Thursday, April 25, 2013
Barth Not Making Effort to Stand Behind Ballot Arguements
UPDATE
Mayor Barth is not sure how to discuss her ballot arguments with the public, she says. I have suggested, "honestly, openly, and copiously." That does not look like the route she will be taking.
Mayor Barth has been responding to the request to discuss the ballot argument and the clarification emails, but her responses have been diversionary and awkward. She won't say yes to a discussion. That is key.
I have asked her to clarify her responses and explain her special reasoning. Again, she has not addressed any of the ballot arguments. I am now betting that most of the "negative consequences" are not valid, or not negative.
If there was veracity in her statements I am sure she would be standing behind them, not trying to push others between her and the public. They would be standing strong behind them, no?
I truly look forward to correcting this preliminary conclusion. Stay tuned.
We'll publish her response once she has a chance to clarify some of her motivations and inconsistencies.
Mayor Barth is not sure how to discuss her ballot arguments with the public, she says. I have suggested, "honestly, openly, and copiously." That does not look like the route she will be taking.
Mayor Barth has been responding to the request to discuss the ballot argument and the clarification emails, but her responses have been diversionary and awkward. She won't say yes to a discussion. That is key.
I have asked her to clarify her responses and explain her special reasoning. Again, she has not addressed any of the ballot arguments. I am now betting that most of the "negative consequences" are not valid, or not negative.
If there was veracity in her statements I am sure she would be standing behind them, not trying to push others between her and the public. They would be standing strong behind them, no?
I truly look forward to correcting this preliminary conclusion. Stay tuned.
We'll publish her response once she has a chance to clarify some of her motivations and inconsistencies.
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
Memory Lane: When the old council 'educated' the public
The old Encinitas City Council spent money educating the public for Prop C. See here for a beachhead into that history.
The new Encinitas City Council is poised to spend taxpayer money "educating" the public on Proposition A. Will the new council be willing to personally back up the material that will be distributed? If they aren't responsible for the content being honest, complete, fair and balanced then who is?
The new Encinitas City Council is poised to spend taxpayer money "educating" the public on Proposition A. Will the new council be willing to personally back up the material that will be distributed? If they aren't responsible for the content being honest, complete, fair and balanced then who is?
Saturday, April 20, 2013
City Council Gets "Silly"
The peanut gallery thought it would be "silly" for the city council to develop and process their version of a right to vote initiative prior to the June Special Election, on Prop A.
Because one of the council majority has privately expressed desires to avoid a public vote on specific prospective upzones to multiple people, it is a good idea to see the council's version locked up before the special election.
More importantly, it will force the real issues with Prop A to be clarified. The big question seems to be how many items of the vague list of unintended consequences brought up by many of those objecting would also apply to the council's initiative.
The only council member that I'm aware of that has openly communicated widely with the public about her specific concerns, other than the somewhat dubious statements in the ballot arguments, is Lisa Schaeffer. Lisa scores some points for trying to bridge the understanding gap. Most people think that she believes what she has stated. When confronted with contradicting information she seems to actively attempt to reconcile the inconsistencies. More on this later. She seems primarily concerned about the height provisions.
A week after inquiring, Barth has responded to the question of what she sees as negative consequences of Prop A. A week later, Barth simply pointed me to the ballot arguments (to be posted later) without anymore explanation. Many, if not most, of the negative consequences in the ballot statement are questionable. I've requested a meeting with the Mayor to discuss the validity of the objections in the ballot argument. I'm hoping that meeting will be an open meeting that the public could attend.
Barth was already good enough to share the timeline for the council's right to vote initiative. That is found below:
Because one of the council majority has privately expressed desires to avoid a public vote on specific prospective upzones to multiple people, it is a good idea to see the council's version locked up before the special election.
More importantly, it will force the real issues with Prop A to be clarified. The big question seems to be how many items of the vague list of unintended consequences brought up by many of those objecting would also apply to the council's initiative.
The only council member that I'm aware of that has openly communicated widely with the public about her specific concerns, other than the somewhat dubious statements in the ballot arguments, is Lisa Schaeffer. Lisa scores some points for trying to bridge the understanding gap. Most people think that she believes what she has stated. When confronted with contradicting information she seems to actively attempt to reconcile the inconsistencies. More on this later. She seems primarily concerned about the height provisions.
