Vote Dalager and Barth in Encinitas
The North County Times has endorsed Teresa Barth for the open seat and is re-electing Dalager, calling 2nd Street plumber candidate Doug Long "Dalagher 2.0".
I agree with this position although Brown is a intriguing candidate to me. However, the NCT is right on this one.
Teresa is a good solid choice. She is sincere, down to earth and keenly intelligent. I feel that we are lucky that such a quality person is running.
We give Dalager a ton of grief on this blog, manly for his bumbling steps when it comes to managing our tax money. But he is a likable guy, he has been around forever, he always answers my e-mails and I like surfing with his son (which means nothing really, I'm just bringing it up).
On his best days Dalager is Andy Griffith, a folksy small town guy. On his worst days he is Gomer Pyle, confused about the complex beaucracy he must manage.
In my opinion a Dalager/Long council is a recipe for disaster. The NCT is right, Doug Long is Dalager 2.0 and therefore repetitive. We need diversity on the council. Cloning Dalager is dangerous.
Besides, if we vote in another dude the council will be a total sausage fest with only one female on the council and that would be lame.
Teresa Barth for city council.
Friday, October 13, 2006
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Free Speech vs Slander (and blaming it all on a Mexican???)
From the Union Tribune:
Houlihan sues, says neighbor defamed her with big sign
By Angela Lau
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
October 12, 2006
ENCINITAS – Councilwoman Maggie Houlihan filed a lawsuit yesterday against a neighbor, alleging he defamed her by using a vulgar term to describe her on a large sign he put up in view of traffic on Interstate 5.
Houlihan is seeking unspecified damages against Russell Bowman, owner of American Landscape and Tree Services Inc., located across the street from Houlihan's home on Union Street. The lawsuit asks the court to stop Bowman from erecting defamatory signs.
“It was not a statement related to a matter of public interest,” said Ken Cariffe, one of Houlihan's attorneys. “This is libel.”
I'm not a lawyer but I think Bowman crosses the line from free speech and making a political statement to slander but attempting to state "Houlihan is a whore" because he can't prove this statement. It's, like his opinion man. Are opinions protected under free speech? Yes, so it's a sticky one. Can he prove Houlihan is a whore? Is there a legal defination of the word whore?
He was referring to the latest and most controversial of a series of anti-Houlihan signs put up since last year on Bowman's 5-acre property, which faces the freeway.
The latest sign, about 72 square feet, called Houlihan a “whore.” It was removed Tuesday after being displayed for 10 days.
If I'm not mistaken Houlihan is married right? I don't think I would have the self discipline to keep myself from beating the living shit out of Bowman if I were Maggie's husband. I know Bowman is a crackpot who has lots of guns and that Houlihan is a public figure so you gotta handle this the right way...but sheesh.
The size of that sign and others on the property violated city codes, and code enforcement officials cited Bowman in August and again last week. The municipal code limits personal outdoor signs to 16 square feet and business advertisements to 32 square feet.
The city also issued three citations between February and August for grading violations that Bowman has not corrected.
Instead of erecting the signs Bowman should have contacted Barratt American CEO and North County Times columnist Michael D. Pattinson so he could have been written up as a hero just like Rosa Parks. link
The City Council met in closed session yesterday to discuss the violations. Afterward, the city attorney announced that the council had authorized the staff “to move forward to full compliance, including but not limited to filing a lawsuit if necessary.” Houlihan did not participate in the meeting, he said.
The large signs on Bowman's property in recent months included several that read “Vote No Houlihan.” Those remained in place yesterday. Three large crosses, which fell under regulations for “structures,” had been removed.
Jesus H. Christ on a stick, this is some serious drama. He should have left the Jesus up there, I kinda liked him.
In an e-mail and subsequent phone interview this week, Bowman said Houlihan used her position to prevent him from developing or rezoning his property to build low-income housing.
He also said he never painted or erected the anti-Houlihan signs and that they were put up by Latinos offended by remarks she had made toward them.
Okay, maybe he paid some "latinos" to erect the signs but comon' dude, you can't weasel out of this now. This is so lame is just sad. Normally when a douche bag in the news puts one on a tee for me to knock out of the park I get giddy but this time it's just too pathetic to bother with.
He claimed the councilwoman had uttered racial slurs at his family and threatened to use eminent domain to turn his property into a bird sanctuary.
Uh yeah, I really see the council given that one a majority vote.
