click images for large view.
Monday, October 30, 2006
Tom Brown's Halloween themed mailer
Got home from work and as usual the mailbox is stuffed full of glossy political mailers from Bilbray, Busby and Ah-nold and I was about to violently chuck them all in the trash when I saw this hilarious one from Encinitas city council candidate Thomas Brown.
click images for large view.
click images for large view.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Tom Brown is donating to the same charity that the Ecke's did.
ReplyDeleteThe recovering felony ex mayor political hack for profit called Tom Shephard.
Im guessing the Ecke's paid this guy aroud 15k for his outstanding council in their disasterous loss on prop A.
When it's all said and done, I'm thinking ol Tom Brown will be donating about 10K to the same sick charity for the same crazy advice.
Tom B. will finish fourth and Tom S. will laugh all the way to the bank.
Cute Halloween theme though.
Big deal.
ReplyDeleteSo Tom "bulldozer driver" Brown takes potshots about stupid stuff.
According to his mailer the city is no closer to developing a park at the hall property than when they bought it. Yeah, that makes sense. NOT. If that's the stickiest crap he can throw against the wall, lawnmower man wins in a walk!
According to Brown's disclosure forms his candidacy is over $30,000 in debt! THIS IS THE GUY WHO SAYS HE'S ALL ABOUT FISCAL RESPONSIBILTY! $30,000 in debt for a job that pays $1,000 per month AFTER the massive 20% ($150) pay raise
Really inspiring... Yuuch.
The lady handing out candy has nice boobs.
ReplyDelete"the Ecke's paid this guy aroud 15k for his outstanding council in their disasterous loss on prop A"
ReplyDeleteShepard did do a great job for the Eckes. Without his spin mastery Prop A would have lost 5 to 1 instead of 2 to 1.
anonymous, you sure know a lot about that. I heard Dan and Doug were close to the Eckes. You aren't on Dan and Doug's campaign team, are you?
Brown is on to one thing. The Hall park EIR is not going to be a happy event so it has been pushed back to after Nov 7.
ReplyDeleteNaw,
ReplyDeleteI just know that Tom Brown hired Tom Shepard to be his consultant, I know the Ecke's hired him as well and got slamed.
The rest I googled.
You used The Google?
ReplyDeletebull@#*&% brown guy,
ReplyDelete$30,000 in debt is a lot less than $20 million in debt. Dan says he isn't a credit card kinda guy, but then he puts us $20 million into debt for projects that are years into the future. So, who is full of sh*t?
You are Gomer!
ReplyDeleteThe city gets to build and benefit from a new library, 3 newly rebuilt fire stations, and have money to help build the Hall Prop park with NO NEW TAXES.
The bond payments come out of the general fund rather than a property tax. Low interest rates on borrowed money plus rapidly increasing construction costs make that particular decision the BEST decision. Period. Even the Bulldozing Brown understand's that one!
Only the HOA Prez Condo living lady candidate fails to grasp the obvious. We wonder if you aren't her?
Googled. yes I have been ass-imalated.
ReplyDeleteSh*t.
Teresa has not been in the news the past few weeks. That is not a good sign (pardon the pun).
Do you think that Tom Brown will answer difinitavly on the special forces thing this weekend or let that hang until after the election?
North County need new political consultants. Jack Orr and Tom Shepard are smelling more rotton by the year.
Old goats.
bull@#*&% brown guy,
ReplyDeleteOh the hall property blunder and the wasted tax dollars is nothing.
Where is the EIR buddy? Is the EIR going to be quality or another smokescreen that is going end up wasting even more time and money? Why the delay, did Dan lie when he said it was done?
Oh, $110,000 down the drain on a lame attempt to raise our taxes through Prop C. That is just peanuts compared to some of the unreported blunders and waste.
Does Doug and Doug think it was illegal and wrong to impose an illegal tax on our trash bill AND then have to give our money to the people that sued us for legal fees? Oh that's nothing. Everything is fine and dandy down at Mayberry City Hall. Lucky for us voters, we know Teresa and Tom have a problem with it.