A week after inquiring, Barth has responded to the question of what she sees as negative consequences of Prop A. A week later, Barth simply pointed me to the ballot arguments (to be posted later) without anymore explanation. Many, if not most, of the negative consequences in the ballot statement are questionable. I've requested a meeting with the Mayor to discuss the validity of the objections in the ballot argument. I'm hoping that meeting will be an open meeting that the public could attend.
Barth was already good enough to share the timeline for the council's right to vote initiative. That is found below:
Here is the process to amend the General Plan...as explained to me:Would that be silly?
1. Receive direction from city council relative to initiate the amendment. Done at April 10 meeting.
2. City staff creates a Planning Case file and formal analysis. Staff then prepares a report with a recommendation. Because the amendment will not have a significant effect on the environment, it is exempt from environmental review.
3. A Planning Commission public hearing is noticed (10 days) and held. After reviewing the proposal, staff report & public testimony the PC makes a recommendation to city council. Tentative date: May 16 regular PC meeting.
4. A city council public hearing is noticed (10 days) and held. The council reviews all items received by the PC, receives public testimony and makes a determination to approve or deny the proposal. No date set yet.
5. The GP amendment is not a component of the Local Coastal Program. Therefore, Council's action is not subject to subsequent Coastal Commission approval.
6. If approved, the proposal becomes immediately effective.
A Town with a Creative Class
Marfa is a little town in West Texas. Artist types often work solo and are often not tied to institutions, so they are relatively mobile. Compared to other professions, artists can and easily immigrate and emigrate.
Donald Judd moved to Marfa Texas in 1971 to escape New York. According to the 60 minutes clip (top of page), he moved there for the open landscape. He loved the land.
The other artists interviewed moved there because they were astounded by the landscape, "The light and the land," the simple life and to be close to nature.
There is just one stoplight (and no apparent need for a roundabout). There is no traffic congestion, because there aren't many people.
Living in Marfa is like living in a small town, because it is a small town. A small town with an integral creative class.
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
“Worst” Part of the Right to Vote actually turns out to be exactly right
Al’s analysis seems to grossly miss some basic analysis.
Here is an edited response to Al’s post:
Al should read Section 7.10 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan.
There is already an existing, city-wide height maximum of 30 feet or two stories in the general plan! All the initiative does is reaffirm this and require a public vote to change this provision.
Does Al understand that the Municipal Code is subordinate to the General Plan and the Municipal Code can (and DOES) set building heights that are lower, such as the 22-foot and 26-foot limits in certain areas and under certain zoning? So, what is the problem?
Here is the limit on residential homes from the municipal code that we have TODAY. These are lower than the "MAXIMUM" set in the general plan that we have TODAY.
The “maximum” is typical of general plans.
The RTV drafters used the same common structure in their language to make it easy to match up with the current general plan. This makes the consequences transparent and clear.
It means that everyone can see that NOTHING IS GOING TO CHANGE, except now the voters own that part of the general plan and only they can change it. This is exactly how the RTV has described the initiative and it is the only reasonable way for an informed reader to read it. Al is likely to realize that the way it was written is actually an asset of the initiative.
Here is what is in the right to vote provision:
Who can explain how this results in a different interpretation than the current general plan?
As with the current general plan, the Encinitas Municipal Code (EMC) can’t set a higher limit because it puts it in conflict with the GP. The EMC can and does set lower limits. We have those in the code TODAY.
Over the years the Planning Department and Planning Commission have not allowed these lower limits in the EMC to be exceeded, even though the GP already has the higher 30-foot limit. The 30-foot limit has always been interpreted as a maximum, but that it can be lower for specified areas.
Because the initiative language is just like the CURRENT general plan, we can and will have these same lower limits AFTER the Right to Vote passes in June, unless the height limits are raised.
According to the RTV people they have been trying to contact the Al on their list of signature gathers to ask this Al about this issue. Al has not responded to phone calls or emails, according to them. Hopefully, the real Al will explain why the above explanation is wrong or capitulate that he made a mistake. I'm ready to do that and to see how the RTV people and I are wrong. If Al had been right the RTV would be a disaster, however it doesn't look that way.
