby.
Measure U - Another failed project in an endless list of failing efforts at City Hall. Name it - Lack of progress on all fronts and fucking up at every step- Housing Element, lack of Quiet Zones, Coastal Rail Trail and plan, Birmingham undergrounding of utilities, streetscape, Beacons Beach fiasco, on and on and on..... everything they tounch is f'd up do to incompetency.
How incompetent is not even mailing out the measure U pamphlet to the voters until way after most voters already mailed in their vote packet? Wow. Unbelievable. No wonder the citizens think anything the City does is a sad and f'd up joke.
This should be the nail is the coffin for this terrible performing City Hall. Lets see if the Mayor and new City Council take any action for us citizens and tax payers.
Buckle up 7:43 for when the Blakespear/Mosca/Hubbard "we know best and you'll thank us for it later after we've shoved project X down your throat" hits your block.
You'll be happy to be designated blighted, underutilized, an obstructionist, afraid of change - don't worry, it shouldn't take long to come to your front door.
Any bets on Blakespear's next yes-man appointee? Will she bring back Shaffer? Hard to tell from the highly-gerrymandered map who's up for grabs for her to tap.
Measure U has essentially the same 600 voter difference (voting NO) as Measure T in 2016. Narrowed percentage, but nonetheless the same voter difference.
Congrats to the residents. Sad day for City Manager, staff and developers.
I'd like to give a big shoutout to my friends & neighbors in District 4 who said they don't support Measure U nor do they support Streetscape, but told me they voted for Mosca because they didn't know who Brandenburg was (and weren't aware he was against Measure U & Screetscape).
The problem isn't the elected officials, it's the voters. But we knew that already.
Not true 10:18. With 63% of precincts reporting total vote count for U is 14,093 and for Blakespear is 13,845 - so more people voted on U than on the mayor. So there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the voters......
12:13 Are you kidding? "America hating leftists"? I guess that means anybody who studies history and came to the conclusion that America has made some big mistakes and has done some crappy things. The biggest critics of a sports team are its FANS. Think about it. I voted NO and your kind would consider me a communist.
I realize that many of you think the defeat of Measure U was a huge win for Encinitas. In your mind, it upholds Proposition A and the residents' right to dictate how our community grows (in this case, not at all). First you were successful defeating Measure T, and now Measure U. Good on you guys, protecting the "rights" of wealthy Encinitas residents at the expense of anyone else who might want to live here but can't afford to. Great job keeping our City unaffordable and unattainable, just so that you don't have to be burdened by more traffic and those pesky working-class families living near you. You have been so successful keeping diversity out of our City. Nicely done.
This NIMBY, no-growth agenda you have been pushing for so long has destroyed the fabric of our community. People who grew up here and contribute to our City in meaningful ways can no longer afford to live here. Please consider how selfish your actions have been - saying no to housing plans over and over again, just because you already have YOUR house and those plans don't directly benefit YOU.
And those greedy developers! Ugh, why do they have to make money?! It's almost like they're running a business of some sort. We really love to hate those assholes who build our houses.
And now we all get to watch the courts and ultimately the State of CA step in. Our tax dollars will go towards paying plaintiffs' attorney fees. And you will lose your hard-fought battle against responsible growth in Encinitas.
Keep up the good work you guys. You've been doing a great job.
Understood 1:18. So what is the "right" plan? Literally every plan presented by the City has been rejected. Every available site has been publicly vetted. Removing L-7 was a travesty. No plan will ever be perfect. And now we're going to get one rammed down our throat by the State Attorney General.
1:06 I already have my house however I would have voted for U if it provided for affordable housing.BTW the "greedy developers" are whining about the state percentage requirement for affordable housing.
I forgot to mention that I read prop U many times.There are at least a half a dozen loopholes for the developer to get out of building ANY affordable housing.