Houlihan said Bowman's charges are “100 percent untrue.”
“My neighbor is Mexican-American,” she said. “I love my street. The proof is in the ethnic mix on this street.”
Some of my best friends are black people. Really, Houlihan shouldn't even have addressed this.
She said she has recused herself from deliberations related to Bowman, who has addressed the City Council more than once in the past year.
This is the most important part of the story. Bowman is so dense he can't figure out that A. the rest of the city council doesn't like or listen to Houlihan anyway and B. SHE DIDN'T FREAKING VOTE ON HIS ISSUE.
In February, the council agreed to his request to overturn an earlier city decision, made in response to neighborhood complaints, revoking his right to operate a landscaping and greenhouse business in a residential neighborhood.
In September, the council denied his request to almost triple the permissible building density on his property.
Left out of this story is that Bowman falsified documents and that councilman Dalagher admitted to knowing this at a council meeting (that was a classic surreal Danny moment).
Yesterday, Bowman's attorney, Larry Marshall, said his client has offered to stop putting up large signs and to post a $50,000 bond while he corrects the grading violations within one year.
I was thinking somebody should hire some of those lame housing development sign twirlers to stand at the end of Union St in color coordinated outfits and signs that read BOWMAN IS A DOUCHE BAG.
Houlihan sues, says neighbor defamed her with big sign
By Angela Lau
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
October 12, 2006
ENCINITAS – Councilwoman Maggie Houlihan filed a lawsuit yesterday against a neighbor, alleging he defamed her by using a vulgar term to describe her on a large sign he put up in view of traffic on Interstate 5.
Houlihan is seeking unspecified damages against Russell Bowman, owner of American Landscape and Tree Services Inc., located across the street from Houlihan's home on Union Street. The lawsuit asks the court to stop Bowman from erecting defamatory signs.
“It was not a statement related to a matter of public interest,” said Ken Cariffe, one of Houlihan's attorneys. “This is libel.”
I'm not a lawyer but I think Bowman crosses the line from free speech and making a political statement to slander but attempting to state "Houlihan is a whore" because he can't prove this statement. It's, like his opinion man. Are opinions protected under free speech? Yes, so it's a sticky one. Can he prove Houlihan is a whore? Is there a legal defination of the word whore?
He was referring to the latest and most controversial of a series of anti-Houlihan signs put up since last year on Bowman's 5-acre property, which faces the freeway.
The latest sign, about 72 square feet, called Houlihan a “whore.” It was removed Tuesday after being displayed for 10 days.
If I'm not mistaken Houlihan is married right? I don't think I would have the self discipline to keep myself from beating the living shit out of Bowman if I were Maggie's husband. I know Bowman is a crackpot who has lots of guns and that Houlihan is a public figure so you gotta handle this the right way...but sheesh.
The size of that sign and others on the property violated city codes, and code enforcement officials cited Bowman in August and again last week. The municipal code limits personal outdoor signs to 16 square feet and business advertisements to 32 square feet.
The city also issued three citations between February and August for grading violations that Bowman has not corrected.
Instead of erecting the signs Bowman should have contacted Barratt American CEO and North County Times columnist Michael D. Pattinson so he could have been written up as a hero just like Rosa Parks. link
The City Council met in closed session yesterday to discuss the violations. Afterward, the city attorney announced that the council had authorized the staff “to move forward to full compliance, including but not limited to filing a lawsuit if necessary.” Houlihan did not participate in the meeting, he said.
The large signs on Bowman's property in recent months included several that read “Vote No Houlihan.” Those remained in place yesterday. Three large crosses, which fell under regulations for “structures,” had been removed.
Jesus H. Christ on a stick, this is some serious drama. He should have left the Jesus up there, I kinda liked him.
In an e-mail and subsequent phone interview this week, Bowman said Houlihan used her position to prevent him from developing or rezoning his property to build low-income housing.
He also said he never painted or erected the anti-Houlihan signs and that they were put up by Latinos offended by remarks she had made toward them.
Okay, maybe he paid some "latinos" to erect the signs but comon' dude, you can't weasel out of this now. This is so lame is just sad. Normally when a douche bag in the news puts one on a tee for me to knock out of the park I get giddy but this time it's just too pathetic to bother with.
He claimed the councilwoman had uttered racial slurs at his family and threatened to use eminent domain to turn his property into a bird sanctuary.
