Hopefully someone will ask this question and ask them to investigate:
I would like to see an article about how a fireman in Encinitas became a campaign manager and "Friend" of most of our current council and than amazingly rose to the ranks of Chief without any interviews of other candidates. Look at Bob Nannigans article in Coast news. Explain the cozy relationship between Muir, Guerin, Stock, Bonds, and Dalager. In addition his business partner is a campaign manager for Dalager. How much time is our chief spending on leading our fire department verses all of his other jobs, politics and responsibilities. It seems like the fire chief position pays well for a part time job. Or is the compensation more like public gifts for supporting incumbent council.
A fire chief that has so many other political focuses seems to be at odds with the public interest. It seems more like returning public gifts for political support and is at the tax payers cost. Encinitas is run by a small pack of self serving schizophrenic so called republicans that support unions and Bilbray. They are an odd group with no much integrity.
Let's take a look at the whole department. The new fire mansions planned. Viking refrigerators and all. Why do we have a 100 foot aerial ladderr truck when the tallest building in the city was 30 feet? Is that so our city council can change height restrictions up to 100 feet?
Does Muir have the qualifications set out in city policy for a department head. Perhaps we need to outsource the fire department like we do law enforcement. It might be cheaper. Carlsbad fire or rancho santa fe, solana beach and del mar fire?
Did anyone notice that our infamous blogger Gil was the only person to support a 20% pay raise for the city council members at the last meeting? You think that might have anything to do with the planned up-zoning of his green house property at Santa Fe and Lake drive? The property he claims he only rents. They, the property owners who ever they are, are applying for a permit to build over 100 homes.
You think the deal has been set between Gil and the city council? Pure speculation but it sure looks that way to me with all the support he gives this council.
Gil does not own the property at Santa Fe and Lake Dr. Paul Brown owns the property. He is on the Cardiff School Board and so the place he is having his CPP is one of the Cardiff schools - Ada Harris Elementary. Paul Brown supports Long and wants to upzone this property - with density bonus there would be about 200 houses on that corner. Brown knows that if Long wins, he can get the council to upzone but with Long, it would have to go to a vote of the people. Brown's CPP is tonight at Ada Harris at 6 p.m. (if you have any questions) The council can upzone with a super majority of 4 to 1 so you have to hope that dumb and dumber are not elected because that would quarantee the 4 to 1 vote.
Yes, Gil came in just before he spoke, wasn't there for oral communications. If we knew that this Council meeting was only going to go for an hour, we could have stayed to object to the raise. But it wouldn't have mattered. They were all set on raising it, except, surprise, Jerome Stocks voted NO. Thanks for speaking your mind, Jerome. And he did, too, on the short term rental ban, deal, and the fee on the EDCO trash bill. Now EDCO got a "raise," too, anyway, $5.00 per bill. Seems like Quid Pro Quo.
We do like to see someone brave enough to say no when the others all follow the leader, Christy Guerin. Dan Dalager has done this maybe one time. The word is out that he will get 10 units on his property, as he knows that accessory units are allowed by right. We thought this started out as four homes? Now it's up to ten. He didn't need a raise, and those guys are not putting in 40 hours a week, guaranteed.
Christy Guerin said she wishes the 20% raise could have been enacted while she could enjoy it. She doesn't mention her stress fracture disability at $2,000 per month on top of her Brian Bilbray $85,000.00 a year, plus bennies, on us, through the fed govt.
James Bond didn't mention all the money he makes on other boards, that all Council members do. Maggie makes less, now, after Christy Guerin took away some of her assignments as soon as Bossy became mayor again.
Council also didn't "mention" the rate increase we just got in today's mail as ratepayers in the San Dieguito Water District. We hope that our rates will not go up even more, after 2007, due to the high fees that SDWD has to pay for "use" of the Mossy Property.
We think it's a scam, that Council is trying to make up for the $5.00 monthly fee it lost that we were being charged by EDCO on our trash bills, which money was to go to the storm drain program, so that would not have to come out of the general fund. The General Fund is clearly being depleted by all of Council's inflated capital costs for the Starbucks library, the fire mansions, and now the Mossy property, not to mention the fouled up Hall Property project.
What was so bad, too, about the Mossy deal is that the former SDWD property, which was also used by the City of Encinitas, was paid in full. That property also brought in rental income from the rest of the city. The Orange County consultant gave no credit for the structure, although the consultant "appraiser" gave $1,000,000 appraised value for the "buildings" on the Mossy property. Another half million will go to spruce the place up for how many FTE's? (Full time employees), who are mostly in the field, we hope.
When the lost income came up at the Council meeting, before, they said, oh we don't give credit for the lost rental income, because the building (SDWD public works yard "headquarters") was a tear down. It could have been fixed at far less than $500,000.
That was an unfair trade, unfair to the ratepayers, who today, got notice of raises on our bills.
Also the letter from SDWD, that I got today, too, vaguely refers to a confusing Supreme Court decision. The letter directly implies: it could have been much, much worse.
Gil is selling out, in my opinion. He was kissing up big time, when we watched the Council Meeting tonight. What a change, from the A opponent.
He said that the Ecke's gave their word. Well so did the City, when we incorporated, about not allowing spot zoning. He keeps talking about "infill development." Sounds like he's been hobnobbing with developers, whether he has ownership rights on the property, or not. Perhaps it's just personal ties with the Browns.
That's okay, Gil. You can want profit for your friends, or yourself. But we are losing the character of our neighborhoods with this kind of upzoning. I believe that the property is already zoned residential. So are we talking about R3 to R11? I think Olivenhein was 1 house per acre, R1, changed to R15, thru Chuck Duvivier (sp?)
Best wishes to Maggie to get well. One does wonder about the upzoning of the property just north of Bowman's landscape biz, why that was allowed, but it stops, right on Maggie's street. There's a wall, then new build, stacked close. We saw Maggie on the news, Channel 8, thanks to JP. She looked good, I thought.
I don't think she should sue Bowman for anything but to take down the signs, which he has. She could get a restraining order. She probably wouldn't get actual monetary damages, because she can't show how it has hurt her reputation, and she is a public figure, so a higher standard. They are doing overkill now, which is vindictive, as usual. It's all for publicity. For the first time, Glenn Sabine had "reportable action." We don't get the grading violations on the Bowman's, for mulching, when the City did tremendous environmental damage, releasing toxins, by grading toxic ground, sending dust flying, at the Hall Property claiming they were only removing retain walls, piping, etc. There was a mountain of poisonus wood chips, too, that they created, blowing in the wind. Maggie is lucky she doesn't live there. If Council lived on that block, things would have gone far differently.
Ironically, Maggie got a lot of good publicity about the Clown deal after the disaster at the Hondo races. People felt badly for her, and still do. Maggie, just drop the lawsuit if he takes down his signs. You will be sorry to get involved in a public spectacle, which you will become, in Court, in my opinion. Court kills. Nobody wins, but the lawyers. Even they may get shellshock after enough years, like Mr. Marvin?
To some of these greenhouse guys, so angry with Maggie, and some workers, Bowman says, it may seem like favoritism, nobody can stop development, but Council members on the block.
You can't fight City Hall; there's a reason for that old saying.
Unfortunately, Gil seems like a charter member of the elitists, now. I don't get his change in attitude. Perhaps I misread him, before.
Sorry, Gil, why speak out just to look like a kiss-~ss. Please, please, stick to the Coastal Commission, and the porta potties.