I think we already have clarity.
Here is an edited response to Al’s post:
Al should read Section 7.10 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan.
There is already an existing, city-wide height maximum of 30 feet or two stories in the general plan! All the initiative does is reaffirm this and require a public vote to change this provision.
Does Al understand that the Municipal Code is subordinate to the General Plan and the Municipal Code can (and DOES) set building heights that are lower, such as the 22-foot and 26-foot limits in certain areas and under certain zoning? So, what is the problem?
Here is the limit on residential homes from the municipal code that we have TODAY. These are lower than the "MAXIMUM" set in the general plan that we have TODAY.
The “maximum” is typical of general plans.
The RTV drafters used the same common structure in their language to make it easy to match up with the current general plan. This makes the consequences transparent and clear.
It means that everyone can see that NOTHING IS GOING TO CHANGE, except now the voters own that part of the general plan and only they can change it. This is exactly how the RTV has described the initiative and it is the only reasonable way for an informed reader to read it. Al is likely to realize that the way it was written is actually an asset of the initiative.
Here is what is in the right to vote provision:
As with the current general plan, the Encinitas Municipal Code (EMC) can’t set a higher limit because it puts it in conflict with the GP. The EMC can and does set lower limits. We have those in the code TODAY.
Over the years the Planning Department and Planning Commission have not allowed these lower limits in the EMC to be exceeded, even though the GP already has the higher 30-foot limit. The 30-foot limit has always been interpreted as a maximum, but that it can be lower for specified areas.
Because the initiative language is just like the CURRENT general plan, we can and will have these same lower limits AFTER the Right to Vote passes in June, unless the height limits are raised.
According to the RTV people they have been trying to contact the Al on their list of signature gathers to ask this Al about this issue. Al has not responded to phone calls or emails, according to them. Hopefully, the real Al will explain why the above explanation is wrong or capitulate that he made a mistake. I'm ready to do that and to see how the RTV people and I are wrong. If Al had been right the RTV would be a disaster, however it doesn't look that way.
I think we already have clarity.
Monday, April 15, 2013
Authentic Cowboy on the Leucadia 101
This guy has been making his way down the southern California coast all week. Photos by Fred Caldwell on Sunday.
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
Pacific View on the Agenda tonight!
Friendly reminder email:
As you may already know, a discussion for the possible purchase of the Pacific View Elementary School site by the City of Encinitas is on the agenda for the city council meeting this Wednesday, April 10, 2013. I am writing to you in hope that you will send the city council members an email urging them to find a way to purchase the Pacific View property, thus preserving a part of our history for all of us.
This piece of property was donated to the school district in 1883 for the children of Encinitas. The site has languished for almost a decade since the closing of Pacific View Elementary School while various factions have fought over it. It is time to put an end to this bickering and again to realize the ambitions of our city’s founding fathers by preserving this piece of land for future generations.
Please write to our city council before Wednesday and urge them to explore every option they have to purchase the Pacific View site. You can reach all five Encinitas city council members by sending an email to our City Clerk, Kathy Hollywood.
Her email address is: khollywood@encinitasca.gov. Thank you in advance for your effort to help save and preserve this special property.
It goes without saying that at the same time, the future of the oldest building in Encinitas, our 130 year old Schoolhouse, will be assured.
Sincerely,
Lois Aufmann
Encinitas Historical Society, Docent
*the meeting starts in an hour as of this posting so if you feel strongly about Pacific View get down to city hall tonight.
As you may already know, a discussion for the possible purchase of the Pacific View Elementary School site by the City of Encinitas is on the agenda for the city council meeting this Wednesday, April 10, 2013. I am writing to you in hope that you will send the city council members an email urging them to find a way to purchase the Pacific View property, thus preserving a part of our history for all of us.
Please write to our city council before Wednesday and urge them to explore every option they have to purchase the Pacific View site. You can reach all five Encinitas city council members by sending an email to our City Clerk, Kathy Hollywood.
Her email address is: khollywood@encinitasca.gov. Thank you in advance for your effort to help save and preserve this special property.
It goes without saying that at the same time, the future of the oldest building in Encinitas, our 130 year old Schoolhouse, will be assured.