Uh yeah, I really see the council given that one a majority vote.
Houlihan said Bowman's charges are “100 percent untrue.”
“My neighbor is Mexican-American,” she said. “I love my street. The proof is in the ethnic mix on this street.”
Some of my best friends are black people. Really, Houlihan shouldn't even have addressed this.
She said she has recused herself from deliberations related to Bowman, who has addressed the City Council more than once in the past year.
This is the most important part of the story. Bowman is so dense he can't figure out that A. the rest of the city council doesn't like or listen to Houlihan anyway and B. SHE DIDN'T FREAKING VOTE ON HIS ISSUE.
In February, the council agreed to his request to overturn an earlier city decision, made in response to neighborhood complaints, revoking his right to operate a landscaping and greenhouse business in a residential neighborhood.
In September, the council denied his request to almost triple the permissible building density on his property.
Left out of this story is that Bowman falsified documents and that councilman Dalagher admitted to knowing this at a council meeting (that was a classic surreal Danny moment).
Yesterday, Bowman's attorney, Larry Marshall, said his client has offered to stop putting up large signs and to post a $50,000 bond while he corrects the grading violations within one year.
I was thinking somebody should hire some of those lame housing development sign twirlers to stand at the end of Union St in color coordinated outfits and signs that read BOWMAN IS A DOUCHE BAG.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Shawn Styles, ace reporter
You can watch a video clip of KFMB's report on spazzy tree trimmer Russel Bowman's "Houlian is a whore" signage on the News 8 website. click here.
Shawn says, "There is more than one way to skin a cat." Is he making an inside joke or just lucky for us?
Previous blog post on this matter with sweet Zapruder style photos I took, click here.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Encinitas tourist home movie clip
Slightly unwatchable but oddly compelling, a couple enjoys an afternoon in downtown Encinitas.
Encinitas, we need this.
Check out this story in the Union Tribune about city councils getting tech savvy. Encinitas could really use this.
click me to read the story.
From the article:
In a trend that bodes well for citizen participation and transparency in government, City Council meetings are increasingly going high tech. Videostreaming enables video and audio recordings of a council meeting to be stored and accessed on the city's Web site.
click me to read the story.
From the article:
In a trend that bodes well for citizen participation and transparency in government, City Council meetings are increasingly going high tech. Videostreaming enables video and audio recordings of a council meeting to be stored and accessed on the city's Web site.
Monday, October 09, 2006
Weekly Roundup
The local papers have been chocked full of Encinitas news and goodness lately.
Check out Robert Nanninga's piece in the Oct. 6 Coast News, Encinitas cronyism lets Guerin eat cake. (If the Coast News would update their website I would link it or copy and paste the meaty parts, hrmmph).
It's the best piece Nanninga has written in a long time and a refreshing detour from the usual doom and gloom "the human race sucks" drivel he usually writes. This one is sharp and witty and on the mark. He actually does some helpful journalism, exposing the growing creepiness of the Muir/Waynio/Guerin/Dalagher relationship.
This could mark a turning point for Nanninga. He weakly supported Prop A and Prop C while inbetween rantings about sunken ships and dive tours (?!?) but maybe this article is a sign of more great stuff around the corner for him. I look forward to this week's column from him.
Also in the same issue of the Coast News, a good letter by perennial pain in the ass, Kevin C who critizes Dalagher's attitude about the Mossy purchase and other meaty subjects. Kevin has improved greatly in the last year as a city critic now writing on the mark letters that appeal to the casual reader.
In the North County Times last week:
Encinitas ponders property sales
Includes a good web comment by our pal Kevin:
Kevin wrote on October 08, 2006 8:58 AM:"Page 20 of the appraisal explains why the estimated market value of the property (land & improvements) is $8.5 million, which is one million less than we paid. To the general market the buildings are actually a liability. The appraiser estimated it would cost $200,000 to demolish the buildings and deducted that from his appraised value to arrive at the $8.5 million dollar figure. The appraiser and commercial real estate people I ran the appraisal by agree that there are a number of very questionable things going on. The 8.5 mill figure was way too high. Given that, we very well may have come out ahead of other options for a public works yard even with the purchase at 9.5, but that does not explain the discrepancies in the council's justifications for the purchase price. They said two conflicting things; that we drove a hard bargain & we just simply paid market value. I doubt we drove a hard bargain because paid what we had budgeted for constructing a yard. I know we didn't pay market value. Page 2 of the appraisal reads, "Fee Simple Market Value: $8,500,000." We paid $9.5. "
Encinitas council up for a 20 percent raise
Honestly, I don't really care if the council gets a raise but they are crazy for bringing this up now. Stocks sounds like he is smart enough to know that the current climate to too volatile for this. If it makes the council feel any better, I get all the same long winded crazy e-mails they get but I have to read them for free.