I love low interest rates!
ReplyDeleteYou get lower interest rates if you don't break the law and use lease revenue bonds and instead use general obligation bonds. If saving money was such a great idea why not use general obligation bonds with a lower interest rate. Anything to do with having to go to public vote?
Californians are suppose to be protected from people like credit card Dan and Stocks. You are suppose to go to vote to borrow money like that!
So its D&D against T&T
ReplyDeleteThat could only happen in Encinitas.
It will be D and T running one and two.
...and D and T running Three and Four
...and me holding my wallet, running out the city hall door!
just vote and participate. The option is not worth thinking about.
The arguement for the doing the bonds instead of paying as you go was based on the idea that construction costs will continue to go up forever?
ReplyDeleteSo, basically these are the last projects to ever be built?
and damn, we better get started and not drag our feet like the city has been doing on the hall property.
what about the six points that say it is BEST to pay as you go. See,
http://leucadia.blogspot.com/2006/08/matt-walkers-6-points.html
How come Mr. Walker, Mr. Bonde, and Mr Rodenwald did not choose to run?
ReplyDeleteWhy do people choose to run.
1.ego
2.power
3.service and giving back to a great city
4. future advancement
#3 is the rarest.
One of my favorite quotes ...
ReplyDelete"A passion for politics stems usually from an insatiable need, either for power, or for friendship and adulation, or a combination of both."
ATTRIBUTION: Fawn M. Brodie (1915–1981), U.S. biographer. Thomas Jefferson
What do you think drives our Council?
"How come Mr. Walker, Mr. Bonde, and Mr Rodenwald did not choose to run?"
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you ask them? Don't be surprised if you find out that they are happy to support Teresa.
Why aren't you running?
Brown and Barth are articulate and intelligent. Dalager babbles and Long stammers like a fool. Pablo is witty and cool.
ReplyDeleteThe silly fellow who wrote "the city gets to build............ with no new taxes." Why does this council keep saying that. The $20 million bond will have to be paid for by VERY large interest payments each year. The bond will end up costing us $40 million and WE pay for it, one way or the other. Don't for a second forget that.
ReplyDeleteThe borrowing like they are doing is complicated. Elect councilpersons who can handle complicated things. Here are circulated notes on the bond from about a month ago. Ask yourself which candidates can handle this.
ReplyDeleteWHAT WILL IT COST?
Staff does not know what the bonding will cost. Staff does not know what interest rate would have to be paid on the bonds.
The Staff report for the Council’s August 23, 2006 meeting says that rates are historically low and under 5%. However: Earlier analysis prepared in May assumed 6% interest ($1.4 million annual debt service on $23.3 million in bonds is 6%.)
The City of San Diego sold revenue bonds a few months ago with a 7% interest rate.
Interest rates have been rising since May. The staff report for the August 23 meeting says that the annual repayment amount will be $1.4 million, which is 7% on $20 million in bonds.
7% on $20 million over 10 years is $14 million in interest costs.
What are the costs over and above interest? There are fees for bond and disclosure counsel (Best, Best and Krieger).
There are fees for the financial advisors (Northcross Hill and Ach). There are fees for underwriters. There are the costs of the disclosure process, including audited financial statements. Staff time and overtime will be required to provide bond counsel with information. There is the cost of credit enhancements.
The May 2006 proposal to sell $23.3 million paid the following costs from the bond proceeds: $676,000 in issuance costs comprised of bond counsel, underwriting and bond insurance. $1.5 million interest reserve. $1.6 million prepaid, capitalized interest. The interest reserve and prepaid interest increase the effective interest rate because borrowed funds are held by the lenders for their benefit, but the City still pays interest on these funds at the full rate.
The $1.5 million difference between the amount of the contemplated bonds ($20 million) and the proceeds ($18.5 million) will pay some but probably not all of the costs and will fund credit enhancements.
HOW MUCH MORE will revenue bonds COST than general obligation bonds?
