NCT report
Prop C, the double taxation for an existing city service has been crushed despite the weeks long taunting of it's pundits. 61% NO votes.
The clean water program which all love and respect will continue to be paid for out of the general fund. It was an unfair concept that only 22,100 individuals were asked to pay for something that thousands more benefit from. If you lived in Olivenhain and only went to the beach twice a year you probably didn't cast a yes vote.
"It's getting expensive to do things," Aceti said, "and the money has to come from somewhere."
"Needless to say, we'll be tightening our belts," City Manager Kerry Miller said.
The voters have sent a clear message to the city, we are trusting you with the responsibility to do your own jobs. Especially Mr. Miller. The city of Encinitas is prosperous and thriving. All of 2005 we were repeatedly told how great of financial shape the city was in. 2006 hits and suddenly we don't have any money for all the pet capital projects (that should have been finished years ago) and we need to start cherry picking subsidies for programs.
Let's all move forward together without bitter feelings, save those for prop D.
You have to love Acetis comments in the Coast News today. "Aceti described the opposition campaign as hysterical anti city movement" and "I dont think that people respond well to that in Encinitas"
ReplyDeleteWRONG
Aceti says it's expensive to do things. Aceti, give the money the city paid you back. You lost your cause so you don't deserve to cash your check.
ReplyDeleteIn the NCT article city manager Kerry Miller and councilperson Christie Guerin sound like petulant children. So now they are going to give us the minimum. Sadly this is what we have been getting all along. I have looked at the water sampling data for the last four years, and they are completely inadequate, not even meeting minimum state requirements. These sampling data are the only way to check the effectiveness of the clean water program.
ReplyDeleteWill the city now ask for a refund of the $110,000 paid to consultants who have fallen flat on their faces? And Steve Aceti, the master of bait and switch, is changing his argument from cleaning up the ocean to denying funding for the Hall property park. The Hall property has documented contamination according to the city's own site assessment. Yet most of the sampling data for Rossini Creek, which drains the Hall property, are missing. What kind of chemical and fecal coliform contamination has the city been letting flow down the creek since the property was bought? This all goes into the San Elijo Lagoon and the prime surfing spot at Cardiff Reel.
We have the example of the large amount of money spent at Cottonwood Creek Park to clean the water. But no one at the city mentions the complete failure of the filtering system a year ago in the heavy rains. The overflow was damaged and plugged, and the water almost rose enough to spill onto Vulcan and Encinitas Boulevard. What did it cost to repair this? And what kind of contaminants flowed for weeks into the ocean? And Guerin say, "We'll do exactly what we need to do and nothing more." The city never did what was needed, so it looks like we will simply get more of the same.
Comments from Aceti sound like those from a sore loser. Those are the worst kind.
ReplyDeleteThree cheers for all you good-hearted souls who saw through Council's latest scam. All our hard work paid off, in spades!
ReplyDeleteAccording to this morning's NCT, Proposition C was defeated by 61%!!! Hurrah! Yes, we are overjoyed. We are not anti-city, only anti Christy, anti corruption of the City Attorneys, anti lack of fiscal restraint.
I watched the City Council Meeting last night. I got a slightly different take than JP. And this is not bitterness, friends. It is simply looking closely at what has been going on here.
Of course we have feelings, personally, of being oppressed by the City spending over $100,000.00 on suing us, for what, we still haven't figured out, mainly just so that the property next to us could be developed, to the max, with icky, plastic, fantastic McMansions, a process that really began in Sept. of 1999, when a deceitful developer moved in on our neighborhood, falsely claiming to be "owner builder," when he has never, ever lived here. Now we are being charged, by the City Attorneys for these same outrageous costs and fees!
Glenn Sabine should not have written that letter to Chris Tanner in La Mesa, threatening to sue him, depriving him of his First Amendment rights either. And at this past Wednesday's Council Meeting, the Council members kept saying, in the case of the landscaping company, "our job is not to prosecute our citizens." This is hogwash! They just don't prosecute most people who can afford to pay an attorney's high fees!