Why did you give up so easy on the cancer pocket research? Did you really think it was a wild goose chase, or did you not want to find a pocket near the greenhouse properties?
The word is out that Dan Dalager will get 10 units on his property, as he knows that accessory units are allowed by right. We thought this started out as four homes? Now it's up to ten.
Dalager didn't need a raise, and those guys, gals, are not putting in 40 hours a week, guaranteed.
I supported a pay raise for council because it was the right thing to do. I have no interest in the Lake Dr. property except that my business will be homeless when whatever development happens there goes through. As for this council, I have attacked each and everyone of them on different occasions. It depends on the issue and my position. What am I going to sell out for? I can’t financially gain from any council decision, planning commission decision, or planning and land use decision in this city.
I have talked to Glen Sabine a total of four times in the last eight years. Two of those discussions were concerning department directors qualifications requested by this blog site. No discussion lasted longer than 5 minutes.
In-fill development refers to the kind of development that is occurring now in the city. We no longer have vast areas of undeveloped land, we are filling in the undeveloped areas that are surrounded by homes as compared to a new planned community development.
Actually, the city spot-zoned the Brown property when it incorporated. The Brown property was zoned AG 70 prior to incorporation but the new city decided that they did not want any ag land and so they re-zoned the Brown property over the objections of the property owners of which I am NOT one. I did work on keeping the property in AG prior to city-hood trying to explain that by changing the zoning they were dooming one of the real agricultural families in Encinitas. I tried to explain that no bank would loan sufficient agricultural development capital if the property zoning was changed from AG to residential. The concept was apparently to complex for the simple minds of those designing the zoning matrix for the city.
I have worked with the Brown family for thirty-one years agriculturally. I cut my eye-teeth at the side of Grandpa Brown and am a better grower and person because of it. I am proud of their resiliency as they have re-tooled the operation again and again in an effort to remain in agriculture in a city that was rapidly urbanizing all around them. I do have personal ties with the family and although it makes me sick that the past actions of the city have put them in a position where they can no longer continue farming, I am going to support whatever the community and the Browns work out for the development of the property.
Of course I want profit for the family. The character of this city was that of a unique agricultural community prior to incorporation. Decision after decision has eroded that character as the agricultural operations have been destroyed for new suburban residential development. Am I bitter about this? Hell yes! According to the Dept of Interior there are only nine places in the world with a micro climate like Encinitas, that’s what made it so special for agriculture. Fortunately or unfortunately depending upon your point of view that is also what makes it so desirable as a place to live and raise a family.
As for being a kiss-ass, I don’t think so. I really don’t care what anybody thinks of me because I like myself. I do believe that serving on our council deserves a reasonable amount of compensation. The entire text of my statement to council really says it all. It follows: October 11, 2006
Mayor, Council members -
I am disappointed in this amending ordinance. . . but state law restricts the amount of increase to 5% per year from the last increase so the increased compensation is restricted to $179.07/month.
This would bring the compensation up to a whopping $1077./Month or $12,924./Yearly.
As our city has grown the responsibilities of our council members have grown also. We, as a community entrust our council members with decisions that will effect our community forever.
Although we are rapidly approaching a fully built out community we are not there yet and during the next ten to fifteen years, as we in-fill the remaining land, the councils and the planning commissions are going to be put to the test.
Each project, each decision, requires an increasing amount of time to study and research. The easy decisions were made long ago. The amount of paperwork generated on each potential project will require careful scrutiny and the amount of time required outside of council chambers for council members to become informed and to communicate with the community will increase. $1077./Month does not seem excessive for those overseeing the end development of our community.
Also, with the electronic age of emails, blogsites, and the ever present media, the chance for vilification on any given project or change looms greater. This does not include the occasional vilification of council members here in these chambers during council meetings. On occasion my own harsh words for council members have filled the air. As our community has grown, so have the groups that may take one side or another in any council decision. On occasion, vilification has spilled onto our streets and on signs on our freeways and may continue to occur. $1077./Month does not seem excessive for those willing to sit on our council.
Please do not be detoured from increasing the council compensation, it is the right thing to do and I would hope that the vote to approve Ordinance 2006-07 would be unanimous.
Thank You
I asked Mr Stocks after the meeting why he voted against the pay increase. He said that he felt it should have been addressed on a bi-yearly basis so that the jump was not 20%. Maggie has requested that the city manager make it policy to address council compensation every two years so that this does not happen again.
I gave up on the cancer pocket research because the mis-direction I was given made me look like a fool at the Department of Public Health. I have a business to run and a city and coast that I spend whatever extra time I have working on, I can’t put any more irons in the fire. To many irons in the fire and none of them get hot.
Gil, you still haven't answered about the Jennifer Smith/Glen Sabine conflict of interest. It's real easy to get first hand information on the Smith/Sabine relationship. All you have to do is ask Sabine, since you talk with him. I know for a fact that he told someone that they were married. Either way, married or not, there is a conflict of interest, and the two should not be mixing personal and city business. I think you find it convenient not to know the truth about them. Nobody cares about their private life, but we do care about their city business life.
Infill development is the code word for redeveloping current land use into higher density. It is "smart growth" packaged to increase density. The Brown property is zoned RR-1 with one dwelling unit per acre. The Browns want to upzone the property to 152 condominiums. That is infill development. A RDA uses infill development. "Smart growth" uses infill development. Only if the residents want higher density will infill development be used in Encinitas.
The company that is working with Brown has built hugh condo complexs, some in San Diego County. You can find the vision of infill development in University City with the complexes around the mall and in downtown San Diego.
What kind of answer can I give on a subject I know nothing about but what I read on this blog site? I only talk with Mr. Sabine when I need something that seems like it should be made available to the public. I have no knowledge whether they are married or not, and I haven't seen anything to lead me to believe they are mixing personal and city business. I find it convenient not to put my nose into peoples private lives and do not know of anything that would indicate that there is any conflict in their city life. If it is that important to you and from your blogs it appears it is then I suggest you ask Mr Sabine yourself. I don't talk to the man much, don't golf with him, don't run in his circles so I don't have some pipeline with the city attorney that I can tap.
Do thOse oUtside City Hall Expect Bull---- About Glenn ... from me? If so, you're knocking on the wrong door.
I don't know of the "code" book that describes in-fill development as described by anonymous but would be interested in reading it. I do know that the original underlying zoning on the Brown property was AG-70 until some "smart growth" zoner decided to designate it RR-1. Had the Ag zoning been left as it was prior to incorporation the family would have been able to borrow against the property based upon the adjacent zoning of contiguous properties which is R-11. This would have allowed the Browns to renovate their greenhouses through the years and this family would never quit farming in Encinitas. The RDA in downtown San Diego was not infill development but redevelopment. The run down areas were converted to in town housing, providing liveable spaces in areas where people actually work and probably cut 20,000 vehicle trips a day off the roads leading into downtown. Get a clue about urban planning.