Staff does not know the answer to this question, but told Council that the amount is not much. Revenue bonds are limited to a specific funding source and are by definition not an obligation of the City’s general fund. As such, it is inevitable that revenue bonds are going to be more expensive than general obligation bonds.
General obligation bonds require a public vote – which the City Council wants to avoid.
IS BONDING FEASIBLE AT ALL?
This is unknown. As of June 2006, the City still did not know its unfunded pension liability through the end of 2005. (Only numbers for 2004 were available.) If the unfunded liability is too high, there may be a problem getting the bonds issued. (Also, we may want to devote City funds to reducing our unfunded pension liability rather than building luxurious fire stations.)
The City will have to identify a revenue stream and then pledge this stream to the bond holders for payment of the bonds. Staff did not know what revenue stream the City was going to use. Can the City designate a revenue stream for bond payment if the City also relied on that revenue stream in approving its budget. (Cal. Law prohibits a City from deficit spending.)
DO WE NEED TO BORROW AT ALL?
The Quail Gardens site could be sold to provide for all the City’s funding needs for the next couple of years.
What about the argument that we need to Build as Fast as Possible Because Construction Costs are rising? This bonding proposal is a GAMBLE by the City Council that construction costs increase more than we will have to pay for interest (including credit enhancements) on the bonds.
City staff has not projected how much construction costs will increase each year, but we know interest costs will be more than $1.25 million per year.
The City’s plan is to put this money ($18.5 million) in the bank where it will earn minimal return while the City processes its plans for the fire stations and the Hall Property. It will take years and years to have a plan for the Hall property. Citizens for Quality of Life is likely to object to the Hall Property EIR if it the EIR is done poorly. CQL’s attorney beat the City on earlier EIR issues, and also has successfully stalled the Gregory Canyon landfill project for years litigating EIR issues.
At this point, the City has no plan at all for the Hall Property. How can it with the EIR, and IT IS NOT DONE. The City does not know what pesticides are present, or what the cost of cleanup will be.
Tom Brown's flier is very, very effective. A large number of people will read that and based on only that, will vote for him. People who read this blog or follow city council games are few in number. The largest number of voters are basically uninformed and will vote based on a flier that they see that they like. But they must see a flier, especially right before they go to vote.
ReplyDeleteMost people throw that stuff in the trash without looking at it.
ReplyDeleteTom Brown, if elected, would be the only member of the council besides Stocks that would both (1) have an IQ above room temperature and (2) not have senile moments.
ReplyDeleteRe-evaluate Stocks IQ. It's closer to temperatures in the winter artic.
ReplyDeleteStocks is the Councilmember who told the public at a council meeting that there was a vaccine for Hepitits C. When I questioned him about this being true, he told me, in a snide tone, that if I were more knowledgeable I would know this. He later e-mailed me and said that he had meant that there was a Hepitites B vaccine. Big difference. When I suggested he tell the public that he was wrong-guess what? He never did and never will. Not only his his IQ questionable, so are his ethics.
ReplyDeleteStocks is smart, but he is a player.
ReplyDelete4. future advancement
That is the motivator. Ethics? How about them illegal Barret contributions or the signal light snaffu, which Dalager allowed to happen.
Sounds like Stocks needs to use The Google too.
ReplyDeleteDr. Lorri,
ReplyDeleteWhy would Hepatitis C be brought up in a council meeting?
What kind of doctor are you?
People who think they know what is going on at city hall throw the mailers in the trash. People who are working and raising children and don't have time to follow city hall games read the mailers before they go to vote, and vote based on what they read.
ReplyDeleteHoly shit, Dr. Lorri (if you are a doctor)! You misspelled hepatitis as Hepitits (sic) and Hepitites (sic). You are definitely not an MD, or a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine, or a Doctor of Dentistry or a Doctor of Pharmacy, or a Doctor of Ophthamology.
