Yes, this is the first time I've seen this publication. Good writing, and good timing, too.
Hood link, not hoodwink. Perfect. We good neighbors do not like to be manipulated, deceived, preyed upon for the slim amount of money we have lining our pockets.
I agree with the article. Council needs to stop whining about unfunded mandates. Kerry Miller's fat pay raises are not funded, nor are they mandated. Council has made bad decisions, shown an ongoing lack of fiscal restraint. Now it wants us overburdened citizens to pick up its slack. Does Council know what balance means? Balancing the budget is not just a pie in the sky campaign slogan. It means balancing elective capital improvements, mandated quality of life requirements, and operating expenses, including salary and benefit increases.
Christy Guerin wants her police bros and all the firemen to get on her reelection bandwagon. They probably will, as she always, no matter what, wants to give them maximum increases in benefits and wages. What about those of us who are not on government payroll? We have been looking at just trying to maintain our standard of living, trying not to be chased out of town by greed, apathy, and deception.
No on C will send another message, as our great victory on No on A did, so recently. Next headline: Incumbents cast out of office! Encinitas citizens deserve honesty, open government, fiscal restraint, common sense, common courtesy.
"Listen to a CD of the hearing the city held a couple of years ago and you'll hear Bob Bonde himself recommend that the city base the fee on water meters."
Yes, Mr. Aceti, Donna Westbrook and Bob Bonde both thought the vote, not just the fee, would be based on active water meters. That was clearly part of the terms of the compromise, the stipulated judgment. Unfortunately, the mail vote is now based on parcel ownership, not based on active water meters, as indicated on the back of the ballot itself!
So the vote is not fair or correct according to the settlement, which the City agreed to, because it was wrong. Collecting the tax on the EDCO trash bill was illegal. Our State Constitution and precedent are quite clear. Furthermore, a parcel tax, which is not a weighted fee, should be passed by a 2/3 vote of the electorate, at a general election.
You, Mr. Aceti, twist the truth. Don't try to make the Encinitas Taxpayers into a straw man, deriding them because you say they asked for the wrong list. We taxpayers were led to believe that those who were voting would be those property owners with active water meters, those affected by the proposed fee. Why is that so difficult for you to comprehend?
We hope the incumbents do get replaced. Apparently, despite their degrees in police science, or lawnmower mechanics (chemistry, Dan? what were you brewing up?), they cannot figure out the plain truth, or how to be upfront with the voters.
Remember A. Vote No on C for Victory. Boot Bossypants and Lawnmower Man. Aceti, where's your integrity? You've got sand for brains, and storm drain water runs in your veins.
It's clear that Prop C has gotten caught in the cross-hairs of next fall's City Council election and the ETA's efforts to use this ballot measure and Prop A as a springboard for candidates it wants to run against the two incumbents up for reelection.
Strip the politics away from Prop C and here's what's left:
(1) PROP C HAS WIDESPREAD SUPPORT
When the city first proposed charging a small fee to help subsidize its Clean Water Program, many coastal cities in CA were already charging a similar fee to help pay for unfunded mandates that were unexpectedly thrust upon local governments by state and federal regulators. The public supported a clean water fee when it was originally passed by the City Council and the lawsuit by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (which earns a profit by bringing such lawsuits) hasn't changed a thing. A large majority of the public still supports the clean water fee. Last December, the city sent notices to 22,000 voters about the Prop C public hearing, which included clear instructions on how to file a written protest to oppose the ballot measure. If a majority of voters had protested the fee, the city would not have been authorized to place Prop C on the ballot. The city received only 20 protests.
Despite what the ETA and its followers would have you believe, a large majority of Encinitas residents (64%) are satisfied with the job the city is doing across the board. The ETA and the naysayers who echo their propaganda represent a minority of thought in Encinitas.
(2) THE CLEAN WATER FEE IS NOT A TAX
The Clean Water Fee is not a tax and it only requires a simple majority to pass. That's in accordance with the settlement agreement reached by the city and the Jarvis group. If things were otherwise, the Jarvis " tax crusaders" would not have agreed to the election being held in this manner.