IMHO it is not Gil's responsibility to track down anything. He said he was going to do it, that's all. No one else seems to have access to Glenn Sabine, or should I say, most of the people I know don't have access to him. I could care less about Sabine/Smith's sex life, except it is a conflict of interest if there is one. An insider in the City told me that there was one, but that could also be a rumor. All I know is that Gil seems to have accesability to people some of us don't seem to have access to. So from now on Gil, please don't state you are going to do something and not deliver. That would be all I would ask of you, or anyone else who said they could get info. Thank you for keeping us informed on other matters, however you get the information. And I would also ask that you please give credit to some of us who are trying to make a difference. We don't expect you to do ALL the work. In fact, I personally don't care if you retire to the comfort of whatever you want to do. If it happens to be helping keep the City honest, all the better for us. However, I do believe that we could somehow find the information ourselves if necessary. None of us are that important, including myself.
dr lorri - i'm sorry but i never said i would look into the sabine-smith relationship. i did say that i would get the directors qualifications, which i did. as for access to sabine i just go up to the man during council meeting breaks and ask him my questions. please list what i have not delivered dr lorri and tell me when i bloged that i would.. the blogs are all archived and if i promised something i would like to check up on myself.
Gil, you need to read more articles on urban planning. Infill is high density housing (condos, apartments), period. There is an article on www.planetizen.com that explains what is happening with infill development. Read it then defend you comments.
The mistake, it seems to us, wasn't that they changed the zoning to RR1. This was still considered agricultural, as a legal use, and the banks could have loaned on that. I would want to see confirmation by the Browns that the City's zoning change cost them money. The land was not worth all that much back then, probably, as agricultural.
What seems unfair is that Union St., with Greenhouses, was zoned R3, I believe? And also that the property directly adjacent to the Browns was zoned R-11. No that doesn't sound right, and sure sounds like spot zoning. Was this happening when the area was still county.
Gil, you keep blaming the founders of Encinitas for causing problems here. It would be a lot worse, as far as spot zoning, if we were still under the county. The General Plan is what we started with. We are not locked in to that, as Council can change zoning with a four to one vote.
I wish we could have a referendum and change to being a charter city with term limits, and a stronger mayor.
Also, the greenhouse owners, like the Browns, could have come to Council Meetings and gone to incorporation meetings so their interests would be protected. All were welcome to participate.
Dear Gil: I am sorry if I gave the impression that you were supposed to report on the sex lives of Sabine and Smith. I did not mean to imply that you ever said that on the blog. Since I only publish under my name, I cannot be responsible for what others say. However, I understood that you were going to get the qualifications for the Directors. I do not recall seeing them on this blog. If you posted them, please forgive me. I missed them. My own investigation turned out to be different than yours. I have found that half of the Directors, including Smith, do not have the qualifications to hold their current positions. I could publish this on the blog if that would help. As far as Sabine goes, he will NOT give me the time of day. Perhaps it is because he threatened me with a lawsuit sometime back, and is afraid I will still do something. I don't know. So, as far as I know, you are the only one, besides Council and the City Manager who has access to him. I don[t even know you, so I have no personal animosity against you. As far as other promises you have made on the blog, I would go back and check myself, however, I am as busy as you are, so to be honest I am not inclined to challenge you on anything else but the Directors qualifications. Again, thank you for all the good work that you do for us.
I did not post the director qualifications because they are ten pages long. I left the information at Anderson's Stationers and told Mark anyone that asked for a copy should have one. I did post that on this site. If JP wants to put them up on this site that is up to him. I am not going to type ten pages of stuff and they are not on disk and I don't know how to scan them so I left them at Andersons for someone else to deal with. There you go.
Thanks, Dr. Lorri, for taking the time to investigate the qualifications. I, for one, would like to see Jennifer Smith's qualifications posted. And I continue to feel there is a conflict of interest which was demonstrated when Glen Sabine took so very long to release this info, and did not do so until he was threatened with legal action, through Calaware.
Gil says: "I don't know of the "code" book that describes in-fill development as described by anonymous but would be interested in reading it."
Gil, no one here, or anywhere said we have a "code book" that codifies in-fill development, per se. What is being said, and you are smart enough to figure this out without twisting words, is that in-fill development is typically code, in SD County, for spot zoning to higher density. In most cases, a tract of homes is built at greater density than the pre-existing neighborhood. RR1 means one home per acre, as you know. The greenhouse owners could still have gotten loans for agriculture at this low density IMO. Perhaps you know better, Gil. The point is, they may have wanted the change to residential because they eventually wanted to develop, as many growers and farmers have, nationwide.
In Seaside Gardens, which is R-11, many people have 1 1/2 lots, and formerly, some had 2 lots. On our block, where, formerly, there was one house with two lots, one being a "garden lot," providing much needed open space, two nearly identical "Mc Mansions now sit, (one still unfinished, although the developer purchased the property in Sept. of 99) blocking the sunlight of the surrounding single story beach homes, and taking up almost all of the lot with cement and the two-story structures that replaced the former Spanish style one story home. The owner of that Spanish style home was taken advantage of by the developer who got two lots in Seaside Gardens, with a home on one (in disrepair) for $300,000, when the owner did not want to sell. Her property was signed over by her out of area brother, who lives in Fresno, and who put her in a home and got power of attorney, without the property ever having been placed on the open market.
This was not technically "upzoning," because one home is allowed per lot. However, in many cases we are taling about several acres being developed, and the zoning going from R1 to R15 or more, if one is developing Condos.
As for pre-incorporation meetings, I went to all the CABS, trying to get Ag to remain as a zoning element and to try to get a light industrial and and public works zoning element included. I was probably too young to listen to at the time because I was not successful on any of those issues.
As for banks loaning on ag land. If land is zoned ag the bankers look to adjacent zoning when determining the value basis for a loan. In other words they say, "What zoning would this land most likely have if it were converted from ag to residential." Then they usually are willing to loan up to about 40% of that value. With RR-1 forced on the Browns, that meant that the banks were willing to loan up to the value of 4 residential lots. It is only in the last five years that that value has dramatically escalated. Had it been left as AG the banks might have loaned up to 40% of the value based on adjacent contiguous zoning. That was R-12 at incorporation, so the banks might have been inclined to loan up to the value of 50 residential lots instead of four. This property has been hocked up to the four lot value for years. If they could have borrowed up to the 50 lot value they might have had the capital required twenty years ago to have an on-going greenhouse upgrade program. So the Browns and the other growers did not go to the meetings, they sent me.
Yeah, Gil, too bad you were too young to listen to, ha ha.
But, really, the banks should go by contiguous property whether the land is ag or zoned rural residential, with only one home per acre.
What are CABs? Were you meeting with Bob Bonde and Marjorie Gaines at the North Coast Coalition to Incorporate? Sounds like the Browns have had a problem with the banking community. But even in those cases, such as the Eckes, where they did get money to improve their growing business, the heirs wanted to go into the development business, which, of course, is much higher profit.
That is their right, except when promises were made. Please, don't blame the Brown's decision to turn to development on those who worked so hard to found our city. No one and nothing is perfect. We have to work with what we have now.
The founders of this city wanted to prevent upzoning. They did want to preserve the rural nature of those areas of our community that have included greenhouses. We all did the best we could.
We don't need to increase densities now, so that the former growers can have greater profit. And your speech to Council did seem as though you were fawning to them. Posting your speech only reinforces that opinion. But of course, you may fawn all you want.
If they had been allowed to have the value of fifty homes as opposed to four the property would have been developed a decade ago and the neighbors would have fifty homes plus fifty accesory units, one allowed on each parcel.
The growers are growing houses now as opposed to flowers and the crop management techniques are the same.
They don't. So that leads me to suspect you're not a banker.