ReplyDeleteThe spelling police are out and amongst us again. Sorry about mispelling Hepatitis. Don't have spell check on the blog. How did Hep C get on the City Council agenda? Good question. Had to do with the tattoo parlor that was going to open in Cardiff. I was suggesting that not enough monitoring by public health, which doesn't monitor piercing at all, would be availble and dirty needles can spread Hep C. I was in front of Council when Jerome made the comment. As proof of some of the documentation for this possibility, I had gathered a bunch of facts, figues, and photos. This is when Glenn Sabine called me and threatened me with a lawsuit if I showed the photos. Unfortunately I never taped the phone call, so his word against mine.
ReplyDeleteI thought everyone knew by now that I am a psychologist. I got involved with Hep C and tattoos because I had a patient die of it, due to a dirty needle at a tatoo parlor. Her mom asked me to question Council so I did.
Re: Jerome Stocks
ReplyDeleteJust about every insurance agent is an ignoramus (at least outside of issues involving the indurance business), but not necessarily mentally deficient.
On a side note, Dr Lorri, I have recurring nightmares about a sexual trist between me and Pam Anderson, a rabbi, a chicken, and some neutrinos. Can you help me?
ex post facto ...
ReplyDeleteThe council meeting where the subject of council raises was discussed was packed with a total of four people. Tom Brown was not one of them. I was there, Bob Bonde was there, Teresa Barth was there and Doug Long was there.
There were two speakers on the agenda item. Bob Bonde in opposition and myself in support. If the salary raise was such a big election issue it seems to me some of the candidates would have spoken. Sorry, it's not the issue.
Black Tuesday for the residents of Encinitas. The $20,000,000 bonds were auctioned today. The results are on
ReplyDeletewww.muniauction.com. The bonds are thirty years. The final payment is on Oct. 1, 2036. The best bid page shows the purchase price of the bonds was $19,700,000. The best AON TIC (interest) was 4.3123%. Total interest cost is $16,019,221.87.
Gil why is it always ok for bad decisions to be made if no one speaks out?
ReplyDeleteMaybe Tom was away. Maybe Tom thought there was no way they would do such a thing. Maybe Tom figured that wouldn't listen, like they didn't listen to those other people. Maybe Tom wanted to let them do it show the public what they do when no one speaks out. He is not responsible for their vote.
Where is the Hall Property EIR. Didn't Dalager say it was done? What is the hold up? Could it be the election?
ReplyDeleteSoooo, if you follow the council closely enough to know that they were going to vote a pay increase and take the time to show up on a weeknight to speak in front of the council and go on public record are you a fine concerned citizen or a whiner with no life?
ReplyDeleteIf you don't pay attention to the minutiae of the council are you just a normal person with a life or an apethic fool?
I'm really confused on this one.
Bullet voting Barth will help clear up the confusion.
ReplyDeleteI spoke out against the raise in oral communications. Those of us who do attend, speak out, feel as though our questions and objections have been ignored by Council.
ReplyDeleteJames Bond answered, Bonde and Westbrook by saying Council members are the lowest paid City employees, ignoring his benefits, pay from other boards, and expense account.
Anyway, we are talking about millions wasted here, through bogus revenue bonds, bad decisions for SDWD ratepayers, etc, over-designed fire stations, library, public works yard, Hall property, on and on . . .
People don't go to Council meetings because they are busy, most of it is Council patting itself on its collective back, listening to long reports by consultants and staff, not allowing true interchange with the public. Every two years we get to ask some questions at forums. Questions are not answered, often not addressed, at all, at Council meetings.
Previous poster, "simplification," thanks for a detailed explanation. Very informative.
I just an optimist I guess. I think if people speak out someone will listen. When the Council aired the idea of an RDA for Leucadia and ventured into the community to get their pulse on the subject they had to scurry back to chambers to avoid being tarred and feathered.
ReplyDeleteMore citizens than those that read this blog watch the TV replays of the Council meetings. You want to reach more voters you get up before the Council and have your say knowing that voters who are "too busy" to attend council meetings may very well be watching the Council re-run.
Tom may have been too busy planning his campaign with Tom S. He may have been directed not to take a public stand so that his Halloween themed mailer wasn't contestable.
