The Plot Sickens

Related North County Times story

Many of us have wondered why the city council would have chosen a costly and cumbersome mail-in-ballot for Proposition C. It would have certainly been more fiscally responsible, expeditious and fair to have waited one more month until the general election in April. Even the city’s own survey indicated that the number of voters that would respond to a mail-ballot process would be dismally low. So why use a mail- ballot?

Until this week, we thought that we were aware of most of the loopholes and dirty tricks that have been used by the city and, unlike the supporters of Proposition C; have not been afraid to detail our accusations. Monday we became aware of what may be the real reason that the city chose this type of process and it could be the dirtiest trick of them all.

Let me back up for just a minute and explain the financial disclosure aspects of a typical election, maybe even use Proposition A as an example. For a normal or general election, the city requires that groups working on either side of an argument or proposition (candidates too), file a periodic statement detailing the amounts and sources of any donations and expenditures to date. We all remember how the Yes on Proposition A folks outspent us by a few hundred thousand dollars and how the exact numbers were published regularly by all of the newspapers. We even knew who the donors to each cause were. It was fair and above board. It is how all elections should work.

On Monday of this week, the Encinitas Taxpayers Association was told by the City Clerk that it is the intent of our city to not require Mr. Aceti’s group, Encinitas Citizens For A Clean Ocean, to file any financial disclosures. According to the clerk, it is city attorney Glenn Sabine’s opinion that a financial disclosure is not required because this is a MAIL-IN-BALLOT. They have no intention of requiring any information as to the source of funds used by Encinitas Citizens For A Clean Ocean to produce and mail the three color post card that was sent to 22,000 property owners (estimated to cost $11,000). They have no intention of asking …… where the funds came from to manufacture the hundreds of signs that were placed in the public right of way (estimated at $3000).

Interestingly, the city does want a financial disclosure statement from the Encinitas Taxpayers Association and we will gladly comply. We have nothing to hide since we have been funded by citizen donations ranging from $5 to $250. We are a 100% volunteer organization, and we have not had the benefit of a city sourced professional consultant.

We should all demand that Encinitas Citizens For A Clean Ocean volunteer to submit a financial disclosure form detailing their source of funds and we should contact our city council to express our displeasure with this latest trick. Elections of any type should be fair so that the results can be respected by the citizens. Why would this election be any different?

Bill Rodewald

Encinitas Taxpayers Association

Adidas "Leucadian" Flip Flop Take 2

Funky or Blighted?

Their Eyes Bigger Than Our Wallets

Good Adam Kaye piece in the North County Times about the city finally sobering up to the fact that all the groovy capital projects they have planned are really, super duper expensive.

link

Nobody has asked what I think but here it is anyway (heh heh),

The Library $13.6 million



I agree with councilman Jim Bond when he says we can't eliminate the view deck. All architecture begins with the site and that site has one of the best views in this whole town. I like that he envisions intellectual conversations taking place on the deck of a fine library looking across our fine downtown. I can't promise anything intellectual coming out of my mouth but I do look forward to sitting on the deck with my wife while she does research and I can use some w-fi to blog with my laptop. That just sounds really great. It sounds like living in a real town even.

The library design is what you call non-threatening yuppie modernism. There are a lot of wacky angles and such that are driving up the cost. The city hired a value engineer for $150,000 but all they needed to do was give the plans back to the architect and ask him to streamline the design a bit.

My advice, take out the angles and just make a nice big deck. The curve with those jagged angles just don't work for me. Unless the architect can justify the existence of the curve and the angles we should axe them.



This is the University of North Florida's library. It's bigger than what we want and I couldn't find the cost but imagine something like this, only 2 stories and with a nice big deck. I think that is the direction our library should take.

The Hall Park $11.7 million

The Hall property park is way over the top. We don't need a giant sports complex that parodies the YMCA. I say plant some grass, put in some benches and try to seek private donations for the baseball diamonds. If they city really wants a skatepark then they need to get creative and approach the multi-billion dollar skate industry that exist right here in north county.

The city should design the park so that in the future some of the more expensive amenities and be easily added.



Downtown Encinitas StreetScape Program $3.1 million

Shelve it for now. The downtown area looks good, sure it needs some fine tuning but obviously the downtown is popular and thriving. Give the money to the library.