Well, this victory for No on C does bode badly for Bossypants Guerin and Lawnmower Man Dalager. They both had voted, initially, to illegally put this bogus fee on our EDCO trash bill. I will be resubmitting our claim form for the $75.00 the City took from us, without our leave. We need it!
The City wasted well over $100,000, plus much time and effort on this ridiculous proposed fee, when the money was to come out of the General Fund, flush, anyway, from rising property taxes. If you purchase a home for a minimum of $650,000.00, how much will that be a year in property taxes, and fees? Well over $6,000.00, with built in increases of 2%, compounded yearly, not including rising fees for sewer and water fees, which have doubled or tripled in many cases.
We are not idiots. Council has treated us as such for far too long. I was most happy to see, too, that Dubai dropped the U.S. ports deal. With Cunningham in the slammer, we can feel happy that people are waking up to the truth of what has been going on.
Here's a quote from City Manager, Kerry Miller, "Needless to say, we'll be tightening our belts." We think, after all of the City Attorneys' bad advice, and the City Manager's lack of fiscal restraint, the first thing we should tell Council to do is to take steps to substantially lower their pay, or to get them out of office, ASAP. That would tighten our belts.
And we won't stop holding City Attorney Sabine & Morrison accountable. Sabine gives terrible advice, as in our case, as in the Storm Drain fee, which should have been returned, already, to those who tried to file claims, regardless of this victory in defeating C. And Sabine could have and should have advised Patrick Murphy and Christy Guerin that they should not take a mini break, flying up to Monterey to lobby for the Condo/time share developers. Unfortunately, contrary to the efforts of dear Gil Foerster, and environmentalists, the Coastal Commission went along with Bossypants, and went against its own staff recommendation. Boooo!
Bossypants Guerin works against the best interests of the environment, also contrary to what her campaign literature may say. And although she is an ex cop and the firemen and deputy sheriffs like her, and can count on continuing raises through her, we cannot count on Guerin and Dalager's clearheaded fiscal restraint. Guerin is pro union, supposedly, but she is a big government, big spending Republican. We want her out! And Dalager, too. He could have stood up to Guerin, formed a coalition with Bond, who has before called for an independent audit. Will we get one now?
Bow wow, you guys! Congratulations on all your hard work, your heartfelt efforts, Bill Rodewald, Bob Evermore, Bob Bonde, Donna Westbrook, Gil Foerster, Encinitas Taxpayers Association. We rule. Hip, hip hooray!
Steve Aceti, eat crow! Can you admit you were dead wrong, scam-man?
Aceti was paid to sheild the Council. He is doing exactly what he should be doing to complete that mission.
ReplyDeleteguess Prop D will have to be "Dump the Incumbents."
ReplyDeleteWhat do you thik of people who only do the minimum?
ReplyDeleteHear, hear J.P.
ReplyDeleteCongratulations to the ETA, its supporters and the bloggers who voiced their opinions over the past two months.
Obviously, I'm disappointed with the outcome, but the voters have spoken and that's the beauty of living in America (no riots in the streets, burning of sacred buildings, etc.).
One thing is clear from the debates - we all care a lot about Encinitas and its future. It's a great place to work and live.
Steve Aceti
FAA-Q
ReplyDeleteSteve said "One thing is clear from the debates - we all care a lot about Encinitas and its future."
ReplyDeleteHere is the difference Steve. You don't really care about Encinitas unless you are getting paid to p.r. an argument for one side or the other, probably any side that'll pay the price could buy your services.
I surf 300 days a year in the local waters, if I ever saw you in the ocean, I'd break your fins off, KOOK! You don't give a shit about the water
aye caramba, be chill everyone.
ReplyDeleteJP, I want to chill, and it is pretty cold with all this wind and rain. But I am upset that the back alley is getting flooded again, and that the new development next door, contrary to what the Coastal Development Permit stated, has the water draining into the alley, not into the storm drains in the street. The people behind us, on La Mesa, have to put out sandbags so they don't get flooded! And yes, we have complained. And guess what, we are not a developer; we are not a lobbyist; we get ignored.