CAB's are Community Advisory Boards. They hold them in smaller cities when they are about to merge and incorporate into one unified commuity. They are so that the members from each community can provide input into the formation and development of the new City. ............. The Ecke's have had the good fortune to have almost always been in the land business, and thanks to good well thought choices, sometimes during very difficult economic times, they has survived. The land business has helped to sustain the agricultural business. It's a matter of factual history that the Ecke family has always believed that there was strength in numbers. Paul Sr., bought and sold property with the best of them. Many times with profit in mind. Property is not necessarily a higher profit, but it is a quicker profit and there are times when that is the most important element influencing a decision. Many other times Paul Sr. sold land with the agricultural community in mind and so people relocated and settled in this area. The agricultural element was strong, not just flowers, tomatoes, dry farmed beans, but strawberries, even a try at papayas. The climate here is unique, I mean really special.
First came water and then water districts, for this would decide in which direction and how strong each area would develop.
Then the war ended (WWII) and boys from across the nation were discharged here. Some never left. Some stayed only a few days but carried word back east about a place where anything grew. Families flocked here. We became a community with a cottege industry of growers along with a growing element of guys riding logs off the break, spearing man-hole cover halibit out of the surf. For the growers it has always been the challenge of using every possible skill to feed your family and always try to justify the continued agricultural use of a piece of ground.
Mr Brown Sr. and Paul Sr. hit it off and "Dad" Brown got enough land to move the family here and start a geranium farm. Paul Sr., got off a worthless piece of tomato land. Both had made a good deal. During the early years when money was a little tight "Dad" Brown built homes on the other side of Santa Fe. It wasn't higher profit than growing but it was quicker, and a growing family had growing demands, sometimes at a quicker rate than agriculture.
Not all growers dealt in land, some ran cattle in Colorado and let the herd grow when times were good and went to maket when they needed a little quick cash. It's agriculture, "a hard way to make an easy living," and it's never perfect. Farmers always work with what's at hand, whenever now is. Farmers are always in the land and water business. This now leads me to believe you're not in Ag.
...except when promises were made. I know of no promise made by any Brown to the citizens of the City. If I can't blame the Brown decision to develop on the hard working founders of the city, can I blame the destruction of the agricultural element on them? It's OK to blame them isn't it? No one is perfect.
We do have to work with what we have now, even if one of the children had to die to save the other baby and it's mother. But I don't have to like the fact that "the best you could do" destroyed one of the strongest little "cottege industry" areas in the nation. This really was the Flower and Surf Capital of the World and poinsettias was just one of the flowers in the agricultural bouquet.
The founders of the current city knew the area was unique. They just thought they could preserve that magic like the "Hand of God', but in reality, they "zoned out" the ugly child to save the mother and her spacious lot "rural" suburban community baby.
And now your spacious rural suburban community is unstable because the ugly child was the one with soul. The mother's memories are fading, and the surviving baby has grown into a rather unpleasent adult more concerned about what they's got than anything else. In the not too distant future people will look back and think "What were we thinking when we let agriculture die?", as they scurry about trying to find enough food to put on the table. Oh, of course most of the people reading this will either be quite a bit older or dead. If they are older there's no reason to worry about them if they lack food or housing, I mean they're just useless eaters aren't they?
The people who put hours in as our city council, WHOEVER they are, deserve to be well compensated for their time. I constantly hear about how much they make sitting on different boards. You think they attend all those meetings in their dreams? You think the basis for their decisions and input comes to them like magic. I don't try to fawn over any council member, but I do understand and respect their willingness to take on the task of council-person. To provide our communities input on the various boards on which they sit. I may not agree with a council person on an issue or even like them personally, but I do respect their willingness to serve.
On this you may call me at anytime. I'm not ashamed of my stand on anything you can get me to take a position on, "you can't please everyone, so you got to please yourself."
I find the up-coming election very interesting. I don't think I've seen a fatter ballot. Lots of interesting questions being asked across the country. Make sure your registered, be sure to vote.
I have to farm for a few days. So if I don't get right back to my friendly bloggers for a few days, it's nothing personal. I have to work with what I have, and what I have needs work right now.
We love you too, Gil, but we agree with anonymous poster before your last post. You paint a colorful picture, and reading about the history is swell; but we disagree that the City founders should take your blame.
Surely, that is putting the blame on the past, when we must deal with the present. The present circumstances are that all or almost all of the greenhouse owners want to sell their land at the greatest profit possible, which means higher and higher density.
I do agree that if greater density had been allowed, earlier, then the property would have been developed sooner as residential housing. Previous City Councils, and before them, the North Coast Coalition to incorporate did the best they could. It is not their fault, and it is not the Brown's fault, either. This is no one's fault, really. But we need to reach compromises that afford housing, profit, and quality of life. You seem bitter, Gil, because a way of life is changing. We wish we could stay in the 50's, too, in many ways, less people, less expensive land. But that is not the case now. And now is where we are at, Gil.
I especially disagree with this part of your post:
"The founders of the current city knew the area was unique. They just thought they could preserve that magic like the "Hand of God', but in reality, they "zoned out" the ugly child to save the mother and her spacious lot "rural" suburban community baby." By zoning the land RR1 (rural residential, one home per acre, the founders were doing what they could to preserve the rural and agricultural character of the community. You are not complaining about their not preserving the Ag land, really, but their not zoning it at a higher density residential, so the banks would loan more."
Seedling plants, and plants in soil, period, are not being threatened by competition from Mexico and offshore, as you know, Gil. The cost of living has become very high, for everyone. This should not be blamed on the founders.
Perhaps you were involved in former Community Advisory Boards, but were you involved with the North Coast Coalition to Incorporate Encinitas, just prior to incorporation? Margorie Gaines had a vision that was inclusive of the business leaders, and all citizens who wished to were urged to participate, to have a voice. I didn't see you at the Founder's celebration at the Cardiff Library?
Why do you heap blame on the past? (The responsibility belongs with the County, more than the City, as we have only been a city for 20 years, and many of the subdivisions and greenhouses are/were much older.)
We went to this past Wednesday's Council meeting. It lasted until 6:30, only, a total of 1/2 hr. City Hall is closed today. The City Council members are well paid for their attendance on various boards, and also get benefits, including a generous monthly expense account of $500.00 per month.
Christy Guerin, in 1998, campaigned on a promise to put the service back into the phrase Public Servant.
The recent 20% raise was too high, and would not have been approved by the voters. State Government Code does allow us the right to vote on these raises. Of course you are not in favor of allowing the common person, the "little guy" to vote, are you Gil?
Because if we got to vote on these issues, including the recent revenue bond, we would have the right to say NO, as we did on Props A and C.
to Bowman I say this:
ReplyDelete"Get a life. God would LIKE that."
Oh, we've all got lives; we hope for quality; God knows.
ReplyDeleteRegarding today’s NCT forum;
ReplyDeleteHopefully someone will ask this question and ask them to investigate:
I would like to see an article about how a fireman in Encinitas became a campaign manager and "Friend" of most of our current council and than amazingly rose to the ranks of Chief without any interviews of other candidates. Look at Bob Nannigans article in Coast news. Explain the cozy relationship between Muir, Guerin, Stock, Bonds, and Dalager. In addition his business partner is a campaign manager for Dalager. How much time is our chief spending on leading our fire department verses all of his other jobs, politics and responsibilities. It seems like the fire chief position pays well for a part time job. Or is the compensation more like public gifts for supporting incumbent council.