(3) THE ELECTION IS LEGAL
Bonde spoke in support of the method of collecting the fee the city eventually chose when the proposal was before the City Council a couple of years ago. Regardless of how teh fee was going to be collected, local news papers (as early as last November) and the city's Dec 1 hearing notice made it clear that ballots would be sent to all PROPERTY owners. Donna Westbrook knew that and asked for that list Dec 1, two weeks before Bonde asked for the wrong list. Since the ETA only sent out 9,000 mailers, it's a moot point anyway, but it made for some good (if not disingenous)finger-pointing.
(4) THE ISSUE IS A SIMPLE ONE
The only issue in this election is whether or not voters want to pay $5 per month to help subsidize the city's Clean Water Program. Poll support in the 64% range, and the fact that only 20 people out of a possible 22,000 voters filed written protests, indicate they do. Prop C, like clean water ballot measures in Los Angeles, San Clemente, Santa Barbara and other coastal cities, will pass - as long as voters don't get distracted by the sideshow that attempts to link Prop C to this fall's City Council election.
Steven Aceti, JD Co-Chair Encinitas Citizens for a Clean Ocean yesonpropc.org
"t's clear that Prop C has gotten caught in the cross-hairs of next fall's City Council election and the ETA's efforts to use this ballot measure and Prop A as a springboard... "
You mean you think there are people out there that want a Council that doesn't cheat, lie, and cover up HUGE financial and administrative “mistakes”? Go ETA!
Without Prop A or C, it was already clear that these 5 Councilmembers are ineffective at providing good stewardship and are just as incompetent at management. Why are these guys up there? Barratt, Ecke/Meyer, and Harwood make sure the money goes to the right places. B. E. & H. don’t care if the City is run in the public’s interest or not. They prop candidates that won’t stop them from pillaging our City. It makes sense that candidates that B. E. & H. don’t think will provide good supervision of the City’s planning process also suck at providing supervision of the other City functions.
The Keystone Council: Dan sounds good at first, but is really just clueless. Christy is the Queen. Maggie is spastic and can’t see what she has become. Bond is a backroom player who doesn’t listen to the public. Jerome “Duke” Stocks.
I may be even more nostalgic for how things were than you are. I see us as a team on the effort to keep not just Leucadia, but all of north county funky. We lost the battle of Del Mar when the mall thing went in. This was hammered home 10 years later when people actually fought against city council to tear down historic properties that weren't in disrepair at all, only to build the stark-white post-modern apocolyptic money fortresses that are there now. Don't think that I don't remember Windmill farms, Zel's Liquor store, and most of all - the deli / pot dealer known only as "Song's".
It is my strong opinion that North County needs to be refunkified.
So, in light of all this...I decided that even from Denver, I need to do my part.
We will divide up the mission as follows:
General JP of the clan Leucadia will continue building an army of concerned citizens and excercising his rights to freedom of information in order to publicly expose the trolls, and effect change through political / local channels.
Captain Daschund Juggler (that's me) will attempt to gain extreme financial wealth. The kind of wealth that can only be surpassed by people who buy NFL teams. 90% of his finances will be used to buy back 65% of the properties in Leucadia and simply sit on them until the rest of the property values drop back to normal rates due to low sales. Captain Juggler will then take an enormous financial blow (read writeoff) in order to give Leucadia back to the people. Average home price target is $400k (roughly 50% of current average). All tract housing and afore mentioned modern castle bullshit will be torn down in order to build a new era of architecture - the surf palace. There will be much teak, and much tiki.
Order will be restored. There will be much rejoicing.
Also, this Steven character who I have not had the privelege of punching quite yet needs to find himself a new job. Perhaps beating up the mentally handicapped would be something he might enjoy. We may very well need a couple new sanitation workers.
Spot on!, Well written!, Nice work!
ReplyDeleteYes, this is the first time I've seen this publication. Good writing, and good timing, too.
ReplyDeleteHood link, not hoodwink. Perfect. We good neighbors do not like to be manipulated, deceived, preyed upon for the slim amount of money we have lining our pockets.