Proposal calls for 19 homes overlooking Batiquitos Lagoon
There has been plenty of commentary about La Costa Ave on this blog before. The city really needs to consider improving that road before rubber stamping anymore development. Think the hotel, news homes, new condos, the nursery workers putt putting on their little work carts, increased traffic from the freeway offramp and the gas station.
Paperwork reveals Encinitas campaign finances
Just in case you are keeping score. Big spenders beware, the most money doesn't always win in this town.
North County Times to hold community forum in Encinitas
Without the NCT.com web coverage and new easy links they provide I would have given up on this blog a long time ago. This is your chance to praise/harass plucky local reporter Adam Kaye in person.
Check out Robert Nanninga's piece in the Oct. 6 Coast News, Encinitas cronyism lets Guerin eat cake. (If the Coast News would update their website I would link it or copy and paste the meaty parts, hrmmph).
It's the best piece Nanninga has written in a long time and a refreshing detour from the usual doom and gloom "the human race sucks" drivel he usually writes. This one is sharp and witty and on the mark. He actually does some helpful journalism, exposing the growing creepiness of the Muir/Waynio/Guerin/Dalagher relationship.
This could mark a turning point for Nanninga. He weakly supported Prop A and Prop C while inbetween rantings about sunken ships and dive tours (?!?) but maybe this article is a sign of more great stuff around the corner for him. I look forward to this week's column from him.
Also in the same issue of the Coast News, a good letter by perennial pain in the ass, Kevin C who critizes Dalagher's attitude about the Mossy purchase and other meaty subjects. Kevin has improved greatly in the last year as a city critic now writing on the mark letters that appeal to the casual reader.
In the North County Times last week:
Encinitas ponders property sales
Includes a good web comment by our pal Kevin:
Kevin wrote on October 08, 2006 8:58 AM:"Page 20 of the appraisal explains why the estimated market value of the property (land & improvements) is $8.5 million, which is one million less than we paid. To the general market the buildings are actually a liability. The appraiser estimated it would cost $200,000 to demolish the buildings and deducted that from his appraised value to arrive at the $8.5 million dollar figure. The appraiser and commercial real estate people I ran the appraisal by agree that there are a number of very questionable things going on. The 8.5 mill figure was way too high. Given that, we very well may have come out ahead of other options for a public works yard even with the purchase at 9.5, but that does not explain the discrepancies in the council's justifications for the purchase price. They said two conflicting things; that we drove a hard bargain & we just simply paid market value. I doubt we drove a hard bargain because paid what we had budgeted for constructing a yard. I know we didn't pay market value. Page 2 of the appraisal reads, "Fee Simple Market Value: $8,500,000." We paid $9.5. "
Encinitas council up for a 20 percent raise
Honestly, I don't really care if the council gets a raise but they are crazy for bringing this up now. Stocks sounds like he is smart enough to know that the current climate to too volatile for this. If it makes the council feel any better, I get all the same long winded crazy e-mails they get but I have to read them for free.
Proposal calls for 19 homes overlooking Batiquitos Lagoon
There has been plenty of commentary about La Costa Ave on this blog before. The city really needs to consider improving that road before rubber stamping anymore development. Think the hotel, news homes, new condos, the nursery workers putt putting on their little work carts, increased traffic from the freeway offramp and the gas station.
Paperwork reveals Encinitas campaign finances
Just in case you are keeping score. Big spenders beware, the most money doesn't always win in this town.
North County Times to hold community forum in Encinitas
Without the NCT.com web coverage and new easy links they provide I would have given up on this blog a long time ago. This is your chance to praise/harass plucky local reporter Adam Kaye in person.
Saturday, October 07, 2006
North County Times sends sexually explicit e-mail to the Coast News
The daily newspaper the North County Times is on the hot seat for sending sexually lurid e-mails to the local weekly paper, the Coast News. Despite the fact that the Coast News is a minor the NCT regularly sent it e-mails soliciting sex.