A fire chief that has so many other political focuses seems to be at odds with the public interest. It seems more like returning public gifts for political support and is at the tax payers cost. Encinitas is run by a small pack of self serving schizophrenic so called republicans that support unions and Bilbray. They are an odd group with no much integrity.
Let's take a look at the whole department. The new fire mansions planned. Viking refrigerators and all. Why do we have a 100 foot aerial ladderr truck when the tallest building in the city was 30 feet? Is that so our city council can change height restrictions up to 100 feet?
ReplyDeleteDoes Muir have the qualifications set out in city policy for a department head. Perhaps we need to outsource the fire department like we do law enforcement. It might be cheaper. Carlsbad fire or rancho santa fe, solana beach and del mar fire?
Did anyone notice that our infamous blogger Gil was the only person to support a 20% pay raise for the city council members at the last meeting? You think that might have anything to do with the planned up-zoning of his green house property at Santa Fe and Lake drive? The property he claims he only rents. They, the property owners who ever they are, are applying for a permit to build over 100 homes.
ReplyDeleteYou think the deal has been set between Gil and the city council? Pure speculation but it sure looks that way to me with all the support he gives this council.
Gil does not own the property at Santa Fe and Lake Dr.
ReplyDeletePaul Brown owns the property. He is on the Cardiff School Board and so the place he is having his CPP is one of the Cardiff schools - Ada Harris Elementary.
Paul Brown supports Long and wants to upzone this property - with density bonus there would be about 200 houses on that corner. Brown knows that if Long wins, he can get the council to upzone but with Long, it would have to go to a vote of the people.
Brown's CPP is tonight at Ada Harris at 6 p.m. (if you have any questions)
The council can upzone with a super majority of 4 to 1 so you have to hope that dumb and dumber are not elected because that would quarantee the 4 to 1 vote.
Yes, Gil came in just before he spoke, wasn't there for oral communications. If we knew that this Council meeting was only going to go for an hour, we could have stayed to object to the raise. But it wouldn't have mattered. They were all set on raising it, except, surprise, Jerome Stocks voted NO. Thanks for speaking your mind, Jerome. And he did, too, on the short term rental ban, deal, and the fee on the EDCO trash bill. Now EDCO got a "raise," too, anyway, $5.00 per bill. Seems like Quid Pro Quo.
ReplyDeleteWe do like to see someone brave enough to say no when the others all follow the leader, Christy Guerin. Dan Dalager has done this maybe one time. The word is out that he will get 10 units on his property, as he knows that accessory units are allowed by right. We thought this started out as four homes? Now it's up to ten. He didn't need a raise, and those guys are not putting in 40 hours a week, guaranteed.
ReplyDeleteChristy Guerin said she wishes the 20% raise could have been enacted while she could enjoy it. She doesn't mention her stress fracture disability at $2,000 per month on top of her Brian Bilbray $85,000.00 a year, plus bennies, on us, through the fed govt.
ReplyDeleteJames Bond didn't mention all the money he makes on other boards, that all Council members do. Maggie makes less, now, after Christy Guerin took away some of her assignments as soon as Bossy became mayor again.
Council also didn't "mention" the rate increase we just got in today's mail as ratepayers in the San Dieguito Water District. We hope that our rates will not go up even more, after 2007, due to the high fees that SDWD has to pay for "use" of the Mossy Property.
ReplyDeleteWe think it's a scam, that Council is trying to make up for the $5.00 monthly fee it lost that we were being charged by EDCO on our trash bills, which money was to go to the storm drain program, so that would not have to come out of the general fund. The General Fund is clearly being depleted by all of Council's inflated capital costs for the Starbucks library, the fire mansions, and now the Mossy property, not to mention the fouled up Hall Property project.
What was so bad, too, about the Mossy deal is that the former SDWD property, which was also used by the City of Encinitas, was paid in full. That property also brought in rental income from the rest of the city. The Orange County consultant gave no credit for the structure, although the consultant "appraiser" gave $1,000,000 appraised value for the "buildings" on the Mossy property. Another half million will go to spruce the place up for how many FTE's? (Full time employees), who are mostly in the field, we hope.
ReplyDeleteWhen the lost income came up at the Council meeting, before, they said, oh we don't give credit for the lost rental income, because the building (SDWD public works yard "headquarters") was a tear down. It could have been fixed at far less than $500,000.
That was an unfair trade, unfair to the ratepayers, who today, got notice of raises on our bills.
Also the letter from SDWD, that I got today, too, vaguely refers to a confusing Supreme Court decision. The letter directly implies: it could have been much, much worse.
Gil is selling out, in my opinion. He was kissing up big time, when we watched the Council Meeting tonight. What a change, from the A opponent.
ReplyDeleteHe said that the Ecke's gave their word. Well so did the City, when we incorporated, about not allowing spot zoning. He keeps talking about "infill development." Sounds like he's been hobnobbing with developers, whether he has ownership rights on the property, or not. Perhaps it's just personal ties with the Browns.
That's okay, Gil. You can want profit for your friends, or yourself. But we are losing the character of our neighborhoods with this kind of upzoning. I believe that the property is already zoned residential. So are we talking about R3 to R11? I think Olivenhein was 1 house per acre, R1, changed to R15, thru Chuck Duvivier (sp?)
Best wishes to Maggie to get well. One does wonder about the upzoning of the property just north of Bowman's landscape biz, why that was allowed, but it stops, right on Maggie's street. There's a wall, then new build, stacked close. We saw Maggie on the news, Channel 8, thanks to JP. She looked good, I thought.
ReplyDeleteI don't think she should sue Bowman for anything but to take down the signs, which he has. She could get a restraining order. She probably wouldn't get actual monetary damages, because she can't show how it has hurt her reputation, and she is a public figure, so a higher standard. They are doing overkill now, which is vindictive, as usual. It's all for publicity. For the first time, Glenn Sabine had "reportable action." We don't get the grading violations on the Bowman's, for mulching, when the City did tremendous environmental damage, releasing toxins, by grading toxic ground, sending dust flying, at the Hall Property claiming they were only removing retain walls, piping, etc. There was a mountain of poisonus wood chips, too, that they created, blowing in the wind. Maggie is lucky she doesn't live there. If Council lived on that block, things would have gone far differently.
Ironically, Maggie got a lot of good publicity about the Clown deal after the disaster at the Hondo races. People felt badly for her, and still do. Maggie, just drop the lawsuit if he takes down his signs. You will be sorry to get involved in a public spectacle, which you will become, in Court, in my opinion. Court kills. Nobody wins, but the lawyers. Even they may get shellshock after enough years, like Mr. Marvin?
ReplyDeleteTo some of these greenhouse guys, so angry with Maggie, and some workers, Bowman says, it may seem like favoritism, nobody can stop development, but Council members on the block.
You can't fight City Hall; there's a reason for that old saying.
Unfortunately, Gil seems like a charter member of the elitists, now. I don't get his change in attitude. Perhaps I misread him, before.
ReplyDeleteSorry, Gil, why speak out just to look like a kiss-~ss. Please, please, stick to the Coastal Commission, and the porta potties.
Why did you give up so easy on the cancer pocket research? Did you really think it was a wild goose chase, or did you not want to find a pocket near the greenhouse properties?
Jerome's no doesn't mean he won't take the money.
ReplyDeleteThe word is out that Dan Dalager will get 10 units on his property, as he knows that accessory units are allowed by right. We thought this started out as four homes? Now it's up to ten.