The street fair draws a crowd, no worries.

3 New Fire Stations $7 million

Go ahead and build them, it's political suicide to deny firefighters anything. This city always gives the fire department whatever they want even if they can barely put out a fire. (I kid, I kid)



Remember when 4 downtown business 2 blocks away from the fire station burned down?

Leucadia Boulevard Improvements $2.8 million

This had better mean finally doing something about the FUBAR 101 intersection. Isn't there supposed to be an account hidden somewhere for this that was overlooked to make Leucadia seem more blighted? Do this.

Olivenhain Road Widening $925,000

This involves using eminent domain to take part of the horse farm. It is bizarre how clunky that road merges. I think some creative minds could figure out some creative line painting though. This widening is to serve the newbies of San Elijo Hill returning from Target.

Safe Routes to School $3.8 million

I'm not really sure what this is but with a name like that the soccer moms are probably licking their chops. I always made it to school safely (unless Swami's was good). I say give this money to the library. Don't get mad, tell your kids to carry pepper spray and look both ways when they cross the street.



North Coast Highway 101 Improvements

Keep Leucadia funky? You guys want to take one for the team and send this 3.5 million to the library?

New Public Works Facility $5.2 million

Jerome Stocks says we don't need one, good enough for me. Give that money to the library.

Moonlight Beach Master Plan $700,000

New megaphone for the lifeguards to yell at me when I accidentally surf 2 feet into the empty swimming area?



From the article:

Officials blame skyrocketing materials prices ---- for concrete, steel and asphalt, in particular ---- as the forces behind the higher-than-expected bids.

The rebuilding following Hurricane Katrina, an unprecedented demand for materials from Southeast Asia and ever-escalating petroleum prices are driving up the cost of the key ingredients for projects such as the library and the StreetScape Program, officials say.

The competition for materials from Asia is something that is putting a lot of pressure on my family business so it is close to my heart. I could easily write a 3,000 word rant about this subject but I will spare you.

Unfortunate quote from article,

What to do?

"Rob from Peter for Paul, borrow from Paul, or do a combination of the both," said Richard Phillips, assistant to the city manager.

Adidas Makes a Flip Flop Called the Leucadian

amazon.com



YAAAAAAAAY BOOOOOOYEEEEE!

Yes on C Arguments are Really No on C Arguments

Reading through the Yes on C website, you'll find many compelling arguments for the clean water program.

The North County Times contains a Maggie Houlihan editorial that includes the following interesting information:

The program costs approximately $3.5 million annually: $1.3 million for operations and $2.2 million for capital projects. Encinitas land owners are being asked to approve a fixed $5 per month assessment for 10 years.

This will generate one-third, or $1.1 million annually, of the revenue needed to support the program. The remaining $2.4 million would continue to come from the city's general fund.

Encinitas enjoys an excellent quality of life and prides itself on well-maintained parks, roads, beaches, trails and natural open space. More than $50 million in revenue is pumped into our economy annually by beach visitors alone.


If the beaches alone generate $50 million then coughing up $3.5 million to maintain them is a no brainer. No need for a new tax, the beaches are paying for themselves.

The Prop C Burrito Analogy

I keep hearing how voting yes on C is only like giving up one burrito a month (that sucks if you only get to eat lunch 30 days a month instead of 31 but whatever). This burrito analogy is classic justification for the government to nickel and dime you for your entire adult life.



Prop C is unique because by it's nature we end up with some people in Encinitas all pitching in to buy one giant burrito everybody gets to take a bite of. The freeloaders taking their free bites of the burrito get to enjoy the burrito and call the people who paid for the burrito tightwads for being against buying the burrito when the city had enough in the burrito fund to begin with.





We all get to enjoy a bite of the burrito so the burrito should be paid for out of the general fund.

Shocking Display of Power

Monday, Jan. 23, in a shocking display of power, Kerry Miller ordered three different departments to send out teams to remove all Vote NO on C signs. The signs disappeared from the city - even many from private property. One woman called city hall and complained that her sign had been removed from her private property and her sign was returned to her. (talk about admission of guilt)



There is a siege mentality in this city. It's them against us. Unfortunately, they are using our tax dollars against us. They are determined, at any cost, to get what they want.

There is no level playing field and they know it. They have the money, the city employees and council members writing editorials. And this from a city who by state law is to take no active part either for or against a ballot measure.