Them that can do the rest watch.
No matter how it washes out I'll still be around to whine to the Council about something.
Make sure you get out and vote it's a gift of a free society and one that can't be ignored.
At the risk of being tarred and feathered for supporting the city,
ReplyDeleteJust drove downtown and the city is putting the pumpkin displays up for halloween.
They look awesome! and they are in a few diffenet areas. I think Self Realization Fellowship does the pumkins. (miss the big show they used to put on)
If you have critters it looks like a fun night downtown tonight. This is a good thing for the city and the city should be complimented.
Thank
Wow! 4.3% interest fixed for 30 years. I'd like this for my house refi and I assume anyone on this blog who owns a house would too. So what's the big deal about borrowing money this cheap? Seems very smart. Anyone who buys a house and has a 30 year mortgage pays about twice the principal amount including interest in payments before their loan is repaid. So why can't the City do the same? Again, seems very smart. Actually, if you do a NPV (Net Present Value) on the payments and assume even a modest rate of inflation (2-3%) over this period, the City is actually borrowing the money for almost free. Sorry to say this again, but seems smart to me.
ReplyDeleteWhy are you guys all whining about this??? Seems like you just don't understand or have a political agenda. As I recall, Theresa Barth had a really stupid idea of using General Obligation bonds, which are an obligation of the property owners to repay. Are you guys really supporting someone this out of touch??? Now who's the one with the low IQ???
Everyone supports the city itself, everyone.
ReplyDeleteand like anonymous I like the lease revenue bonds and don't like general obligation bonds. You either want the city to add the things it needs sometime soon or you don't. You either want the city to emcumber everyone's property or you'd just as soon they encumbered the projects they are developing. Someone keep count in the next election and report the tally for successful General Obligation Bonds as compared to those that failed. JP can do a blog article " General Obligation Bonds Pass Throughout The State".
ReplyDeleteI don't care how you wrap it GOPs are a hard sell and to get 66% in the City...you got to be kidding.
If you would look at the so-called reasons for rebuilding three of five fire stations, you will find that there is no justification to borrow $20,000,000 to rebuild. Some lead paint around a window sill, some cracked driveway concrete, leaks in a roof that needs repair are maintenance issues. A fire chief who runs political campaigns for his council member employers, has his firemen work at a birthday party for the mayor, and the firefighters act as a major political force in endorsing council candidates, it is payback time for them.
ReplyDeleteThe exorbitant cost per square foot that the city used to justify the Mossy purchase was a misrepresentation of a report on assessment needs. The high cost per square foot in the needs report was for a building that is build to last 100 years. Care to take bets on how long the Mossy building will last?
Gil,
ReplyDeleteWho do you think is going to pay for the $20 million dollar bond?
"I don't care how you wrap it GOPs are a hard sell and to get 66% in the City...you got to be kidding." Agreed, but that is the bar the voters of California set and for a damn good reason.
The bond interest rate is low. This could be more expensive money.
ReplyDeleteThat doesn't mean this was efficient financing.
How long are we going to let that money sit before it gets used? All that time sitting it could have been drawing intrest in our favor, but I don't think the blogger above is right. The expensive fire stations is not where this money is going, in, what, ten years. This money is going to be used elsewhere.
Dan can't explain where the revenue stream to back the "lease revenue" bonds is going to come from. Gil can you explain where the revenue stream is going to come from?
ReplyDeleteBuilding 3 new firestations at $15,000,000 should not be the Cities highest priority. The City has many other existing problems with streets that are a much higher priority. Citizens number 1 concerns are too much traffic and over development. Not - Better looking firestations with better sleeping quarters for the fire boyz.
ReplyDeleteI agree. I think the City's Chief/politic consultant is setting the priorities. Its all part of the kickback game. You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.
ReplyDeleteWe remember 6% being talked about. Because interest is "cheap" does that mean that we should charge more and more on our credit cards? This $20 million becomes at least $40 million over 30 years.