ReplyDeleteDalager didn't need a raise, and those guys, gals, are not putting in 40 hours a week, guaranteed.
Referendum! Referendum!
ReplyDelete"Douche bag" and "whore" are both female derogatory.
ReplyDeleteDouche bag is what 7th grade boys call each other so naturally I used it.
ReplyDeleteI supported a pay raise for council because it was the right thing to do. I have no interest in
ReplyDeletethe Lake Dr. property except that my business will be homeless when whatever development happens there goes through. As for this council, I have attacked each and everyone of them on different occasions. It depends on the issue and my position. What am I going to sell out for? I can’t financially gain from any council decision, planning commission decision, or planning and land use decision in this city.
I have talked to Glen Sabine a total of four times in the last eight years. Two of those discussions were concerning department directors qualifications requested by this blog site. No discussion lasted longer than 5 minutes.
In-fill development refers to the kind of development that is occurring now in the city. We no
longer have vast areas of undeveloped land, we are filling in the undeveloped areas that are
surrounded by homes as compared to a new planned community development.
Actually, the city spot-zoned the Brown property when it incorporated. The Brown property was zoned AG 70 prior to incorporation but the new city decided that they did not want any ag land and so they re-zoned the Brown property over the objections of the property owners of which I
am NOT one. I did work on keeping the property in AG prior to city-hood trying to explain that by changing the zoning they were dooming one of the real agricultural families in Encinitas. I tried to explain that no bank would loan sufficient agricultural development capital if the property zoning was changed from AG to residential. The concept was apparently to complex
for the simple minds of those designing the zoning matrix for the city.
I have worked with the Brown family for thirty-one years agriculturally. I cut my eye-teeth at the side of Grandpa Brown and am a better grower and person because of it. I am proud of their
resiliency as they have re-tooled the operation again and again in an effort to remain in
agriculture in a city that was rapidly urbanizing all around them. I do have personal ties with the family and although it makes me sick that the past actions of the city have put them in a position where they can no longer continue farming, I am going to support whatever the community and the Browns work out for the development of the property.
Of course I want profit for the family. The character of this city was that of a unique agricultural community prior to incorporation. Decision after decision has eroded that character as the agricultural operations have been destroyed for new suburban residential development. Am I bitter about this? Hell yes! According to the Dept of Interior there are only nine places in the world with a micro climate like Encinitas, that’s what made it so special for agriculture. Fortunately or unfortunately depending upon your point of view that is also what makes it so desirable as a place to live and raise a family.
As for being a kiss-ass, I don’t think so. I really don’t care what anybody thinks of me because I
like myself. I do believe that serving on our council deserves a reasonable amount of compensation. The entire text of my statement to council really says it all. It follows:
October 11, 2006
Mayor, Council members -
I am disappointed in this amending ordinance. . . but state law restricts the amount of increase to
5% per year from the last increase so the increased compensation is restricted to $179.07/month.
This would bring the compensation up to a whopping $1077./Month or $12,924./Yearly.
As our city has grown the responsibilities of our council members have grown also. We, as a
community entrust our council members with decisions that will effect our community forever.
Although we are rapidly approaching a fully built out community we are not there yet and during the next ten to fifteen years, as we in-fill the remaining land, the councils and the planning
commissions are going to be put to the test.
Each project, each decision, requires an increasing amount of time to study and research. The
easy decisions were made long ago. The amount of paperwork generated on each potential project will require careful scrutiny and the amount of time required outside of council chambers for council members to become informed and to communicate with the community will increase. $1077./Month does not seem excessive for those overseeing the end development of our community.
Also, with the electronic age of emails, blogsites, and the ever present media, the chance for
vilification on any given project or change looms greater. This does not include the occasional
vilification of council members here in these chambers during council meetings. On occasion
my own harsh words for council members have filled the air. As our community has grown, so
have the groups that may take one side or another in any council decision. On occasion, vilification has spilled onto our streets and on signs on our freeways and may continue to occur.
$1077./Month does not seem excessive for those willing to sit on our council.
Please do not be detoured from increasing the council compensation, it is the right thing to do and I would hope that the vote to approve Ordinance 2006-07 would be unanimous.
Thank You
I asked Mr Stocks after the meeting why he voted against the pay increase. He said that he felt it should have been addressed on a bi-yearly basis so that the jump was not 20%. Maggie has
requested that the city manager make it policy to address council compensation every two years so that this does not happen again.
I gave up on the cancer pocket research because the mis-direction I was given made me look like
a fool at the Department of Public Health. I have a business to run and a city and coast that I spend whatever extra time I have working on, I can’t put any more irons in the fire. To many irons in the fire and none of them get hot.
That was a good post Gil. But try to work in the word douche bag a few times, people love that.
ReplyDeleteGil, you still haven't answered about the Jennifer Smith/Glen Sabine conflict of interest. It's real easy to get first hand information on the Smith/Sabine relationship. All you have to do is ask Sabine, since you talk with him. I know for a fact that he told someone that they were married. Either way, married or not, there is a conflict of interest, and the two should not be mixing personal and city business. I think you find it convenient not to know the truth about them. Nobody cares about their private life, but we do care about their city business life.
ReplyDeleteInfill development is the code word for redeveloping current land use into higher density. It is "smart growth" packaged to increase density. The Brown property is zoned RR-1 with one dwelling unit per acre. The Browns want to upzone the property to 152 condominiums. That is infill development. A RDA uses infill development. "Smart growth" uses infill development. Only if the residents want higher density will infill development be used in Encinitas.
ReplyDeleteThe company that is working with Brown has built hugh condo complexs, some in San Diego County. You can find the vision of infill development in University City with the complexes around the mall and in downtown San Diego.
What kind of answer can I give on a subject I know nothing about but what I read on this blog site? I only talk with Mr. Sabine when I need something that seems like it should be made available to the public. I have no knowledge whether they are married or not, and I haven't seen anything to lead me to believe they are mixing personal and city business. I find it convenient not to put my nose into peoples private lives and do not know of anything that would indicate that there is any conflict in their city life. If it is that important to you and from your blogs it appears it is then I suggest you ask Mr Sabine yourself. I don't talk to the man much, don't golf with him, don't run in his circles so I don't have some pipeline with the city attorney that I can tap.
ReplyDeleteDo thOse oUtside City Hall Expect Bull---- About Glenn ... from me? If so, you're knocking on the wrong door.
I have tried to work it in once JP.
I don't know of the "code" book that describes in-fill development as described by anonymous but would be interested in reading it. I do know that the original underlying zoning on the Brown property was AG-70 until some "smart growth" zoner decided to designate it RR-1.
ReplyDeleteHad the Ag zoning been left as it was prior to incorporation the family would have been able to borrow against the property based upon the adjacent zoning of contiguous properties which is R-11. This would have allowed the Browns to renovate their greenhouses through the years and this family would never quit farming in Encinitas. The RDA in downtown San Diego was not infill development but redevelopment. The run down areas were converted to in town housing, providing liveable spaces in areas where people actually work and probably cut 20,000 vehicle trips a day off the roads leading into downtown. Get a clue about urban planning.
Why is Gil's responsibility to track down who Sabine is having sex with?