In one e-mail the NCT boldly asked the Coast News, "Do I make you horny?" to which the Coast News replied, "A little."
When confronted with the accusations the NCT broke down and wept and blamed the Union Tribune for molesting it back when the NCT was just a pamphlet.
In one e-mail the NCT boldly asked the Coast News, "Do I make you horny?" to which the Coast News replied, "A little."
When confronted with the accusations the NCT broke down and wept and blamed the Union Tribune for molesting it back when the NCT was just a pamphlet.
20% pay raise sure to increase whining by 30%
Encinitas council up for a 20 percent raise
By: ADAM KAYE - Staff Writer
ENCINITAS ---- The City Council is scheduled to decide Wednesday whether to give itself a 20 percent raise.
The increase would bump monthly paychecks of the five Encinitas council members from $897.93 to $1,077.
If approved, the raise would be the council's first since 2002. It would take effect in December, after the two winners of the Nov. 7 election are sworn into office.
By: ADAM KAYE - Staff Writer
ENCINITAS ---- The City Council is scheduled to decide Wednesday whether to give itself a 20 percent raise.
The increase would bump monthly paychecks of the five Encinitas council members from $897.93 to $1,077.
If approved, the raise would be the council's first since 2002. It would take effect in December, after the two winners of the Nov. 7 election are sworn into office.
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Area yokel freaks out, goes apeshit.
click images for large view
Signs on freeway denigrate Encinitas councilwoman
*UPDATE-Union Tribune story here.
Signs on freeway denigrate Encinitas councilwoman
*UPDATE-Union Tribune story here.
Dying the death of a thousand cuts
Guest commentary:
The City of Encinitas is currently dying the death of a thousand cuts. This ancient oriental torture method inflicted small non-fatal injury until the tortured person slowly died of the cumulative effect.
This is precisely what is happening to the traffic/development in Encinitas. The smaller developments now proposed do a traffic study that shows the traffic impact to be below 2% of the existing traffic count, exempting them from mitigation other than traffic mitigation fees. They use “background” traffic increase figures at 1% or 2% when actual counts can be multiples of that [thanks San Marcos
and Carlsbad!] or they figure other proposed projects and simply leave out any “background” estimates at all. City street designations are ignored or changed to some other standard. The City has the right to deny development when traffic conditions reach a certain point. This has never been done to my knowledge.
We can't control the development outside our City and it goes on unhindered, but we can legally control the development within the City. Why not have any up zoning of property be on an emergency basis with a 4-1 vote of the City Council and the Planning Commission? Why not speed up the building permit process for those willing to down zone their property? What about lowering the available building permits on a graduated, year to year basis?
When all the streets in Encinitas have speed bumps, roundabouts, and traffic calming devices or will be clamoring for them, will you do something then? How much is enough Encinitas?
Herb Patterson
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Candidate Forum Tonight, Olivenhain
Encinitas council candidates' forum scheduled tonight
Hosted by the Olivenhain Town Council from 7 to 9 p.m. at 423 Rancho Santa Fe Road.
Some questions to ask:
The current city council has tried to raise fees and taxes numerous times, all the while claiming the city finances are in great shape. Do you support an independent audit of the city?
Is it moral to force someone to sell their private property via eminent domain and sell it to another private party? The Supreme Court has decided this is legal, but in your opinion is this moral?
Should Encinitas have an elected city attorney?
Should Encinitas have a strong mayor system?
Would you be willing to lead an investigation on why the Leucadia flooding "fix" actually made the flooding worse?
The Leucadia Blvd/Hwy101 intersection is dysfunctional and unsafe. What is your solution to improving this intersection?
Hosted by the Olivenhain Town Council from 7 to 9 p.m. at 423 Rancho Santa Fe Road.
Some questions to ask:
The current city council has tried to raise fees and taxes numerous times, all the while claiming the city finances are in great shape. Do you support an independent audit of the city?
Is it moral to force someone to sell their private property via eminent domain and sell it to another private party? The Supreme Court has decided this is legal, but in your opinion is this moral?
Should Encinitas have an elected city attorney?
Should Encinitas have a strong mayor system?
Would you be willing to lead an investigation on why the Leucadia flooding "fix" actually made the flooding worse?
The Leucadia Blvd/Hwy101 intersection is dysfunctional and unsafe. What is your solution to improving this intersection?
