Barth's Stance Makes My Decision on Prop A Easier

Date: June 5, 2013
Author: KC (not JP)
Barth finally came clean about a week ago and gave a list of reasons why she does not support Prop A. She was also on KPBS revealing her root motivation driving her to embrace greater density in Encinitas.

I sent Barth a response. Here is an excerpt:

It is a little ambiguous in your email.
Did the council commit to putting the right to vote on upzoning on the 2014 election?
Will it be a separate item?
Will you support adding new affirmative wording giving the right to the people?
Do you support putting a separate item on the 2014 ballot if there is not already a commitment?

Barth responded and pasted a clip from her first email:

This doesn't sound ambiguous to me.

The City Council agrees with this intent and at the May 22nd meeting voted unanimously to eliminate the 4/5 super majority exception and added a requirement for voter approval of the comprehensive General Plan update. Council will submit these changes for voter ratification on the November 4, 2014 General Election ballot.

Some people have known for years that Teresa will craft her words very carefully in a way that provides either non-answers or  that allows for people to read into the answers what they want to believe. Image over substance. 

Barth is going to let the public believe that she is posturing to enact the core of Prop A. As pointed out to Barth, her approach does not give the last word to the voters, which is the central tenant of Prop A.

The May 22nd meeting shows why the council will retain supremacy over direct voter approval. Just striking out the current exception does not prohibit the addition of new exceptions. At the meeting, "staff" proposed a new 3/5ths majority exception, which is compatible with the approach that Barth has shepherded. Council was wise to not adopt that exception before Prop A, but a future council could. That's the point of Prop A, by giving those decisions to the voters.

If the council sincerely wants to give the voters the last word then they should do that. They should add affirmative language giving the public the right to weigh in on upzoning.

In response to Barth's confirmation, I asked Barth the following question (6 days ago).

 How was it not disingenuous for you to claim that you would enact the spirit of Prop A?

I got no response.

These were my original questions, which she decided against directly addressing:

1. Did the council commit to putting the right to vote on upzoning on the 2014 election?

She only committed to the 4/5ths strikeout and putting the general plan update to a vote. She has been asked about all of the general plan amendments that could also include massive upzoning, but those are not addressed by Barth's statement.

2. Will it be a separate item?

If she doesn't state it, expect it to bundled with a bunch of other things you might not like.

3. Will you support adding new affirmative wording giving the right to the people?

This is the big question. If she had simply answered yes to this very easy question that defines whether or not she supports the Spirit of Prop A, this whole thing would be resolved. Instead, Barth provides more evidence that she doesn't support the Spirit of Prop A, but is willing to deceive people into believing  that she does.

4. Do you support putting a separate item on the 2014 ballot if there is not already a commitment?

Ditto

Barth's allies on the council don't seem to fall into Barth's camp on this issue. I'd like to be wrong, but we can suppose that they will fall into a 2-3 minority on the council (someone can check in with the council minority).

Related Tangential Note: Barth never attempted to explain the inconsistencies and the really difficult to believe reasons she gave for not explaining what she saw as the negative consequences of Prop A.

Barth's statement contrasts greatly with Tony and Lisa's.

CM Kranz states:

The council has removed the 4/5ths exception, making any projects or specific plans with up zoning subject to a vote of the people, per our existing General Plan. Further, I will be proposing a measure for the ballot in November of 2014 which would require that any effort by a city council to add exceptions in the future would be subject to a vote. I will use the "right to vote" aspects of Prop A, but will work with my council colleagues in a public process to address my main objection: the nullification of existing specific plans (Section 3.1 e & f). The other provision that should be considered for modification or removal has to do with how the pad heights are measured (second sentence of Section 6.1). Both of these provisions have nothing to do with the right to vote on up zoning.

I added the underlying. This is key. This is different than what Barth is proposing and when this was brought to her attention she stuck by her plan.

CM Shaffer states:

I support putting an item on the 2014 ballot to require a public vote to give the Council any additional authority to make zoning changes (ie, to reverse our elimination of the 4/5 or to create any other formulations of similar intent) beyond what exists now. I also support putting the comprehensive GP update to a public vote.  I do not support saying that ANY GP amendment needs voter approval because there are some minor adjustments and changes, such as are listed in the other sections of 3.12, that even the Prop A people agree should be within the Council's authority.

I don't have the exact wording but as I said below, a change that gives the Council new authority to make zoning changes beyond what is allowed now, and significant or major changes going forward.

Shaffer's approach clearly closes the painfully obvious hole in Barth's plan. She also addresses the issue of seeing all the juicy stuff in the GP update being shuttled off to multiple GP amendments, which is also in the Spirit of Prop A.

Please, ask Barth if she will give the voters a chance to take protected control of the right to vote on upzoning in 2014. To do that Barth will have ADD language to city laws that say exceptions cannot be added without a vote of the people.


Don't assume that I'm against greater density. I'm not, if the promised benefits of greater density are contractually guaranteed by the property owners in the new developments and the taxpayers don't subsidize windfall profits of those being granted NEW development rights. It would also be nice if they could find a way to make the beaches less crowded, as the beaches are less pleasant to visit these days (if you can find parking), but that's another story.

Don't assume I'm 100% for Prop A. I'm not. I'm not for tying together the height limitation, which  is functionally retroactive, in with the rest of the proposition. Barth is making it really hard to vote no, because I do not trust her to give the people the option to vote on the spirit of Prop A in 2014. So far she is only committing to a phony version of Prop A. They had the opportunity during the May 22nd council meeting to add a simple sentence that prohibited new COUNCIL approved exceptions. The council did not do that. If they didn't do it before the Prop A vote, why would they do that after? 

(I'm happy to publish, in full, any commentary from council members that they wish to submit.)