Sincerely,
Lois Aufmann
Encinitas Historical Society, Docent
*the meeting starts in an hour as of this posting so if you feel strongly about Pacific View get down to city hall tonight.
Tuesday, April 09, 2013
Al the Engineer spots a fatal flaw in The Initiative
My friend Al is a structural engineer who lives in Leucadia. He is very political and has been a huge supporter of the "Right to Vote" Initiative and got a lot of people to sign the petition.
I encouraged him to re-read The Initiative top to bottom. He spotted the same fatal flaw many of us did. The Initiative raises the residential height to 30'.
Al's comments are below the graph.
"The Right -to- Vote Initiative is extremely flawed when it comes to the height restrictions... My analysis shows that the allowable heights of almost all homes in Encinitas would be increased based on this initiative, and the bulk and mass would be even more view blocking... Currently the max height of a house with a ridge is 26 ft and the max height of a house with a flat roof is 22 ft. Especially effected are homes on hillsides on the uphill side!!!! Currently for hillsides 12ft to a max 16ft above the street, would be increased to 30 ft... The devil is in the wording of this initiative which is a major let down for me... Wording that supersedes the existing zoning height laws may have been unintentionally included in the initiative, but the fact is the result is a height increase....It is unfortunate for the people of Encinitas that the group responsible for this initiative made this terrible mistake. Unfortunately we will need to vote this initiative down and go back to the drawing board with a new and improved version...It was the initial intent to vote on zoning changes, which is how this initiative was pitched on the street corner, and I think that the Right -to- Vote initiative should address only that moving forward. Attached is a portion of the analysis of the impacts of the initiative, as well as some portions of the existing code. There are a lot of impacts of this initiative, but I feel this blanket height increase for residential zones is the most obvious problem with the initiative."
Remember, height was a huge battle during the Cardiff Specific Plan.
Revisit www.savecardiff.com
I encouraged him to re-read The Initiative top to bottom. He spotted the same fatal flaw many of us did. The Initiative raises the residential height to 30'.
Al's comments are below the graph.
Remember, height was a huge battle during the Cardiff Specific Plan.
Revisit www.savecardiff.com
Thursday, April 04, 2013
Desert Rose Recap
Talk about town is that the Desert Rose vote was not understood by residents and observers. It is spoken about as a watershed moment in the public's expectations of the council. This email was forwarded to the LB. We don't know squat about Desert Rose or if it was actually a big deal. (Edited for brevity)
Dear Neighbors and Friends,
As promised, here is SDR’s recap and perspective of the City Council meeting on March 13th, D-Day.
It is with a heavy heart that we must report to you that it really was D-Day in Encinitas. In fact, there were several D’s involved, the first being disappointing, followed by despicable and disheartening. After hours of watching the City staff dance around questions posed by the Council and deride the work of the many experts that the community had presented, the Council turned a deaf ear to the all of the evidence provided in support of the Planning Commission’s decision. When it came down to the time when the Council members had the opportunity to do right by the community and to stand by some of their campaign promises, they were intimidated by the threat of litigation. Despite the work of at least eight Ph.D.’s who offered proof that the proposed development is inherently unsafe and will have significant impact on the environment, the Council ignored that body of work and succumbed to the fear of having to go to court. Dr. Fred Frumin had it right in his opening argument that all of our experts could not have been universally wrong and theirs right. If you listen to their comments, it appears evident that they had already made up their minds and they placated the public by allowing us to speak.
The Mayor said that they had four options to consider and after stating only the first one (approval of the appeal), Tony Kranz interrupted that explanation and made a motion to overturn the Planning Commission’s ruling. The other three options were not even brought up or considered. They paid lip service to environmental protection and a mandated 50’ wetland buffer zone but even that was dropped from the conversation and omitted from their resolution because Kristen Gaspar repeatedly drove home the point that they might have to defend it in court. Her other major concern was that a glass fire wall would require frequent cleaning for a type “A” person like herself. It was apparent to everyone in the room that Gaspar, Kranz and Mayor Barth were going to vote against the community. The only part [Shaffer] got right was when she commented that the City Staff had not done a very good job in their preparation of objective materials that would enable her to make “effective, informed, thoughtful” choices. This concern about the low quality of the information that Staff supplied to the Council should have been stated and discussed at the beginning of the deliberation session. Awareness of issues with the staff provided information potentially could have changed the focus of the discussions and changed the outcome.