1:26, the "right" plan was the one the task force was moving toward back in Feb. You now, just before Brenda circled the wagons with developers and the consultants got the phone call and changed their tune to "Measure T recycled will work just fine."
You know, that plan. Suspect you knew that, though.
hey genius.....it failed because it was going to ruin regular neighborhoods. Don't you get it? Affordable housing on the coast of SoCal.... What planet do you live on? I drove to most of the sites on the measure. Some with small/narrow streets, Ingress and Egress darn near impossible to drive safely. A mess indeed. Good for us for doing the right thing, not the dumb thing.
1:06 don’t miss the fact this had no reality in “ affordable housing” and was just a give away to developers. So your words ring hallow as an offshore low tide northwest Swami’s tube.
There will never be enough affordable housing in any coastal city in California. Go to any city council meeting in either Berkeley or Santa Monica and what will you hear from people: "we need more affordable housing". After every square foot of dirt is developed, people will then cry: "we need a place to park".
Measure U did provide for affordable housing. 15 percent, as required by the City's current ordinance. If you want to increase that number (which I assume you do), talk to the City and their consultant. They are still working on a study that will show how much affordable housing is appropriate, and that will go back to City Council in a few months.
My point is, Measure U and the City's inclusionary ordinance are two separate things. You could have supported Measure U and still pushed the City for a higher inclusionary percentage a few months from now. Instead you all just voted down Measure U. Because in your mind, its never going to be good enough.
1:44 did you miss the last couple of council meetings where developers started pushing for 5-7% and the council were listening attentively, not arguing back? We're talking the inclusionary percent. There's no "pushing for higher." Talk about a pipe dream, the council I guarantee you is already caving. Keith Harrison, a city favorite, cried that he wanted zero or he couldn't build at all.
Had you attended those meetings you would have heard blakespear say "we can lower that percent." So I call BS on your pipe dream.
1:51, please link to the Council meeting where that was said. Also please show me where Blakespear said they can lower the percent. Neither of those things were said.
2:06 Please stop being so lazy and do your own homework. Watch the housing discussions from the past six weeks of council/city special meetings. If you can post here, I'm sure you can figure out how to navigate the city website.
I'm not 1:51, but I watched the October 24 council meeting. Go to the city website and look at the agenda for Oct. 24. It's Agenda Item 10A. Then go to the video and use the jump point for 10A and watch. The council is practically bending over backward to please the developers and reduce the percentage of inclusionary housing. I'm not including a link. Do the work yourself. You have the information to easily find it.
I was at the council when Catherine said council could always lower the percentage. I won't spend the time to do your work, but if you work backward from the Oct. 24 meeting and watch any agenda item having to do with the HEU, you will find it.
Replying to 1:06, who (IMHO) oversimplifies the opposition to Measure U. Although I am sure that there are NIMBY folks who selfishly want to keep all affordable housing out of Encinitas, there are people like me and others who oppose Measure U for other reasons: backroom meetings that violate the sunshine laws of our state; giveaways to developers that seem to be more generous than necessary; last-minute removal of L-7 (the most desirable property for achieving the affordable housing objectives); and (most importantly, perhaps) the language in Measure U that seems to perhaps take away the voter control granted by Proposition A; etc. I am fairly new to Encinitas (three years here), but Measure U is a subpar work product, at best. Instead of criticizing the voters of Encinitas, you should be criticizing the hacks who came up with this shoddy piece of work. I would rather have a judge come up with a mandate than to vote for Measure U.
1:53, if you'd rather have a judge come up with a mandate than support our City's best foot forward (which was vetted publicly and extensively for over a year), you clearly do not have a vested interest in the future of our wonderful City. Measure U was not perfect, but it was the City's best effort to achieve State compliance.
Everything that the City proposes seems to be a "shoddy piece of work" and entirely influenced by developers. I've heard this story too many times. You all said the same thing about Measure T.
