It's possible that the funniest part of the Ecke Prop. A drama are those 8 acres of "parkland".
At first Ecke felt like he was getting ripped off when the city came up with the 8 acre compromise. Ecke's buddy, Michael D. Pattinson wrote an angry commentary to the North County Times about it. link
City plans allowed 200 homes on the Ecke land. City planners thought 100 were better. The Eckes agreed, but it was a Hobson's choice: Agree, or lose all economic use of the land.
So much for property rights.
Then city staffers came up with a brainstorm: Since they had eliminated 100 homes from the plan, that meant there was that much more land left to take, I mean, set aside. So they grabbed another eight acres. And the city didn't pay a penny for it.
Of course now those 8 acres are being touted by the Ecke camp as this really awesome generous thing they are doing for us.
Dietmar Rothe offered this up in the NCT on Sunday link.
The people would not automatically get a fully developed park. There is much confusion about this gift. Ecke would give the city eight acres that are no longer protected as "agricultural land in perpetuity." You, the taxpayer, would have to pay for the park's development, if and when the city approves it. There is no guarantee that these acres will ever be developed into a park for all. The city could choose to develop that "gift" into more affordable housing instead. Alternatively, Mello-Roos taxes could be collected from future homeowners on the other 30 acres to develop the land into their own private neighborhood park.
I would rather take a bullet to the head before I paid a Mello Roo. No new taxes.
ReplyDeleteYou should check out the editorial in Friday's Coast News.
ReplyDeleteOnce again Dietmar Rothe hits the nail on the head. He looks past the spin, the fairytale being foisted upon us by Caltras/Eckes and hob-nobbing buddies, including their Council defender Christy Guerin.
ReplyDeleteWe disagree with the former comment that trying to fight the Ecke gravy train is pointless. There is a groundswell of public opinion that does question the machinations of this measure that would break a promise and further erode public trust.
We have hope that the citizens of this city, not incorporated until 1986, will have the good sense to become informed. The facts speak for themselves. We thank Mr. Rothe for cutting through the “big cheeses” and telling it like it is.
Yes, we hope the citizenry is not as naïve and gullible, as easily bought by pretensions and manipulation, as the “steering committee” is obviously counting on. Exercise your free will, your mind, your civic responsibility. Vote No on A, and we’ll be okay.
Seems everything is for sale, including our very souls.
ReplyDeleteSometimes we wonder if our karma for buying/taking the land from indigenous people, natives, is cycling back to haunt us.
Save the Public Trust.
Eckes are "Indian Givers."
Don't blow it.
Vote No on A.
Keep greed, capitalizing
con-artists at bay.
Uh oh, the Ecke's just officially declared Manifest Destiny on Western Encinitas.
ReplyDeleteOr was it Jihad?
I can't remember, but either way, you're screwed.
Wow, some pretty decent poems re No on A in this Friday's (10/21) Coast News.
ReplyDeleteWay to go Jim Kydd, publisher. Way to go all participants, letter to the editor writers.
We can do this yet. Nay to A. Defeat the forces of overdevelopment. Compassionate growth means power to the people.
Too bad public service unions, all back A, and Christy Guerin, natch, former deputy sheriff still on the public dole. They get pensions way better than private sector unions, or private non union employees. They thrive on unchecked growth, like tumors.
There is a cure.
Don't just hope, be sure.
Come Nov. 8, vote nay on A!