I agree with the article. Council needs to stop whining about unfunded mandates. Kerry Miller's fat pay raises are not funded, nor are they mandated. Council has made bad decisions, shown an ongoing lack of fiscal restraint. Now it wants us overburdened citizens to pick up its slack. Does Council know what balance means? Balancing the budget is not just a pie in the sky campaign slogan. It means balancing elective capital improvements, mandated quality of life requirements, and operating expenses, including salary and benefit increases.
Christy Guerin wants her police bros and all the firemen to get on her reelection bandwagon. They probably will, as she always, no matter what, wants to give them maximum increases in benefits and wages. What about those of us who are not on government payroll? We have been looking at just trying to maintain our standard of living, trying not to be chased out of town by greed, apathy, and deception.
No on C will send another message, as our great victory on No on A did, so recently. Next headline: Incumbents cast out of office! Encinitas citizens deserve honesty, open government, fiscal restraint, common sense, common courtesy.
TRUTH
ReplyDeleten.
(conformity with the facts)
syn.
Correctness, candor, honesty, exactitude, factualism, precision, accuracy.
slang.
The gospel truth, straight dope, inside track, the nitty gritty.
Merriam dear, you gave us the synonyms but not the antonyms for truth.
ReplyDelete- falsity
- untruth
- false statement
- ecco, aceti, calcoast, bossypants
HOT
ReplyDelete"Listen to a CD of the hearing the city held a couple of years ago and you'll hear Bob Bonde himself recommend that the city base the fee on water meters."
ReplyDeleteYes, Mr. Aceti, Donna Westbrook and Bob Bonde both thought the vote, not just the fee, would be based on active water meters. That was clearly part of the terms of the compromise, the stipulated judgment. Unfortunately, the mail vote is now based on parcel ownership, not based on active water meters, as indicated on the back of the ballot itself!
So the vote is not fair or correct according to the settlement, which the City agreed to, because it was wrong. Collecting the tax on the EDCO trash bill was illegal. Our State Constitution and precedent are quite clear. Furthermore, a parcel tax, which is not a weighted fee, should be passed by a 2/3 vote of the electorate, at a general election.
You, Mr. Aceti, twist the truth. Don't try to make the Encinitas Taxpayers into a straw man, deriding them because you say they asked for the wrong list. We taxpayers were led to believe that those who were voting would be those property owners with active water meters, those affected by the proposed fee. Why is that so difficult for you to comprehend?
We hope the incumbents do get replaced. Apparently, despite their degrees in police science, or lawnmower mechanics (chemistry, Dan? what were you brewing up?), they cannot figure out the plain truth, or how to be upfront with the voters.
Remember A. Vote No on C for Victory. Boot Bossypants and Lawnmower Man. Aceti, where's your integrity? You've got sand for brains, and storm drain water runs in your veins.
hoodwinked:
ReplyDeleteIt's clear that Prop C has gotten caught in the cross-hairs of next fall's City Council election and the ETA's efforts to use this ballot measure and Prop A as a springboard for candidates it wants to run against the two incumbents up for reelection.
Strip the politics away from Prop C and here's what's left:
(1) PROP C HAS WIDESPREAD SUPPORT
When the city first proposed charging a small fee to help subsidize its Clean Water Program, many coastal cities in CA were already charging a similar fee to help pay for unfunded mandates that were unexpectedly thrust upon local governments by state and federal regulators. The public supported a clean water fee when it was originally passed by the City Council and the lawsuit by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (which earns a profit by bringing such lawsuits) hasn't changed a thing. A large majority of the public still supports the clean water fee. Last December, the city sent notices to 22,000 voters about the Prop C public hearing, which included clear instructions on how to file a written protest to oppose the ballot measure. If a majority of voters had protested the fee, the city would not have been authorized to place Prop C on the ballot. The city received only 20 protests.
Despite what the ETA and its followers would have you believe, a large majority of Encinitas residents (64%) are satisfied with the job the city is doing across the board. The ETA and the naysayers who echo their propaganda represent a minority of thought in Encinitas.