Monday, October 02, 2006
No one would ever sell their personal property the way the city did
Stop the Land Transactions?
From the September issue of Encinitas Views:
Q. Why do some in the public think there should be a moratorium on real estate transactions until a new council is elected?
A. The short answer is a list. The Mossy car dealership purchase, the Saxony land swap, the La Costa open space, the Seeman & Lone Jack vacant land and, unfortunately, the Hall Property. If the city were our real estate agent we would have fired them long ago. We repeatedly overpaid for land and failed to do adequate investigations of the land before completing the transaction. The squander will haunt our budgets for years.
Q. The council is proud of the Mossy dealership purchase. They say it solves a major problem for the city. Why is that on the list?
A. Yes, it solves a couple problems. First, it gives us a place to put a permanent public works yard and the Mossy site is turnkey. They had demolished the old public works site without locking in a replacement. They had cornered themselves. Second, it takes the Saxony land swap off the table. Against great public opposition, the council had decided that the Ecke’s Saxony property was where the public works yard should go even though the site hadn’t been considered as part of the original public search. Once the UT reported that the city was well on the way to giving Ecke $6 million worth of city land in exchange for some of Ecke’s agricultural land that was only worth $700,000 the public came unglued. This should have been troubling for Council Member Dalager because he had publicly declared the land swap to be a “no brainer.” The Mossy purchase helps to bury that plan.
The problem with the Mossy purchase was at $9.5 million the city flat out paid too much for the property. The city’s own appraisal says the fee simple market value was $8.5 million dollars and that value is dubious given information within the same appraisal. We paid at least one million dollars too much. Probably three. We should have been able to get a spectacular deal. At the meeting announcing the purchase, Dalager went on and on about how Mossy admitted that this was their only dealership location to flounder and that Mossy had tried but couldn’t find another buyer. Ironically, Dalager, who is a lawnmower repairman by trade, thought that he had out-negotiated one of our country’s most successful car dealers.
Q. You say the Mossy site was turnkey but didn’t the council just vote to spend half a million dollars on converting the dealership to a public works yard?
A. That expenditure wasn’t discussed at the meeting they announced the Mossy purchase. We should give the council a break here, no one could expect any site to be perfectly set up for our needs, but… that fits their pattern of behavior, you know, commit to a big project without first acknowledging and adequately planning for the entire thing.
Q. Your list of transactions includes the sale of surplus land. Were mistakes made on sales too?
A. The best way to describe it is to say that no one would ever sell their personal property the way the city did. Because the council needed to inject cash into their budget the city sold off land in Olivenhain and an ocean view lot in Encinitas. (The Olivenhain site could have been a nice park or fire station.) This was in 2004. The real estate market was red hot and the method of marketing the property certainly should have been questioned long before the close of bidding. Only one bid was received and few people inquired.
The city put up signs on the property for a short time and put a dinky little notice in the UT. That’s it. Few potential buyers were aware of the offering. The single bidder was a neighbor of the ocean view lot. He had bid the minimum bid identified in the notice. After discovering he was the only bidder, he notified the council that he was changing his offer to 90K less than he had originally offered. The council accepted the new offer after the city’s appraiser conveniently reduced the appraised value, which was below the publicly noticed minimum bid.
They should have never renegotiated. They should have never accepted anything under the minimum bid. They should have marketed the property so that a large pool of potential buyers were aware. This was quality property and there were a lot of speculators looking to sink big money into Encinitas property at that time. It was a frenzy.
Q. Was the La Costa Avenue open space property quality property?
A. From a development standpoint that property was useless. For some reason we paid top dollar for those 17 acres, $1.4 million in 2002. The owner of the property bought the site in 1998 for $260K and public records show that he attempted to put a single home on the site. The property is super steep bluffs with one flat area at the base of a ravine. The property was unstable and would require a mammoth engineering effort to build on. That’s the site that slid out onto La Costa Avenue in the big rains two years ago. (Public records show that city engineers knew the site’s stability needed to be addressed even before the city bought the property, which was made worse when the city permitted the developer to clear much of the site’s vegetation. Nothing was done until after the landslide happened. In 2005, the city estimated that half a million dollars worth of work went into stabilizing the site.)