2:14 this was the city's best DEVELOPER foot forward. It was not "vetted extensively" by the public, it was vetted extensively by developers and written behind closed doors. It was created despite, not by the extensive amount of input from residents. It was created despite warnings from voters to quit the developer handouts - or else.
You people just cannot face the farce that is your "best foot forward." You people think the Emperor is actually wearing clothes.
Either that, or you missed the brass ring by just under four percentage points.
2:14, when the mayor had to take a photo of the section of Measure U that appeared to diminish Prop A, I think that sums up Measure U. I think that "shoddy" is an apt description for Measure U: if the intent was not to diminish Prop A, then Measure U was shoddy; if the intent was to diminish Prop A, then Measure U was sneaky. And the public process that put L-7 on the list and then off the list was amateur hour for our representatives.
FINALLY L-7 WILL BE BACK FOR CONSIDERATION, LIKE IT SHOULD!!! BLAKESPEAR AND HUBBARD BOTH CAMPAIGNED ON IT. THEY WON'T LET US DOWN ON THAT VOTE - IT'S A PROMISE!
Wisneski's secret developer meetings + the L7 behind the scenes finagling and removal sealed U's fate.
Will the door hit Wisneski's butt? Will Mosca and Kranz stop their game of footsie with the L7 bigots, erm I mean homeowners? Stay tuned, as Gus used to say.
1:44 - Measure U and the inclusionary ordinance are not separate things. They are inextricably linked to each other. One goes with the other if affordable housing is to be produced. Otherwise, it’s just upzoning.
Anyone want to talk about the surprisingly (or not) high number of votes JP Elliott got? Catherine no doubt smugly assumed no comers. Here's a guy in a coolie hat wearing flip flops challenging the status quo.
Anything above 10% would have been stunning. 15.5% should (but probably won't) send a message to Blakespear to start minding her Ps and Qs.
Did you think Elliott would get that many votes? No one did. You're the one spinning for Blakespear. Don't worry, she'll be doing plenty of that for herself over the weeks and months to come. She doesn't need your protection, 5:56.
there is plenty of affordable housing in our City. You don't see houses and apartments vacant do you? People can obviously afford to pay the rent. Its called market rate and follows the laws of free enterprise. Some of you need to go back to school to learn the basics.
When I set a goal to buy a house near the beach, I went to college and got a good useful degree, worked and saved money, and then after about 10 years of solid saving, I bought a place at market rate. No welfare and no subsidized anything. Its called earning your keep.
If I didn't want to spend so much on a house I could have bought one out in San Marcos, but I didn't.
Fuck Section 8 housing and all the housing subsidies. All this welfare is robbing the freewill and liberty from people and leading to depression. Break the cycle, no free handouts. Earn your keep, you will feel good about yourself.
Has it occurred to you that maybe some people don't have your abilities? And since you went to college and got a useful degree, maybe you should do a little research into Section 8 housing subsidies to see what their status is.
In a few weeks, will you be saying peace on Earth, goodwill to men and women and kids, and wishing everybody a Merry Christmas?
1:06- Encinitas is nice and you want to live here because of citizen ownership. If you want to live where citizens don't take ownership of their community then go rent our buy a place here - https://www.google.com/maps/@33.1943041,-117.3822923,3a,75y,86.42h,95.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-eLDm2uu_H6YLyW3VvQRtQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 , or here
This is what Encinitas would look like if citizens let the city staff, developers, and welfare queens have their way with Encinitas. I do not want to live in that environment and that's why its mandatory that residents stay highly involved and keep ownership of their town.
The exact reason why our community is so attractive is because a group of residents have resisted in becoming another sold out urban landscape.
We will, or should never allow, our specialness to be degraded just so some developers can attempt to turn our precious community into another urban nightmare, like PB or Huntington Beach.
For all you profiteers out there, go somewhere else.
I could not be more proud to be a member of this community for this, and many other reasons. We are an example of what other communities should do to resit the profiteers to preserve what we all cherish about our town.