ReplyDeleteThe cost of the three fire stations, the Public Works Yard, the library, the initial phase of the Hall Property over the next ten years is about $75 million. So that $20 million will not go very far. That is allowing for only $14 million dollars of the debt, at $1.4 million per year. This does not include the service debt we already have on the lease revenue bond that was passed thru SDWD to finance the purchase of the Hall Property.
We don't think this is comparable to Dan Dalager's going into debt for his own property when he was starting out. He got a 30 year mortgage, and then his property is paid off. That is not the case here. People have the right to vote. By saying, a general obligation bond would not pass, Gil, that's the point. People don't want these to pass, usually, and it should be our call, not Council's who is not representing us according to our wishes.
There have been school general obligation bonds that have passed, because voters were motivated to vote for them. Check around.
Mark Muir is Jabba the Chief. He's as corrupt as he is fat.
ReplyDeleteThere is not a compelling reason to spend money on 3 new gilded McMansion designer fire stations. Does the Council have fire station envy, since San Marcos and Carlsbad have shiny new fire casas?
ReplyDeleteI would rather look to Del Mar, a very affluent neighbor, who has 2 existing stations and no plans to remodel or replace.
No reason except the deal mentioned above. Remodel if you have to, but don't replace.
Jabba the Chief
ReplyDeleteI like it!
Jabba the Chief
ReplyDeleteI like it!
Gil,
ReplyDeleteI have to ask again. Why are you always supporting the city council? Does it have anything to do with request to build 135 homes on your greenhouse site? You need a zoning a change so you think giving the city council a pay raise will get you the vote you need? You are so full of it I don't know how you make it around.
Go back to Elfin Forrest and hibernate. No of course you are not trying to upzone there. Is your deal with some city council members here not there?
the money to pay back the bonds is going to come from the general fund.
ReplyDeleteThe city increase in tax revenue this year was about 8 million, which goes into the general fund.
Seems pretty simple to pay the bond debts as long as the economy holds up and everyone continues to want to buy property and live in this city.
The money will get grass on the Hall property so that it can be used.
As for supporting the city council, if you're paying attention or if you check if you're not, you will find that I am almost always "on the wrong side of the council.
For the umpteenth time I don't have any financial interest in the Brown property except that when it is developed I won't have a place for my nursery.
As to the council pay raise, "you get what you pay for," I think the council was underpaid and needed a tiny raise no matter who sits on the council.
If you think that council votes can be bought for a 190 pay raise you are an idiot.
I don't own the land in Elfin Forest and YES the owner is trying to up-zone from 1 unit to 20 acres to some higher density.
The acreage in Fallbrook and Joshua Tree will never be chopped up as long as I own it. I expect to farm until they bury me.
I can't hibernate because I am in a business where things grow every day, Saturdays and Sundays and Holidays too.
People don't want them to pass because they directly encumber every property in a city. Lease Revenue Bonds encumber whatever is offered to the bondholders, in this case the library. If there is a default they take the library...but only until the final date of the bond service. The LRB holders are looking at the financial health of the city as a whole and it's ability to pay. The bondholders evidently have more faith in the city than many of the bloggers on this site. To my knowledge, with the exception of Hawaii, God isn't making anymore coastal real estate. Encinitas very likely will always be a very desirable zip code and although there may be some corrections along the way I don't forsee a mass exodus and abandoned weed covered properties.
The weed covered site I would like to see some progress on is the Hall property. The Mossy site will serve this city for at least the next fifty years. The fire stations I have not looked at so I am uninformed on their needs at this time.
The two thirds vote for GOB does not allow for much in the way of improvements and up grade of necessary facilities and school bonds, hospital bonds, etc are just as difficult to pass as any other GOB bonds. No one wants to raise their property taxes to pay for much of anything. Occasionally a water bond will pass cause the people expect to turn a faucet in the house and have water come out.