Kranz lamented that he felt the “sword of Damocles” over his head. What he and the others overlooked was the “grenade” that we had made available to them, in the form of compelling evidence and facts that should have at least caused them to require a full Environmental Impact Report. They just lacked the courage to use it. Instead, they gave in to the bluster of Marco Gonzalez and ultimately made a decision that will FOREVER change Olivenhain. His position has always been that the Planning Commission and the City Council has no legal option but to approve the project and at least the Planning Commission had the courage to challenge that. Despite Gonzalez’ assertion that “The presence of public controversy does not qualify as substantial evidence of potentially significant impacts.”, we offered substantial evidence, backed by thoughtful and scientific evidence that was completely discounted by the City staff. That statement was not only arrogant and condescending, it suggested that only he is in possession of “facts”.
After a face-saving presentation by the City Staff, the applicant’s attorney was afforded 10 minutes to present their case. Afterward, the floor was opened to the public, at which time, much of our evidence and response to the staff’s most recent report was presented. After the public testimony, the Mayor stated that the public portion was closed and only questions from them, to the staff, would be permitted. They proceeded to ask questions of the Staff that seemed crafted to support the approval of the project. The staff and fire marshal were very careful to make certain that their answers were beneficial to the developer. Despite Mayor [Barth] insisting that the questions would only be of staff, at one point and without being asked to by the Council, their engineer for the project took the podium and gave testimony. The Council continued to ask questions of this person. This was clearly out of order and would not have been tolerated by any member of our group. I commented to the Council that in the January meeting, despite one of our experts being in the room, not one clarifying question was asked of him, only the developer’s advocates were queried.
At the close of the public testimony period, the developer’s attorney was given the last word. He used this opportunity to dismiss the data and facts that had been presented in opposition. He chastised us for attempting to mislead the Council by presenting pictures that showed the condition of the wetland. The fact is that they were his pictures, taken from one of his prior presentations that showed how bad the conditions are in the wetland and why it was so important to him to clean it up. If they were not relevant to the wetland issues on this property, why were they used in support of their case? He just berated Dr. Katzneslon’s traffic study, stating that he could not use data from Mexico as the basis for his study (he had not done so). The reality is that this probably made little difference because it was obvious to most in the room that Council had made their decision long before that.
It is disappointing that the City Council lacked the courage and conviction to stand up for the community.
Save Desert Rose Steering Committee
Is there a written explanation for the Council's decision somewhere? It would be good to link to that.
Dear Neighbors and Friends,
As promised, here is SDR’s recap and perspective of the City Council meeting on March 13th, D-Day.
It is with a heavy heart that we must report to you that it really was D-Day in Encinitas. In fact, there were several D’s involved, the first being disappointing, followed by despicable and disheartening. After hours of watching the City staff dance around questions posed by the Council and deride the work of the many experts that the community had presented, the Council turned a deaf ear to the all of the evidence provided in support of the Planning Commission’s decision. When it came down to the time when the Council members had the opportunity to do right by the community and to stand by some of their campaign promises, they were intimidated by the threat of litigation. Despite the work of at least eight Ph.D.’s who offered proof that the proposed development is inherently unsafe and will have significant impact on the environment, the Council ignored that body of work and succumbed to the fear of having to go to court. Dr. Fred Frumin had it right in his opening argument that all of our experts could not have been universally wrong and theirs right. If you listen to their comments, it appears evident that they had already made up their minds and they placated the public by allowing us to speak.
The Mayor said that they had four options to consider and after stating only the first one (approval of the appeal), Tony Kranz interrupted that explanation and made a motion to overturn the Planning Commission’s ruling. The other three options were not even brought up or considered. They paid lip service to environmental protection and a mandated 50’ wetland buffer zone but even that was dropped from the conversation and omitted from their resolution because Kristen Gaspar repeatedly drove home the point that they might have to defend it in court. Her other major concern was that a glass fire wall would require frequent cleaning for a type “A” person like herself. It was apparent to everyone in the room that Gaspar, Kranz and Mayor Barth were going to vote against the community. The only part [Shaffer] got right was when she commented that the City Staff had not done a very good job in their preparation of objective materials that would enable her to make “effective, informed, thoughtful” choices. This concern about the low quality of the information that Staff supplied to the Council should have been stated and discussed at the beginning of the deliberation session. Awareness of issues with the staff provided information potentially could have changed the focus of the discussions and changed the outcome.