ReplyDeleteWorse than that, we get sued by the city for being a "public nuisance." What a farce. It's before the Court of Appeal, now. And I've been trying to chill since we were raided by six cops, with battering ram and Marianne Buscemi, code enforcement officer, on 8/29/02, with a bogus warrant drawn up by Glenn Sabine, on 8/20/02, one day after we had subpoenaed him for a related case brought against me by developer Signature Series, Richard A. Larsen.
This 8/29/02 raid, we feel certain, although no Council Member will verify, nor would Sabine, was executed against us at the behest of bogus Mayor Christy Guerin. Our entire street was blocked off, people could not get to work, all because we were allegedly a "zoning violation." No evidence of any violation was found, although the city/cops lost the half hour video tape they took. This was convenient for them, because it would clearly show that the "inspection" went beyond the parameters of the search warrant, which for an alleged land use violation was to have given us 24 hour notice, just as a landlord would have to give to come into a renter's home. But we are owners!
Yes, the "officers" went beyond the garage area, which was to be inspected, into private areas of our home. We do maintain a two car garage, too, unlike many.
I'm bringing this up because I am sick at heart about all the corruption nation wide. Sick. We have to start in our own hearts and minds, and our own neighborhoods, cities, to make a change, a revolution of consciousness. We don't need people like Aceti, either, poisoning the well, calling us hysterical for reacting with passion, standing up for our rights to open government and quality of life.
I don't blame people for being angry, when they are baited by the likes of Christy Guerin and Steve Aceti. You just can't fool all of the people all of the time.
Yes, it's definitely time for a change. Please, let's figure out who will stand for clean government in November. We need a fresh start. And when we speak out, we don't need some wanna-be lawyer telling us we're hysterical. That is the first thing the powers that be cry when they start their witch hunts, designed to crush the opposition.
City Council clearly has bitten off more than it can chew. I think they voted in Christy Guerin for our new mayor to take the heat off of them, two years later.
Maggie, wake up and smell the pollution!
Yeah, it's a real struggle not to be bitter with the hypocrisy that has been a part of business as usual at City Hall, here as well as in SD. Unfortunately, we do not have an elected city attorney, like Mike Aguirre, to root out the corruption in our own little berg.
Good column by Bill Arballo in Coast News, too, "Free speech threat backfires," today, talking about Glenn Sabine's Unconstitutional letter written to a citizen engineer, Chris Tanner, who was speaking about what he perceived to be relaxed regulations for development in La Mesa. It's quite clear, to us, whose side our City Attorney is on. It isn't the side of what's right; he doesn't represent the citizens who pay his outrageous hourly fees, and guaranteed retainer for many cities in San Diego County, including Encinitas.
And I hope people read today’s Letters, on back of Business section of NCT, D-8, great letter to editor by Dietmar Rothe, “Questionable representation," speaking to how Guerin has been deceitful about the already built stairway. Dietmar quotes the March 1 article in NCT wherein it was stated, “Mayor Christy Guerin said she plans to fly to Monterey next week ‘to testify on behalf of KSL’ against Coastal Commission recommendations that oppose the hotel chain’s plans for building a time-share, condo-hotel on sensitive beach bluffs.” What in the world is our mayor lobbying for corporate interests, against our best interests, and on our dime?
Vote out incumbents in November. We are going to keep up the momentum. We are not hysterical, but we are persistent, determined. We will not leave this mucky heritage to our grandkids. Hear us roar!
hmmm, on second thought don't be chill and let's storm city hall with torches and pitchforks! This aggression will not stand man.
ReplyDeleteNCT
ReplyDeleteKerry Miller said he did not know what projects or services would be affected by the "public subsidy being unavailable." (in real words he meant - now that the taxpayers didn't fall for the tax scam) Also, we should each receive a $75 refund from the city and Miller said the city would issue the refunds "in a timely manner."