If we don't raise revenue from bonds eventually the infrastructure starts to break down, the roads become undrivable, the parks unusable, the toilets back up and water gets rationed. It's a quality of life thing and it seems pretty important to me. Maintaining only the minimum in life may be fine for many current residents but it does not open an eye to the future.
Future residents, future children, future Encinitians, future Californians.
Gil's position is that the council shouldn't ask the property owners to decide whether the city should float a bond. The council doesn't care about the people who will ultimately be affected by the decisions of the overlord city council. We live in the feudal city of Encinitas. Gil, pull out your copy of the Magna Carta and read it.
ReplyDeleteBloggers,
ReplyDeletebe civil. I am thankful for Gil's openness, candor and analysis. Even if you disagree you must recognize that.
I would like to know if Gil sees how the city is getting around the "revenue" part of the "lease revenue." Where/what is the revenue stream? Is it on solid legal ground?
I believe with the extra $8 million per year in property tax revenue, the City should be able to get its capital projects done, and also pay for operating expenses, if it does not overspend, and acts in moderation.
ReplyDeleteBonds are not necessary, often. They are on top of what we already pay in taxes, and yes, they do come out of the General Fund, but the revenue stream is supposed to be the Library, which has none. They are, effectively, "mortgaging" a piece of property, for thirty years, where the City does not own the land, all of it, as James Bond has brought up, several times.
Yeah, we need infrastructure, and we need less to be spent on administrative and consultant costs. That way we could live within our means and not have to keep racking up more debt for future generations, Gil. Many of us blogging here may not be around in 30 years, we may have "given up the ghost." But our grandchildren, future generations will be accountable. Of course most of them will not be able to afford to live here.
You say we are growing, and we need to get these improvements in now. However, just how much has Encinitas grown since incorporation? We have a general plan, which shows we are almost built out. We cannot support too many more developments, more traffic, more upzoning.
If people had realized the cost, we would have demanded a vote on the library, not just a vote on the location of the library. We have a beautiful new library in Cardiff. The old library could have been upgraded for less than $1 million, we say. This would have allowed the former public works yard to stay in place, also upgraded for less than $1 million.
Instead, we are paying costs of over $30 million (for the library and Mossy public works yard, alone) plus beaucoup interest, over 30 years, at $1.4 million per year, for the $20 million dollar bond for partial funding of the Hall Property, the firestations, the public works, the library, plus fixing the potholes, numerous consultants to try to raise fees and taxes when Council is forced to allow a vote, such as with Prop C.
Gil, we think your logic is faulty, here. Teresa Barth has got it right.
This blog is pretty civil. Gil's got thick skin, and when people disagree, we have the right to say so, here.
ReplyDeleteYes, no revenue stream. Using the library as a revenue stream is bogus. This is not a typical mortgage, and the City does not own the land, entirely, that the library sits upon.
Would anyone want Dan Dalager to demand a donation of $5000 on behalf of the residents of Encinitas?
ReplyDeleteJust got back from the LA sales run some I am temporarily burnt. I'll blog a little tonight more tomorrow. I want to thank 'no more feudal lords' for sending me to http://oll.libertyfund.org/TEXTS/McKechnie0323/HTMLs/0032_Pt02_Text.html . It had been a long time since I'd looked at the Magna Carta...fascinating. The evolution of order and the laws that have molded same are remarkable.
ReplyDeleteThe bond that has been 'floated' by the 'overlord city council' does not encumber any freeman's estate. The 'overlords' redirected existing funds from the royal coffers to build a new rhelm scribe retreat. A million pieces of gold "fix it up" wasn't going to make the old stone tablet quarry 13th century.
Seems it cost the 'overlords' almost a half a million to haul the lead paint and deteriorating asbestos away. Of course, with just a little white-wash and a few stone-masons the 'overlords' might have spruced up the existing structure. Perhaps made goat stomach breathing masks available but not mandatory at the scribe retreat entrance.
Then, thirty years from now, when the future 'overlords' discover that some of child users were breathing asbestos, or toddlers were eating the paint and that there is an unusually high incidence of decreased mental deveopment and way too many cancer cases; they can tell our heirs, "The logic was sound, the realm saved 17 million dollars."