ReplyDeleteIMHO it is not Gil's responsibility to track down anything. He said he was going to do it, that's all. No one else seems to have access to Glenn Sabine, or should I say, most of the people I know don't have access to him. I could care less about Sabine/Smith's sex life, except it is a conflict of interest if there is one. An insider in the City told me that there was one, but that could also be a rumor. All I know is that Gil seems to have accesability to people some of us don't seem to have access to. So from now on Gil, please don't state you are going to do something and not deliver. That would be all I would ask of you, or anyone else who said they could get info. Thank you for keeping us informed on other matters, however you get the information. And I would also ask that you please give credit to some of us who are trying to make a difference. We don't expect you to do ALL the work. In fact, I personally don't care if you retire to the comfort of whatever you want to do. If it happens to be helping keep the City honest, all the better for us. However, I do believe that we could somehow find the information ourselves if necessary. None of us are that important, including myself.
ReplyDeletedr lorri - i'm sorry but i never said i would look into the sabine-smith relationship. i did say that i would get the directors qualifications, which i did. as for access to sabine i just go up to the man during council meeting breaks and ask him my questions. please list what i have not delivered dr lorri and tell me when i bloged that i would.. the blogs are all archived and if i promised something i would like to check up on myself.
ReplyDeletethank you in advance.
Chill
ReplyDeleteGil, you need to read more articles on urban planning. Infill is high density housing (condos, apartments), period. There is an article on www.planetizen.com that explains what is happening with infill development. Read it then defend you comments.
ReplyDeletewww.planetizen.com/node/20790
The mistake, it seems to us, wasn't that they changed the zoning to RR1. This was still considered agricultural, as a legal use, and the banks could have loaned on that. I would want to see confirmation by the Browns that the City's zoning change cost them money. The land was not worth all that much back then, probably, as agricultural.
ReplyDeleteWhat seems unfair is that Union St., with Greenhouses, was zoned R3, I believe? And also that the property directly adjacent to the Browns was zoned R-11. No that doesn't sound right, and sure sounds like spot zoning. Was this happening when the area was still county.
Gil, you keep blaming the founders of Encinitas for causing problems here. It would be a lot worse, as far as spot zoning, if we were still under the county. The General Plan is what we started with. We are not locked in to that, as Council can change zoning with a four to one vote.
I wish we could have a referendum and change to being a charter city with term limits, and a stronger mayor.
Also, the greenhouse owners, like the Browns, could have come to Council Meetings and gone to incorporation meetings so their interests would be protected. All were welcome to participate.
And the City Attorney should be elected, too!
ReplyDeleteDear Gil: I am sorry if I gave the impression that you were supposed to report on the sex lives of Sabine and Smith. I did not mean to imply that you ever said that on the blog. Since I only publish under my name, I cannot be responsible for what others say. However, I understood that you were going to get the qualifications for the Directors. I do not recall seeing them on this blog. If you posted them, please forgive me. I missed them. My own investigation turned out to be different than yours. I have found that half of the Directors, including Smith, do not have the qualifications to hold their current positions. I could publish this on the blog if that would help. As far as Sabine goes, he will NOT give me the time of day. Perhaps it is because he threatened me with a lawsuit sometime back, and is afraid I will still do something. I don't know. So, as far as I know, you are the only one, besides Council and the City Manager who has access to him. I don[t even know you, so I have no personal animosity against you. As far as other promises you have made on the blog, I would go back and check myself, however, I am as busy as you are, so to be honest I am not inclined to challenge you on anything else but the Directors qualifications. Again, thank you for all the good work that you do for us.
ReplyDeleteI did not post the director qualifications because they are ten pages long. I left the information at Anderson's Stationers and told Mark anyone that asked for a copy should have one. I did post that on this site. If JP wants to put them up on this site that is up to him. I am not going to type ten pages of stuff and they are not on disk and I don't know how to scan them so I left them at Andersons for someone else to deal with. There you go.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Dr. Lorri, for taking the time to investigate the qualifications. I, for one, would like to see Jennifer Smith's qualifications posted. And I continue to feel there is a conflict of interest which was demonstrated when Glen Sabine took so very long to release this info, and did not do so until he was threatened with legal action, through Calaware.
ReplyDeleteGil says: "I don't know of the "code" book that describes in-fill development as described by anonymous but would be interested in reading it."
Gil, no one here, or anywhere said we have a "code book" that codifies in-fill development, per se. What is being said, and you are smart enough to figure this out without twisting words, is that in-fill development is typically code, in SD County, for spot zoning to higher density. In most cases, a tract of homes is built at greater density than the pre-existing neighborhood. RR1 means one home per acre, as you know. The greenhouse owners could still have gotten loans for agriculture at this low density IMO. Perhaps you know better, Gil. The point is, they may have wanted the change to residential because they eventually wanted to develop, as many growers and farmers have, nationwide.
In Seaside Gardens, which is R-11, many people have 1 1/2 lots, and formerly, some had 2 lots. On our block, where, formerly, there was one house with two lots, one being a "garden lot," providing much needed open space, two nearly identical "Mc Mansions now sit, (one still unfinished, although the developer purchased the property in Sept. of 99) blocking the sunlight of the surrounding single story beach homes, and taking up almost all of the lot with cement and the two-story structures that replaced the former Spanish style one story home. The owner of that Spanish style home was taken advantage of by the developer who got two lots in Seaside Gardens, with a home on one (in disrepair) for $300,000, when the owner did not want to sell. Her property was signed over by her out of area brother, who lives in Fresno, and who put her in a home and got power of attorney, without the property ever having been placed on the open market.
This was not technically "upzoning," because one home is allowed per lot. However, in many cases we are taling about several acres being developed, and the zoning going from R1 to R15 or more, if one is developing Condos.
As for pre-incorporation meetings, I went to all the CABS, trying to get Ag to remain as a zoning element and to try to get a light industrial and and public works zoning element included. I was probably too young to listen to at the time because I was not successful on any of those issues.
ReplyDeleteAs for banks loaning on ag land. If land is zoned ag the bankers look to adjacent zoning when determining the value basis for a loan. In other words they say, "What zoning would this land most likely have if it were converted from ag to residential." Then they usually are willing to loan up to about 40% of that value. With RR-1 forced on the Browns, that meant that the banks were willing to loan up to the value of 4 residential lots. It is only in the last five years that that value has dramatically escalated. Had it been left as AG the banks might have loaned up to 40% of the value based on adjacent contiguous zoning. That was R-12 at incorporation, so the banks might have been inclined to loan up to the value of 50 residential lots instead of four. This property has been hocked up to the four lot value for years. If they could have borrowed up to the 50 lot value they might have had the capital required twenty years ago to have an on-going greenhouse upgrade program. So the Browns and the other growers did not go to the meetings, they sent me.
Yeah, Gil, too bad you were too young to listen to, ha ha.
ReplyDeleteBut, really, the banks should go by contiguous property whether the land is ag or zoned rural residential, with only one home per acre.
What are CABs? Were you meeting with Bob Bonde and Marjorie Gaines at the North Coast Coalition to Incorporate? Sounds like the Browns have had a problem with the banking community. But even in those cases, such as the Eckes, where they did get money to improve their growing business, the heirs wanted to go into the development business, which, of course, is much higher profit.
That is their right, except when promises were made. Please, don't blame the Brown's decision to turn to development on those who worked so hard to found our city. No one and nothing is perfect. We have to work with what we have now.
The founders of this city wanted to prevent upzoning. They did want to preserve the rural nature of those areas of our community that have included greenhouses. We all did the best we could.