It is a shame our elected reps. have never stood with us. $$$$$$
Liberty? give me a break. No, don't even bother responding. You are for profiting off of what we are trying to preserve.
The voter turnout was only in the 30-some percentile? How disappointing! Americans just don't get it - those "in-charge" forge our mutual destiny. Money rules again - most of the big spenders benefited from the support of special interest groups.
ReplyDeleteI am surprised how close Measure U is - the developers targeted voters in the areas spared the congestion quagmire - let other areas shoulder the burden of over-development. Also, Mark Muir is losing? He played it too low key; but he gets about $200K/year in retirement benefits, so he will just need a new hobby.
Measure U - Another failed project in an endless list of failing efforts at City Hall. Name it - Lack of progress on all fronts and fucking up at every step- Housing Element, lack of Quiet Zones, Coastal Rail Trail and plan, Birmingham undergrounding of utilities, streetscape, Beacons Beach fiasco, on and on and on..... everything they tounch is f'd up do to incompetency.
ReplyDeleteHow incompetent is not even mailing out the measure U pamphlet to the voters until way after most voters already mailed in their vote packet? Wow. Unbelievable. No wonder the citizens think anything the City does is a sad and f'd up joke.
This should be the nail is the coffin for this terrible performing City Hall. Lets see if the Mayor and new City Council take any action for us citizens and tax payers.
Buckle up 7:43 for when the Blakespear/Mosca/Hubbard "we know best and you'll thank us for it later after we've shoved project X down your throat" hits your block.
DeleteYou'll be happy to be designated blighted, underutilized, an obstructionist, afraid of change - don't worry, it shouldn't take long to come to your front door.
Any bets on Blakespear's next yes-man appointee? Will she bring back Shaffer? Hard to tell from the highly-gerrymandered map who's up for grabs for her to tap.
Measure U has essentially the same 600 voter difference (voting NO) as Measure T in 2016. Narrowed percentage, but nonetheless the same voter difference.
DeleteCongrats to the residents. Sad day for City Manager, staff and developers.
Update: Final is 1,000 gap difference.
DeleteI guess the L-7 neighbors votes weren't enough so now the L-7 site should be back in play.
DeleteI'd like to give a big shoutout to my friends & neighbors in District 4 who said they don't support Measure U nor do they support Streetscape, but told me they voted for Mosca because they didn't know who Brandenburg was (and weren't aware he was against Measure U & Screetscape).
ReplyDeleteThe problem isn't the elected officials, it's the voters. But we knew that already.
Seriously :(
DeleteOr the ones who said "I didn't see Measure U on the ballot so just turned it in without voting on it." It's holding on No right now, but yikes.
Not true 10:18. With 63% of precincts reporting total vote count for U is 14,093 and for Blakespear is 13,845 - so more people voted on U than on the mayor. So there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the voters......
DeleteFrom https://www.sdvote.com/content/dam/rov/shared/results/UNOFFICIAL%20ELECTION%20NIGHT%20FINAL.pdf
ReplyDeleteMEASURE U- CITY OF ENCINITAS HOUSING PLAN UPDATE 2018
Total Number of Precincts 57. Precincts Reporting 57 = 100.0%
NO 52.91%
YES 47.09%
On whose head will the city's failure be placed?
What morons other than developers and city pinheads would vote yes on Measure U......oh wait I know........America hating leftists
ReplyDelete12:13 Are you kidding? "America hating leftists"?
DeleteI guess that means anybody who studies history and came to the conclusion that America has made some big mistakes and has done some crappy things. The biggest critics of a sports team are its FANS. Think about it. I voted NO and your kind would consider me a communist.
Add me to 12:48's list. Super left and voted NO. A scam is a scam and this one screamed "scam."