Kranz lamented that he felt the “sword of Damocles” over his head. What he and the others overlooked was the “grenade” that we had made available to them, in the form of compelling evidence and facts that should have at least caused them to require a full Environmental Impact Report. They just lacked the courage to use it. Instead, they gave in to the bluster of Marco Gonzalez and ultimately made a decision that will FOREVER change Olivenhain. His position has always been that the Planning Commission and the City Council has no legal option but to approve the project and at least the Planning Commission had the courage to challenge that. Despite Gonzalez’ assertion that “The presence of public controversy does not qualify as substantial evidence of potentially significant impacts.”, we offered substantial evidence, backed by thoughtful and scientific evidence that was completely discounted by the City staff. That statement was not only arrogant and condescending, it suggested that only he is in possession of “facts”.
After a face-saving presentation by the City Staff, the applicant’s attorney was afforded 10 minutes to present their case. Afterward, the floor was opened to the public, at which time, much of our evidence and response to the staff’s most recent report was presented. After the public testimony, the Mayor stated that the public portion was closed and only questions from them, to the staff, would be permitted. They proceeded to ask questions of the Staff that seemed crafted to support the approval of the project. The staff and fire marshal were very careful to make certain that their answers were beneficial to the developer. Despite Mayor [Barth] insisting that the questions would only be of staff, at one point and without being asked to by the Council, their engineer for the project took the podium and gave testimony. The Council continued to ask questions of this person. This was clearly out of order and would not have been tolerated by any member of our group. I commented to the Council that in the January meeting, despite one of our experts being in the room, not one clarifying question was asked of him, only the developer’s advocates were queried.
At the close of the public testimony period, the developer’s attorney was given the last word. He used this opportunity to dismiss the data and facts that had been presented in opposition. He chastised us for attempting to mislead the Council by presenting pictures that showed the condition of the wetland. The fact is that they were his pictures, taken from one of his prior presentations that showed how bad the conditions are in the wetland and why it was so important to him to clean it up. If they were not relevant to the wetland issues on this property, why were they used in support of their case? He just berated Dr. Katzneslon’s traffic study, stating that he could not use data from Mexico as the basis for his study (he had not done so). The reality is that this probably made little difference because it was obvious to most in the room that Council had made their decision long before that.
It is disappointing that the City Council lacked the courage and conviction to stand up for the community.
Save Desert Rose Steering Committee
Is there a written explanation for the Council's decision somewhere? It would be good to link to that.
Tuesday, April 02, 2013
Taste of Leucadia Thursday April 4th
Support our hardworking independent restaurants this Thursday, April 4, 5:30 p.m. to 8 p.m. Fish 101 isolated in deep, dark North Leucadia may be one of the greatest Leucadia success stories of all time.
Dos Palmas has awesome Mexican breakfast and burritos located in one of Leucadia's newer groovy buildings.
Yu Me Ya Sake House is still the best date night.
A Little 'Moore might be closed for the event but I hope they open, it's our classic greasy spoon breakfast joint that's been there since the 70's.
The Regal Seagull opened this week to a packed house every evening, so get your sausage and craft beer on.
Le Papagayo pioneered good times and good music when no-one believed you could put a restaurant north of Leucadia Blvd.
Cafe Ipe aka "Coffee Coffee" has a new menu that Jose will be sampling and it's always good to pose for a photo in front of the Surfing Madonna Mosaic.
El Torito Market has secretly been making the best tacos in town all these years.
Foodie Amor Bakery in it's tiny space is making all kinds of yummy cookies.
Solterra Winery isn't quite open yet but Chris will down there sampling his family crafted wine.
Karina's, Kotija and Juanita's offer good old fashioned old school Leucadia style Mexican food that is a daily habit.
Pandora's Pizza has been an amazing addition to Leucadia. Great pizza and staffed by a great crew.
Robbie's Roadhouse and Vigilucci's have become Leucadia institutions, always a good time here.