The seller’s politically connected real estate agent had been marketing the property as a development mitigation site. Basically, the site wasn’t developable. That means three things: 1) it was going to be open space before the city purchased it, 2) the developer should be happy when the site finally slid across La Costa Avenue that he didn’t own it anymore, and 3) you would expect that the property would be worth less than the $260k he bought it for (after adjustment for inflation). The city got duped.
Oh, oh wait. Even if the site was buildable, the development would have had to meet the general plan’s open space provisions because of the site’s steep slopes. By the site’s well know development restrictions much of it would have been open space. The whole thing wasn’t a very efficient use of open space purchasing funds.
Q. The Hall property is the pride of the council and its development is the reason some council members want to be on the council. How can that be on the list?
A. The potential of the Hall Property absorbs the hopes of the entire city. It would be great to see it become our crown jewel. Unfortunately, we paid too much for the property. Had we paid a reasonable amount we would have more money available today to
put into building park infrastructure. Instead, the council is in a position where they are taking on massive debt to help pay for projects thoughout the city. We certainly didn’t get the Hall property at a price that reflected the lack of access to the site or the uncertainty of the property’s level of contamination.
The Hall property held greenhouses for decades and in the early years many nasty pesticides were used there. Some people think the city purposely broke the California Environmental Quality Act in an effort to hide the contamination. That violation was the subject of a lawsuit the city lost in 2004, which forced the city to do an adequate study of the site.This should have already been done. It should have been done before we closed escrow and bought the property. You should read the judge’s ruling. It isn’t a pretty portrait of our city’s administration. We won’t know if we bought a park site or useless toxic site until the city releases that environmental impact report. The EIR was due out in July 2006.
encinitasviews@gmail.com
From the September issue of Encinitas Views:
Q. Why do some in the public think there should be a moratorium on real estate transactions until a new council is elected?
A. The short answer is a list. The Mossy car dealership purchase, the Saxony land swap, the La Costa open space, the Seeman & Lone Jack vacant land and, unfortunately, the Hall Property. If the city were our real estate agent we would have fired them long ago. We repeatedly overpaid for land and failed to do adequate investigations of the land before completing the transaction. The squander will haunt our budgets for years.
Q. The council is proud of the Mossy dealership purchase. They say it solves a major problem for the city. Why is that on the list?
A. Yes, it solves a couple problems. First, it gives us a place to put a permanent public works yard and the Mossy site is turnkey. They had demolished the old public works site without locking in a replacement. They had cornered themselves. Second, it takes the Saxony land swap off the table. Against great public opposition, the council had decided that the Ecke’s Saxony property was where the public works yard should go even though the site hadn’t been considered as part of the original public search. Once the UT reported that the city was well on the way to giving Ecke $6 million worth of city land in exchange for some of Ecke’s agricultural land that was only worth $700,000 the public came unglued. This should have been troubling for Council Member Dalager because he had publicly declared the land swap to be a “no brainer.” The Mossy purchase helps to bury that plan.
The problem with the Mossy purchase was at $9.5 million the city flat out paid too much for the property. The city’s own appraisal says the fee simple market value was $8.5 million dollars and that value is dubious given information within the same appraisal. We paid at least one million dollars too much. Probably three. We should have been able to get a spectacular deal. At the meeting announcing the purchase, Dalager went on and on about how Mossy admitted that this was their only dealership location to flounder and that Mossy had tried but couldn’t find another buyer. Ironically, Dalager, who is a lawnmower repairman by trade, thought that he had out-negotiated one of our country’s most successful car dealers.
Q. You say the Mossy site was turnkey but didn’t the council just vote to spend half a million dollars on converting the dealership to a public works yard?
A. That expenditure wasn’t discussed at the meeting they announced the Mossy purchase. We should give the council a break here, no one could expect any site to be perfectly set up for our needs, but… that fits their pattern of behavior, you know, commit to a big project without first acknowledging and adequately planning for the entire thing.
Q. Your list of transactions includes the sale of surplus land. Were mistakes made on sales too?
A. The best way to describe it is to say that no one would ever sell their personal property the way the city did. Because the council needed to inject cash into their budget the city sold off land in Olivenhain and an ocean view lot in Encinitas. (The Olivenhain site could have been a nice park or fire station.) This was in 2004. The real estate market was red hot and the method of marketing the property certainly should have been questioned long before the close of bidding. Only one bid was received and few people inquired.