DeleteI realize that many of you think the defeat of Measure U was a huge win for Encinitas. In your mind, it upholds Proposition A and the residents' right to dictate how our community grows (in this case, not at all). First you were successful defeating Measure T, and now Measure U. Good on you guys, protecting the "rights" of wealthy Encinitas residents at the expense of anyone else who might want to live here but can't afford to. Great job keeping our City unaffordable and unattainable, just so that you don't have to be burdened by more traffic and those pesky working-class families living near you. You have been so successful keeping diversity out of our City. Nicely done.
ReplyDeleteThis NIMBY, no-growth agenda you have been pushing for so long has destroyed the fabric of our community. People who grew up here and contribute to our City in meaningful ways can no longer afford to live here. Please consider how selfish your actions have been - saying no to housing plans over and over again, just because you already have YOUR house and those plans don't directly benefit YOU.
And those greedy developers! Ugh, why do they have to make money?! It's almost like they're running a business of some sort. We really love to hate those assholes who build our houses.
And now we all get to watch the courts and ultimately the State of CA step in. Our tax dollars will go towards paying plaintiffs' attorney fees. And you will lose your hard-fought battle against responsible growth in Encinitas.
Keep up the good work you guys. You've been doing a great job.
Thanks 1:06.
DeleteSome people that voted no did so because it wasn't the right plan. I like home building, just not giving away the kitty.
Understood 1:18. So what is the "right" plan? Literally every plan presented by the City has been rejected. Every available site has been publicly vetted. Removing L-7 was a travesty. No plan will ever be perfect. And now we're going to get one rammed down our throat by the State Attorney General.
Delete1:06 I already have my house however I would have voted for U if it provided for affordable housing.BTW the "greedy developers" are whining about the state percentage requirement for affordable housing.
Delete1:06 If Measure U provided responsible development and a significant number of affordable units, it would have passed.
DeleteYou don't get it. Take the blinders off.
I forgot to mention that I read prop U many times.There are at least a half a dozen loopholes for the developer to get out of building ANY affordable housing.
Delete1:26, the "right" plan was the one the task force was moving toward back in Feb. You now, just before Brenda circled the wagons with developers and the consultants got the phone call and changed their tune to "Measure T recycled will work just fine."
DeleteYou know, that plan. Suspect you knew that, though.
Measure U didn’t fail because it brings affordable housing, and complies with state law.
DeleteMeasure U failed because they stripped affordable housing out of it, and HCD said it no longer complied with state law.
hey genius.....it failed because it was going to ruin regular neighborhoods. Don't you get it?
DeleteAffordable housing on the coast of SoCal....
What planet do you live on?
I drove to most of the sites on the measure. Some with small/narrow streets, Ingress and Egress darn near impossible to drive safely. A mess indeed.
Good for us for doing the right thing, not the dumb thing.
1:06 don’t miss the fact this had no reality in “ affordable housing” and was just a give away to developers. So your words ring hallow as an offshore low tide northwest Swami’s tube.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete1:26 PM
DeleteDoes that ramming down the throat include the $240 million that the property owners would have realized if Measure U had passed?
There will never be enough affordable housing in any coastal city in California. Go to any city council meeting in either Berkeley or Santa Monica and what will you hear from people: "we need more affordable housing". After every square foot of dirt is developed, people will then cry: "we need a place to park".
ReplyDeleteMeasure U did provide for affordable housing. 15 percent, as required by the City's current ordinance. If you want to increase that number (which I assume you do), talk to the City and their consultant. They are still working on a study that will show how much affordable housing is appropriate, and that will go back to City Council in a few months.
ReplyDeleteMy point is, Measure U and the City's inclusionary ordinance are two separate things. You could have supported Measure U and still pushed the City for a higher inclusionary percentage a few months from now. Instead you all just voted down Measure U. Because in your mind, its never going to be good enough.
1:44 did you miss the last couple of council meetings where developers started pushing for 5-7% and the council were listening attentively, not arguing back? We're talking the inclusionary percent. There's no "pushing for higher." Talk about a pipe dream, the council I guarantee you is already caving. Keith Harrison, a city favorite, cried that he wanted zero or he couldn't build at all.