Pannikan will probably be closed to check out Leucadia's newest little coffee shop, Sugar, Coffee & Tea staffed by the nicest people on Earth.
Hapifish is fun and cool is another Leucadia success story.
The Birdhouse Grill has belly dancing! which is still more awesome than yoga.
Cap'n Kenos, the legend that started it all. God bless you Cap'n.
Live poetry by the Ruthless Hippies in the Leucadia Roadside Park! Special guest Rolland Tizuela.
Live music by Gabrielle Clifford (we call her Gabby Gabby) in the coffee/Surfy patio at 5:30pm
followed by Amerikan Bear (acoustic set)
and then Tomorrow's Tulips (hipster surf rock) at 7pm
Tickets are $20 purchase on the L101 website: clicky clicky
What the right to vote initiative will do
In a previous LB post we pointed out that some of the developments that some people don't "like" will not be impacted by the passage of the initiative. Exactly!
The initiative does not impact developers who want to develop within their current development rights.
Developers wanting to exceed the provisions of the general plan must be approved by a vote, today. Today they must get voter approval, unless they get 4/5ths of the council to vote to approve an upzone. No land speculator has the right to an upzone without a vote, today.
Today a cool-aid drinking or developer sponsored council super majority can easily approve (by a vote) major intensification of zoning. High school buddies, pet projects, campaign contributors, and evidence-avoidant urban design principles can result truly perpetual changes to our city, our property values, and quality of life.
Peoples of Encinitas, itis coming. The population will be growing. Do you want to have a direct say or do you want 4 people to decide how that happens?
If we are going to have upzoning proposals for developments like this:
it sure would be cool if the voters had a direct say on whether or not the proposal was a net benefit to the public.
With the voters deciding, directly, developers and city leaders will be much more likely propose upzones that truly benefit both the developer and the public, rather than being projects that burden the public in exchange for unearned windfall profits to land speculators, and have some sort of token superficial marketing level benefit. The voters will require a fair balance, not just feel good jingles.
As seen in other municipalities, the right to vote will not stop upzoning. It will facilate the sharing of the balance of benefits between the public and land speculators. It will also help keep the land speculators from monkeying with our city council elections because there will no longer be a multi-million dollar monetary incentive for buying influence on the council.
Passage of the right-to-vote initiative won't impact any developments that are in line with the current general plan. It does not stop upzoning. Upzoning can be good.
The right-to-vote initiative doesn't change which proposals must be approved by a vote. It would allow you to vote on proposals for jumps in density that will make special people super rich and the rest of us, stuck in traffic.
The initiative does not impact developers who want to develop within their current development rights.
Developers wanting to exceed the provisions of the general plan must be approved by a vote, today. Today they must get voter approval, unless they get 4/5ths of the council to vote to approve an upzone. No land speculator has the right to an upzone without a vote, today.
Today a cool-aid drinking or developer sponsored council super majority can easily approve (by a vote) major intensification of zoning. High school buddies, pet projects, campaign contributors, and evidence-avoidant urban design principles can result truly perpetual changes to our city, our property values, and quality of life.
Do we want Encinitas to be a place where our children want to live?
Peoples of Encinitas, itis coming. The population will be growing. Do you want to have a direct say or do you want 4 people to decide how that happens?
If we are going to have upzoning proposals for developments like this:
it sure would be cool if the voters had a direct say on whether or not the proposal was a net benefit to the public.
With the voters deciding, directly, developers and city leaders will be much more likely propose upzones that truly benefit both the developer and the public, rather than being projects that burden the public in exchange for unearned windfall profits to land speculators, and have some sort of token superficial marketing level benefit. The voters will require a fair balance, not just feel good jingles.
As seen in other municipalities, the right to vote will not stop upzoning. It will facilate the sharing of the balance of benefits between the public and land speculators. It will also help keep the land speculators from monkeying with our city council elections because there will no longer be a multi-million dollar monetary incentive for buying influence on the council.
Passage of the right-to-vote initiative won't impact any developments that are in line with the current general plan. It does not stop upzoning. Upzoning can be good.
The right-to-vote initiative doesn't change which proposals must be approved by a vote. It would allow you to vote on proposals for jumps in density that will make special people super rich and the rest of us, stuck in traffic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)