We don't need to increase densities now, so that the former growers can have greater profit. And your speech to Council did seem as though you were fawning to them. Posting your speech only reinforces that opinion. But of course, you may fawn all you want.
And we will continue to call you on it, too.
pardon my french but horse shit!
ReplyDeleteIf they had been allowed to have the value of fifty homes as opposed to four the property would have been developed a decade ago and the neighbors would have fifty homes plus fifty accesory units, one allowed on each parcel.
The growers are growing houses now as opposed to flowers and the crop management techniques are the same.
How much yeild per acre.
Any other explanation is flowery math.
They don't. So that leads me to suspect you're not a banker.
ReplyDeleteCAB's are Community Advisory Boards. They hold them in smaller cities when they are about to merge and incorporate into one unified commuity. They are so that the members from each community can provide input into the formation and development of the new City.
.............
The Ecke's have had the good fortune to have almost always been in the land business, and thanks to good well thought choices, sometimes during very difficult economic times, they has survived. The land business has helped to sustain the agricultural business. It's a matter of factual history that the Ecke family has always believed that there was strength in numbers. Paul Sr., bought and sold property with the best of them. Many times with profit in mind. Property is not necessarily a higher profit, but it is a quicker profit and there are times when that is the most important element influencing a decision. Many other times Paul Sr. sold land with the agricultural community in mind and so people relocated and settled in this area. The agricultural element was strong, not just flowers, tomatoes, dry farmed beans, but strawberries, even a try at papayas. The climate here is unique, I mean really special.
First came water and then water districts, for this would decide in which direction and how strong each area would develop.
Then the war ended (WWII) and boys from across the nation were discharged here. Some never left. Some stayed only a few days but carried word back east about a place where anything grew. Families flocked here. We became a community with a cottege industry of growers along with a growing element of guys riding logs off the break, spearing man-hole cover halibit out of the surf. For the growers it has always been the challenge of using every possible skill to feed your family and always try to justify the continued agricultural use of a piece of ground.
Mr Brown Sr. and Paul Sr. hit it off and "Dad" Brown got enough land to move the family here and start a geranium farm. Paul Sr., got off a worthless piece of tomato land. Both had made a good deal. During the early years when money was a little tight "Dad" Brown built homes on the other side of Santa Fe. It wasn't higher profit than growing but it was quicker, and a growing family had growing demands, sometimes at a quicker rate than agriculture.
Not all growers dealt in land, some ran cattle in Colorado and let the herd grow when times were good and went to maket when they needed a little quick cash. It's agriculture, "a hard way to make an easy living," and it's never perfect. Farmers always work with what's at hand, whenever now is. Farmers are always in the land and water business. This now leads me to believe you're not in Ag.
...except when promises were made. I know of no promise made by any Brown to the citizens of the City. If I can't blame the Brown decision to develop on the hard working founders of the city, can I blame the destruction of the agricultural element on them? It's OK to blame them isn't it? No one is perfect.
We do have to work with what we have now, even if one of the children had to die to save the other baby and it's mother. But I don't have to like the fact that "the best you could do" destroyed one of the strongest little "cottege industry" areas in the nation. This really was the Flower and Surf Capital of the World and poinsettias was just one of the flowers in the agricultural bouquet.
The founders of the current city knew the area was unique. They just thought they could preserve that magic like the "Hand of God', but in reality, they "zoned out" the ugly child to save the mother and her spacious lot "rural" suburban community baby.
And now your spacious rural suburban community is unstable because the ugly child was the one with soul. The mother's memories are fading, and the surviving baby has grown into a rather unpleasent adult more concerned about what they's got than anything else. In the not too distant future people will look back and think "What were we thinking when we let agriculture die?", as they scurry about trying to find enough food to put on the table. Oh, of course most of the people reading this will either be quite a bit older or dead. If they are older there's no reason to worry about them if they lack food or housing, I mean they're just useless eaters aren't they?
The people who put hours in as our city council, WHOEVER they are, deserve to be well compensated for their time. I constantly hear about how much they make sitting on different boards. You think they attend all those meetings in their dreams? You think the basis for their decisions and input comes to them like magic. I don't try to fawn over any council member, but I do understand and respect their willingness to take on the task of council-person. To provide our communities input on the various boards on which they sit. I may not agree with a council person on an issue or even like them personally, but I do respect their willingness to serve.
On this you may call me at anytime. I'm not ashamed of my stand on anything you can get me to take a position on, "you can't please everyone, so you got to please yourself."
I find the up-coming election very interesting. I don't think I've seen a fatter ballot. Lots of interesting questions being asked across the country. Make sure your registered, be sure to vote.
I have to farm for a few days. So if I don't get right back to my friendly bloggers for a few days, it's nothing personal. I have to work with what I have, and what I have needs work right now.
Love Ya
We love you too, Gil, but we agree with anonymous poster before your last post. You paint a colorful picture, and reading about the history is swell; but we disagree that the City founders should take your blame.
ReplyDeleteSurely, that is putting the blame on the past, when we must deal with the present. The present circumstances are that all or almost all of the greenhouse owners want to sell their land at the greatest profit possible, which means higher and higher density.
I do agree that if greater density had been allowed, earlier, then the property would have been developed sooner as residential housing. Previous City Councils, and before them, the North Coast Coalition to incorporate did the best they could. It is not their fault, and it is not the Brown's fault, either. This is no one's fault, really. But we need to reach compromises that afford housing, profit, and quality of life. You seem bitter, Gil, because a way of life is changing. We wish we could stay in the 50's, too, in many ways, less people, less expensive land. But that is not the case now. And now is where we are at, Gil.
I especially disagree with this part of your post:
"The founders of the current city knew the area was unique. They just thought they could preserve that magic like the "Hand of God', but in reality, they "zoned out" the ugly child to save the mother and her spacious lot "rural" suburban community baby." By zoning the land RR1 (rural residential, one home per acre, the founders were doing what they could to preserve the rural and agricultural character of the community. You are not complaining about their not preserving the Ag land, really, but their not zoning it at a higher density residential, so the banks would loan more."
Seedling plants, and plants in soil, period, are not being threatened by competition from Mexico and offshore, as you know, Gil. The cost of living has become very high, for everyone. This should not be blamed on the founders.
Perhaps you were involved in former Community Advisory Boards, but were you involved with the North Coast Coalition to Incorporate Encinitas, just prior to incorporation? Margorie Gaines had a vision that was inclusive of the business leaders, and all citizens who wished to were urged to participate, to have a voice. I didn't see you at the Founder's celebration at the Cardiff Library?
Why do you heap blame on the past? (The responsibility belongs with the County, more than the City, as we have only been a city for 20 years, and many of the subdivisions and greenhouses are/were much older.)
We went to this past Wednesday's Council meeting. It lasted until 6:30, only, a total of 1/2 hr. City Hall is closed today. The City Council members are well paid for their attendance on various boards, and also get benefits, including a generous monthly expense account of $500.00 per month.
Christy Guerin, in 1998, campaigned on a promise to put the service back into the phrase Public Servant.
The recent 20% raise was too high, and would not have been approved by the voters. State Government Code does allow us the right to vote on these raises. Of course you are not in favor of allowing the common person, the "little guy" to vote, are you Gil?
Because if we got to vote on these issues, including the recent revenue bond, we would have the right to say NO, as we did on Props A and C.