DeleteHad you attended those meetings you would have heard blakespear say "we can lower that percent." So I call BS on your pipe dream.
1:51, please link to the Council meeting where that was said. Also please show me where Blakespear said they can lower the percent. Neither of those things were said.
Delete2:06 Please stop being so lazy and do your own homework. Watch the housing discussions from the past six weeks of council/city special meetings. If you can post here, I'm sure you can figure out how to navigate the city website.
DeleteAll of those things were said.
2:41, the burden of proof is on you. I guarantee you neither of those things were said. Stop spreading lies.
DeleteI'm not 1:51, but I watched the October 24 council meeting. Go to the city website and look at the agenda for Oct. 24. It's Agenda Item 10A. Then go to the video and use the jump point for 10A and watch. The council is practically bending over backward to please the developers and reduce the percentage of inclusionary housing. I'm not including a link. Do the work yourself. You have the information to easily find it.
DeleteI was at the council when Catherine said council could always lower the percentage. I won't spend the time to do your work, but if you work backward from the Oct. 24 meeting and watch any agenda item having to do with the HEU, you will find it.
Replying to 1:06, who (IMHO) oversimplifies the opposition to Measure U. Although I am sure that there are NIMBY folks who selfishly want to keep all affordable housing out of Encinitas, there are people like me and others who oppose Measure U for other reasons: backroom meetings that violate the sunshine laws of our state; giveaways to developers that seem to be more generous than necessary; last-minute removal of L-7 (the most desirable property for achieving the affordable housing objectives); and (most importantly, perhaps) the language in Measure U that seems to perhaps take away the voter control granted by Proposition A; etc. I am fairly new to Encinitas (three years here), but Measure U is a subpar work product, at best. Instead of criticizing the voters of Encinitas, you should be criticizing the hacks who came up with this shoddy piece of work. I would rather have a judge come up with a mandate than to vote for Measure U.
ReplyDeleteAs a long-time veteran of fighting city/developer shenanigans I could not have said it better myself, 1:53! Hear, hear!
Delete1:53, if you'd rather have a judge come up with a mandate than support our City's best foot forward (which was vetted publicly and extensively for over a year), you clearly do not have a vested interest in the future of our wonderful City. Measure U was not perfect, but it was the City's best effort to achieve State compliance.
DeleteEverything that the City proposes seems to be a "shoddy piece of work" and entirely influenced by developers. I've heard this story too many times. You all said the same thing about Measure T.
2:14 And we were right!
DeleteSo true, 2:19!
Delete2:14 this was the city's best DEVELOPER foot forward. It was not "vetted extensively" by the public, it was vetted extensively by developers and written behind closed doors. It was created despite, not by the extensive amount of input from residents. It was created despite warnings from voters to quit the developer handouts - or else.
You people just cannot face the farce that is your "best foot forward." You people think the Emperor is actually wearing clothes.
Either that, or you missed the brass ring by just under four percentage points.
2:14, when the mayor had to take a photo of the section of Measure U that appeared to diminish Prop A, I think that sums up Measure U. I think that "shoddy" is an apt description for Measure U: if the intent was not to diminish Prop A, then Measure U was shoddy; if the intent was to diminish Prop A, then Measure U was sneaky. And the public process that put L-7 on the list and then off the list was amateur hour for our representatives.
ReplyDeleteFINALLY L-7 WILL BE BACK FOR CONSIDERATION, LIKE IT SHOULD!!!
ReplyDeleteBLAKESPEAR AND HUBBARD BOTH CAMPAIGNED ON IT. THEY WON'T LET US DOWN ON THAT VOTE - IT'S A PROMISE!
Wisneski's secret developer meetings + the L7 behind the scenes finagling and removal sealed U's fate.