What alternative universe do these people live in?
It was not long ago that Kerry Miller and Jerome Stocks (who looks perpetualy constipated) bragged about the financial health of the city. I think it was right around the time that they were giving the big benefits increases.
ReplyDeleteWhat happened to all that money??
Yes, it sure has been raining. Glad for a break, right now.
ReplyDeleteJP, I don't see anyone advocating literally storming City Hall with torches and pitchforks. But I am glad for this forum, for the opportunity to storm with our words, here. They do make a difference. People do not like to be played for fools.
We too are grateful for this victory, that the hardwork of so many has once again paid off.
Yes, we can be passionate, and compassionate at the same time. We choose to act, with calm resolve, not react in bitterness; that does hurt us more than those we are feeling frustrated about.
I think a lot of us have felt so impotent, for so long, when it comes to getting our feelings, our questions and concerns recognized or acknowledged at City Hall that we are venting. Thank God we have the Constitutional right to do so.
Steve Aceti, you have lost your credibility in our book. Do not tread on us! The defeat of C was a victory for the truth! Thank you.
Proverbial pitchforks and torches!
ReplyDelete...relax , J.P. "FAA-Q" means :"Frequently Asked Aceti Questions".
ReplyDelete"...'Tis the wind, and nothing more..."
-The Raven
I really enjoyed my burrito, think I'll have another.
ReplyDeleteI voted 'No' on Prop C and then promptly took my family on vacation for two weeks. And when I got home I rushed to my computer and to this site to see what people had to say about the outcome of the ballot!
ReplyDeleteI was relieved and happy to learn that Prop C was defeated. When I saw the vote was 61% against I just couldn't resist applying a little math... There were approximately 22,000 ballots mailed out. The City claimed it decided after the ballots were mailed that they wouldn't count votes that the City was eligible to cast under the unfair conditions characterizing this ballot. So if we delete about 300 parcels/votes, that means over 13,000 'No' votes were cast. I can't help but speculate that the actual vote result would have been even more conclusive if there hadn't been a bunch of 'City Council friendly' developers casting 'Yes' votes for each of their 'as yet' undeveloped parcels. Remember that the average homeowner got to cast only one vote while developers, dependent on the favors of the Planning Department and City Council, received as many votes as the number of parcels they own. That means that a VERY large number of average homeowners had to vote 'No' to offset the overweighted 'Yes' votes of the developers in order to get a 61% defeat. My point, if you're reading this City Council members, is this: The real, overwhelming message delivered by the community is that we don't appreciate being hoodwinked and played for fools by our elected officials.
Commissioned at the request of the Encinitas City Council, Oregon-based firm Moore Information, Inc., CHARGED THE CITY $10,000 TO RANDOMLY DIAL 300 HOUSEHOLDS and ask yes and no survey questions. The opening question of the 32 question survey was "in your opinion, are things in the city of Enc. going in the right direction, or not." 66% of those surveyed answered yes (about the same percentage that when polled said they would vote Yes on C). This survey will be repeated every two years. YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK.
ReplyDeleteI should have read the NCT article before I applied my mathematical analysis. Apparently only slightly more than 10,000 ballots were cast. Sixty-one percent works out to just over 6,100 votes against Proposition C. I wonder why there were so many non-voters. Were they confused by the issue? Could that many people really be that apathetic? Were they distracted by careless, speeding drivers on their neighborhood streets? Trying to figure out where they would come up with the money to pay their exhorbitant Sewer Service Charges? Worried that their votes would not be anonymous and Big Brother would trace their actions back to them? On vacation? Perhaps many did not receive the ballots that were supposedly mailed to them... Surely the City of Encinitas does not own that many parcels! Inquiring minds want to know!
ReplyDeletemy younger brother summed it up best when he asked why prop c was called the clean water fee when the money was really for the library. It might have passed then.
ReplyDelete