The city put up signs on the property for a short time and put a dinky little notice in the UT. That’s it. Few potential buyers were aware of the offering. The single bidder was a neighbor of the ocean view lot. He had bid the minimum bid identified in the notice. After discovering he was the only bidder, he notified the council that he was changing his offer to 90K less than he had originally offered. The council accepted the new offer after the city’s appraiser conveniently reduced the appraised value, which was below the publicly noticed minimum bid.
They should have never renegotiated. They should have never accepted anything under the minimum bid. They should have marketed the property so that a large pool of potential buyers were aware. This was quality property and there were a lot of speculators looking to sink big money into Encinitas property at that time. It was a frenzy.
Q. Was the La Costa Avenue open space property quality property?
A. From a development standpoint that property was useless. For some reason we paid top dollar for those 17 acres, $1.4 million in 2002. The owner of the property bought the site in 1998 for $260K and public records show that he attempted to put a single home on the site. The property is super steep bluffs with one flat area at the base of a ravine. The property was unstable and would require a mammoth engineering effort to build on. That’s the site that slid out onto La Costa Avenue in the big rains two years ago. (Public records show that city engineers knew the site’s stability needed to be addressed even before the city bought the property, which was made worse when the city permitted the developer to clear much of the site’s vegetation. Nothing was done until after the landslide happened. In 2005, the city estimated that half a million dollars worth of work went into stabilizing the site.)
The seller’s politically connected real estate agent had been marketing the property as a development mitigation site. Basically, the site wasn’t developable. That means three things: 1) it was going to be open space before the city purchased it, 2) the developer should be happy when the site finally slid across La Costa Avenue that he didn’t own it anymore, and 3) you would expect that the property would be worth less than the $260k he bought it for (after adjustment for inflation). The city got duped.
Oh, oh wait. Even if the site was buildable, the development would have had to meet the general plan’s open space provisions because of the site’s steep slopes. By the site’s well know development restrictions much of it would have been open space. The whole thing wasn’t a very efficient use of open space purchasing funds.
Q. The Hall property is the pride of the council and its development is the reason some council members want to be on the council. How can that be on the list?
A. The potential of the Hall Property absorbs the hopes of the entire city. It would be great to see it become our crown jewel. Unfortunately, we paid too much for the property. Had we paid a reasonable amount we would have more money available today to
put into building park infrastructure. Instead, the council is in a position where they are taking on massive debt to help pay for projects thoughout the city. We certainly didn’t get the Hall property at a price that reflected the lack of access to the site or the uncertainty of the property’s level of contamination.
The Hall property held greenhouses for decades and in the early years many nasty pesticides were used there. Some people think the city purposely broke the California Environmental Quality Act in an effort to hide the contamination. That violation was the subject of a lawsuit the city lost in 2004, which forced the city to do an adequate study of the site.This should have already been done. It should have been done before we closed escrow and bought the property. You should read the judge’s ruling. It isn’t a pretty portrait of our city’s administration. We won’t know if we bought a park site or useless toxic site until the city releases that environmental impact report. The EIR was due out in July 2006.
encinitasviews@gmail.com
Sunday, October 01, 2006
20 Years of Wacky Adventures
Encinitas has been a city for 20 years today.
San Diego Union Tribune story click here.
North County Times Encinitas turns 20 years old Sunday
Interesting items from both articles:
Not scheduled as part of the fanfare, though, is an official recognition of the more than 100 people who donated their time and shoe leather to the incorporation effort.
In 1994, after incorporation but before the commercial developments, the city received $10.6 million in property-tax revenue and $4.2 million in sales taxes.
This year, property-tax income has reached $22.7 million, and sales-tax revenue has brought in $11.4 million.
Today, the city boasts:
A host of new neighborhood parks, plus 43 acres bought for a park southwest of Santa Fe Road and Interstate 5.
The 50-acre Indian Head Canyon open-space preserve.
The $10 million Encinitas Community & Senior Center on Oakcrest Park Drive.
Stairs at Beacons, Swami's, Stone Steps and Grandview beaches.
Beach sand replenishment funded with federal and state money.
A $20 million library under construction on Cornish Drive.
A fire station on Balour Drive.
A $5.2 million streetscape project that renovated downtown.
An 18-hole municipal golf course.
A $900,000 Cottonwood Creek water treatment plant that has turned Moonlight Beach, where the creek empties, from one of the most polluted in the state to one of the cleanest.
Councilman Dan Dalager, who said he voted against incorporation, added that “the dust has settled very nicely."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)