(2) THE CLEAN WATER FEE IS NOT A TAX
The Clean Water Fee is not a tax and it only requires a simple majority to pass. That's in accordance with the settlement agreement reached by the city and the Jarvis group. If things were otherwise, the Jarvis " tax crusaders" would not have agreed to the election being held in this manner.
(3) THE ELECTION IS LEGAL
Bonde spoke in support of the method of collecting the fee the city eventually chose when the proposal was before the City Council a couple of years ago.
Regardless of how teh fee was going to be collected, local news papers (as early as last November) and the city's Dec 1 hearing notice made it clear that ballots would be sent to all PROPERTY owners. Donna Westbrook knew that and asked for that list Dec 1, two weeks before Bonde asked for the wrong list. Since the ETA only sent out 9,000 mailers, it's a moot point anyway, but it made for some good (if not disingenous)finger-pointing.
(4) THE ISSUE IS A SIMPLE ONE
The only issue in this election is whether or not voters want to pay $5 per month to help subsidize the city's Clean Water Program. Poll support in the 64% range, and the fact that only 20 people out of a possible 22,000 voters filed written protests, indicate they do. Prop C, like clean water ballot measures in Los Angeles, San Clemente, Santa Barbara and other coastal cities, will pass - as long as voters don't get distracted by the sideshow that attempts to link Prop C to this fall's City Council election.
Steven Aceti, JD
Co-Chair
Encinitas Citizens for a Clean Ocean
yesonpropc.org
"t's clear that Prop C has gotten caught in the cross-hairs of next fall's City Council election and the ETA's efforts to use this ballot measure and Prop A as a springboard... "
ReplyDeleteYou mean you think there are people out there that want a Council that doesn't cheat, lie, and cover up HUGE financial and administrative “mistakes”? Go ETA!
Without Prop A or C, it was already clear that these 5 Councilmembers are ineffective at providing good stewardship and are just as incompetent at management. Why are these guys up there? Barratt, Ecke/Meyer, and Harwood make sure the money goes to the right places. B. E. & H. don’t care if the City is run in the public’s interest or not. They prop candidates that won’t stop them from pillaging our City. It makes sense that candidates that B. E. & H. don’t think will provide good supervision of the City’s planning process also suck at providing supervision of the other City functions.
The Keystone Council:
Dan sounds good at first, but is really just clueless.
Christy is the Queen.
Maggie is spastic and can’t see what she has become.
Bond is a backroom player who doesn’t listen to the public.
Jerome “Duke” Stocks.
Dear General Spumponi AyeSkrem,
ReplyDeleteI may be even more nostalgic for how things were than you are.
I see us as a team on the effort to keep not just Leucadia, but all of north county funky. We lost the battle of Del Mar when the mall thing went in. This was hammered home 10 years later when people actually fought against city council to tear down historic properties that weren't in disrepair at all, only to build the stark-white post-modern apocolyptic money fortresses that are there now. Don't think that I don't remember Windmill farms, Zel's Liquor store, and most of all - the deli / pot dealer known only as "Song's".
It is my strong opinion that North County needs to be refunkified.
So, in light of all this...I decided that even from Denver, I need to do my part.
We will divide up the mission as follows:
General JP of the clan Leucadia will continue building an army of concerned citizens and excercising his rights to freedom of information in order to publicly expose the trolls, and effect change through political / local channels.
Captain Daschund Juggler (that's me) will attempt to gain extreme financial wealth. The kind of wealth that can only be surpassed by people who buy NFL teams. 90% of his finances will be used to buy back 65% of the properties in Leucadia and simply sit on them until the rest of the property values drop back to normal rates due to low sales. Captain Juggler will then take an enormous financial blow (read writeoff) in order to give Leucadia back to the people. Average home price target is $400k (roughly 50% of current average). All tract housing and afore mentioned modern castle bullshit will be torn down in order to build a new era of architecture - the surf palace. There will be much teak, and much tiki.
Order will be restored. There will be much rejoicing.
Also, this Steven character who I have not had the privelege of punching quite yet needs to find himself a new job. Perhaps beating up the mentally handicapped would be something he might enjoy. We may very well need a couple new sanitation workers.
Signed - Your subversive best buddy.