This bond is returning money to the royal coffers so that scheduled projects can be completed and other projects can be funded. Some were projects that were important, including the Village of Leucadia's mainstreet program.
It is your contention that the 'overlords' use of LRBs is a decision that spells doom for the freeholders and heirs of the realm. I don't see it that way.
Rather than tax the 'freemen' of the realm, the 'overloards' are using the royal coffers in manners that they believe are going to improve the livability of the realm. To replace the money in the royal coffers the 'overlords' approached the "money-lenders" and convinced them that their villages would be prosperous and their money repaid at 4.3% interest out of the yearly realm tax and as collateral they could hold title to a new scribe's retreat they were building, no lien on the 'freemen's' estate or the burden of increased royal taxes.
Sooooo. The money lenders were asked to lend at 4.3% and if the villages default they get the scribes retreat. Not to keep, only to use or rent for the 30 year time of the loan or until the debt is paid off. Not only that, title on part of the dirt is rumored to only be on lease from the king.
The money lenders think about it for awhile, consider the current prosperity of the Villages, examine all the pros and cons of the village and loan the money on the scribe's retreat. Sounds like a 'real knights of the realm fairy tail' or else the money lenders see the real value of these villages.
The interesting thing is that unlike 1215AD, the 'overlords' are actually chosen by the 'freemen' and not appointed by the king. How "New Age" and incredibly democratic, we must have progressed from Magna Carta times.
Don't be concerned. My skin is very thick. Must be or I wouldn't sign my name. And I wouldn't blog here if there was no disagreement. Where's the growth in a mutual admiration society?
Nite
There's no growth, unless someone is playing devil's advocate.
ReplyDeleteA lot of old buildings do contain asbestos and lead paint. If the building is not torn down, the asbestos is not a problem. It is when tearing out the asbestos that the problem occurs, as in demolition.
ReplyDeleteThe lead paint did not have to be peeling and wasn't, to our knowledge. Lots of buildings, also, have some lead paint. The problem is peeling lead paint eaten by children. That wasn't going to happen at the former public works yard, or the library.
So Gil, despite your attempt to show off, you are facutally incorrect, again.
Yeah, good thing you have thick skin.
We heard City Council say 6%, not 4.3 %. So many numbers thrown around, and who knows what was actually agreed upon by the lenders.
ReplyDeleteAre you talking about the 8% increase in property tax revenues Gil was talking about?
ReplyDeleteI think that's because of the new build, new sales, which raise the property tax base, and the 2% annually compounded increase which all of us get added on to the 1% of our purchase price.
So there is growth, in that respect. No significant growth in population since Encinitas Ranch project, that I'm aware of, just higher priced homes.
Typical Gil put a little truth in lies and he can try and sell it as fact. Don't fall prey to Gil's city council supporting untruths. He is sitting on property that is trying to get a zoning change to upzone from one house per acre to 20+ houses per acre and needs city council approval to do it. His support of the city council must be based on his desire to up zone.
ReplyDeleteHe denies it. Perhaps his denial is part of his half truths.
Actually, the older the asbestos gets the more it deteriorates and loses its composite structure. It's normally installed around water pipes and heating and air conditioning ducts. As it breaks down the fibers are more apt to be light enough to be transmitted by the air-conditioning system, sourse they're small enough so you won't see them so it's probably OK. Why not check with Dietmar Rothe, Professional Engineer and Scientific Consultant. I am just a humble farmer who probably just fell off the turnip truck.
ReplyDeleteThe city council was wrong when they said the bond might be six percent. The bonds sold at 4.3%.
As to the Browns at 20 units per acre, I didn't come away from their community forum with that number at all. If someone has information confirming this I would be interested in the source so I can check it out. The Browns have currently decided to leave me out of the information loop, that's why I went to the forum.
Every time someone blogs about this the number of homes they want has grown before you know it it will be 30 units per acre. And people accuse me of distorting the facts, that's a joke right?