ReplyDeleteWill the door hit Wisneski's butt? Will Mosca and Kranz stop their game of footsie with the L7 bigots, erm I mean homeowners? Stay tuned, as Gus used to say.
1:44 - Measure U and the inclusionary ordinance are not separate things. They are inextricably linked to each other. One goes with the other if affordable housing is to be produced. Otherwise, it’s just upzoning.
ReplyDeleteAnyone want to talk about the surprisingly (or not) high number of votes JP Elliott got? Catherine no doubt smugly assumed no comers. Here's a guy in a coolie hat wearing flip flops challenging the status quo.
ReplyDeleteAnything above 10% would have been stunning. 15.5% should (but probably won't) send a message to Blakespear to start minding her Ps and Qs.
That’s the worst spin I’ve ever heard.
DeleteDid you think Elliott would get that many votes? No one did. You're the one spinning for Blakespear. Don't worry, she'll be doing plenty of that for herself over the weeks and months to come. She doesn't need your protection, 5:56.
DeletePlenty of people thought Elliott was a contender.
Deleteright. Gomer pyle in flip flops from IE. Yeah - he really had a chance.
DeleteNow if Charlie McDermott ran then Blakspear would be singing the blues today.
Blakespear will take her landslide as a mandate. She's arrogance in a skirt.
ReplyDeletethere is plenty of affordable housing in our City. You don't see houses and apartments vacant do you? People can obviously afford to pay the rent. Its called market rate and follows the laws of free enterprise. Some of you need to go back to school to learn the basics.
ReplyDeleteWhen I set a goal to buy a house near the beach, I went to college and got a good useful degree, worked and saved money, and then after about 10 years of solid saving, I bought a place at market rate. No welfare and no subsidized anything. Its called earning your keep.
If I didn't want to spend so much on a house I could have bought one out in San Marcos, but I didn't.
Fuck Section 8 housing and all the housing subsidies. All this welfare is robbing the freewill and liberty from people and leading to depression. Break the cycle, no free handouts. Earn your keep, you will feel good about yourself.
8:11 Gee, what a kind, charitable guy!
DeleteHas it occurred to you that maybe some people don't have your abilities? And since you went to college and got a useful degree, maybe you should do a little research into Section 8 housing subsidies to see what their status is.
In a few weeks, will you be saying peace on Earth, goodwill to men and women and kids, and wishing everybody a Merry Christmas?
8:11-You know nothing about me. I bet I am doing more good then you. Since you support robbing ones liberty.
Delete1:06- Encinitas is nice and you want to live here because of citizen ownership. If you want to live where citizens don't take ownership of their community then go rent our buy a place here - https://www.google.com/maps/@33.1943041,-117.3822923,3a,75y,86.42h,95.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-eLDm2uu_H6YLyW3VvQRtQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 , or here
ReplyDeletehttps://www.google.com/maps/@33.6568273,-118.0015023,3a,75y,109.88h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBMubL3cE_veKo3q4S_uNAw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
This is what Encinitas would look like if citizens let the city staff, developers, and welfare queens have their way with Encinitas. I do not want to live in that environment and that's why its mandatory that residents stay highly involved and keep ownership of their town.
The exact reason why our community is so attractive is because a group of residents have resisted in becoming another sold out urban landscape.
ReplyDeleteWe will, or should never allow, our specialness to be degraded just so some developers can attempt to turn our precious community into another urban nightmare, like PB or Huntington Beach.
For all you profiteers out there, go somewhere else.
I could not be more proud to be a member of this community for this, and many other reasons. We are an example of what other communities should do to resit the profiteers to preserve what we all cherish about our town.
It is a shame our elected reps. have never stood with us. $$$$$$
Liberty? give me a break. No, don't even bother responding. You are for profiting off of what we are trying to preserve.
Margins of victory:
ReplyDeleteHubbard-Muir — 310 votes
Mosca-Brandenburg — 115 votes