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.
Kevin you are seriously so frothy over this. Down boy.
ReplyDeleteruff ruff
DeleteAl the engineer never responded. Teresa was attempting to dodge and is now stalling. Asking nicely didn't clear up the smoke.
I smell a rat. I hope it is not a rat. I'm going to find out.
To me, Teresa fits the definition of the phrase, "cop out." I hope she does term herself out, because she could not be re-elected.
Deleteohhh. Drama on Leucadia Blog. Kind of interesting?
ReplyDeleteBurning question: Is it appropriate for a mayor of 63,000 to endorse a controversial vote one way or the other?
ReplyDeleteAlso, Mayor Barth has a history of fighting for slow growth in Cardiff. If Prop A does indeed raise the residential height limit to 30' that will be a disaster for Cardiff and for her reputation.
Is it appropriate for a mayor of 63,000 to endorse a controversial vote one way or the other?
DeleteOf course. Why would it be inappropriate to opine on something important?
If Prop A does indeed raise the residential height limit to 30' that will be a disaster for Cardiff and for her reputation.
It obviously doesn't raise the residential height limit, but how would that be a disaster for her reputation if it did? She is quite publicly opposed.
Section 6. CITY WIDE HEIGHT LIMITS.
Delete6.1. Maximum Height. On and after the date this initiative measure becomes effective no building or structure shall exceed a maximum height of two stories or 30 feet. Height shall be measured from the lower of the natural or finished grade adjacent to the structure, to the highest portion of the roof immediately above.
Section 9. PRIORITY.
9.1. Once this initiative measure becomes effective, its provision shall prevail over and supersede all provisions of the municipal code, ordinances, resolutions, and administrative policies of the City of Encinitas which are in conflict with any provisions of this measure.
The initiative Section 9 only supersedes or repeals the things relevant to the initiative, that is, a required public vote for zoning and height increases. It says, "...it's provisions prevail...conflict with any provisions of this measure." Everything else stays the same. It's necessary to include such a statement to be sure there isn't a loophole hidden somewhere that could be used to circumvent the purpose of the initiative. The initiative doesn't wipe clean the municipal code, ordinances, resolutions, and administrative policies. The result is not a tabula rasa as many claim. Read the language carefully.
DeleteI think I had tabula rasa at Mozys once.
DeleteCity Wide Height Limits, from the initiative, JP, reflect the same language as in our General Plan, as supported by our zoning codes. What part of "no building or structure shall exceed a MAXIMUM height of two stories or 30 feet" don't you get? Maximum means a CAP. Our zoning code definitions ALREADY use the lower of the natural or finished grade adjacent to the structure. This is the SAME language our General Plan and Zoning code definitions already HAVE.
ReplyDeleteWhat is INCONSISTENT is that the N101SP is out of compliance with our GP. 33 feet and three stories are allowed, contrary to what the Community Advisory Boards and the public WANTED. By a 4/5 Majority vote, with Councilmember Cameron voting NAY, the past Council OVERRODE the public's wishes.
Anyone who thinks that a 30 ft Maximum means that height limits set at lower levels would be raised is incapable of logic. The maximum is not to EXCEED 30 ft, does not mean that limits already set at a lower level would not still be honored, as is the case with our current GP!
If the council has a legitimate argument, why won't they discuss it with the public?
ReplyDeleteWe could be persuaded!
Barth is morphing into Stocks - did the radiation from Fukashima hit City Hall?
ReplyDelete