Is this the United States or what?

There are so many illegal acts adding up that there can be no possible outcome but a lawsuit.

This Just In

Dear J.P.,

In the interest of balance, please add this post (below) to your website:
http://leucadia.blogspot.com/. Also, please add www.yesonpropc.org to your
links.

Thank you,

Steve Aceti

------

“Don’t be fooled by opponents of Prop C”

Patronize a local coffee house on a regular basis and you'll spend more than
a property owner in Encinitas will pay each year if voters approve
Proposition C. At $5 per month per meter, it's a small price to pay to
ensure that our streams, lagoons and beaches remain clean and healthy and
that there is room in the general fund for capital projects like the new
library. Based on recent polling, the proposed clean water fee will pass by
a large margin, notwithstanding the efforts of a group of “tax crusaders”
who sued the city to force an expensive election and now have the audacity
to fight it.

For more than a month, the Encinitas Taxpayers Association (ETA) has engaged
in a campaign of misinformation to distract voters from the facts. The ETA's
website and handouts are replete with false information and manufactured
quotes from local officials. The group’s members adhere to a policy of talk
loudly and, if that doesn't’t work, start yelling. It's a campaign of
desperation and, as a result, everything the ETA says and does should be
taken with a large grain of salt.

Here's what the opposition doesn't want voters to know. The city's Clean
Water Program is not a voluntary effort. State and federal laws require that
the city keep its waterways; lagoons and beaches free from bacteria and
pollutants. Compliance with these regulations, which were thrust upon local
governments without any funding, requires that the city install storm drain
filters, remove litter and debris from storm drains and beaches, treat storm
water run-off before it reaches the ocean, test ocean water at local
beaches, post signs warning surfers and others when water quality is not up
to standards and make information available online about water quality at
local beaches.

The city's Clean Water Program is vital to our local economy and quality of
life, but it has required extra personnel and equipment to carry it out. The
current cost of the program is $1.3 million dollars and the $5 fee will not
even cover the full cost of the program. Changes in regulations have caused
the city to increase its investment twice since the program was first
implemented in 1999 and the cost will go up again this year due to new
regulations.

The $5 fee will be fixed for ten years and it can't be renewed without voter
approval. The money generated by the fee will go to a dedicated fund which
will be overseen by a citizen's committee appointed by the city. Every city
in North County charges a clean water fee, but the Encinitas fee was the
only one met with a lawsuit. Don't be fooled by the opponents of Prop C.
They're fighting an uphill battle and running a dirty campaign that is an
insult to the intelligence of Encinitas residents who are smart enough to
cut through the smoke and mirrors. Vote yes on Prop C. www.yesonpropc.org.

Steve Aceti
Co-Chair
Encinitas Citizens for a Clean Ocean

1133 Second Street, Suite G
(760) 944-3564
(760) 944-7852 fax
steveaceti@calcoast.org
www.calcoast.org

Are You Entitled to a Vote But Will Pay Nothing?

The city spends $1.3 million yearly to monitor and maintain its storm drain system, which empties into the ocean, lagoons and creek that surround the city. If approved, the fee would generate an estimated $1.1 million per year for 10 years.

For a property owner with a single water meter, that adds up to $60 a year, or $600 over 10 years.

A property owner with two meters would pay twice that much. A property owner with no meters, even though entitled a vote, would pay nothing.

NCT link

The North County Times allows readers to post comments about the stories on the website. There is a comment from "Katherine" that is pretty classic.

Katherine wrote on January 21, 2006 7:31 PM:"Despite the tripling of property values in the past five years, and the welfare that is Prop. 13, nothing has changed when it comes to asking wealthy property owners to contribute their fair share. 99% cry poverty when it comes to chipping in for infrastructure, schools, etc., yet they're first in line to sue when a city sewer line breaks and keeps them from getting their Hummer to Starbucks in a timely manner. Not surprising the "ME FIRST" generation would again fail to provide a healthy future for the generations to come. Greedy much? "

If prop C passes it will be because of mush head poser hippies like Katherine. She seems to think that every single person who owns a home in Encinitas is a high rolling yuppie lawyer tearing around town in an H3 spilling that nasty ass coffee known as Starbucks on their lame shirt from Banana Republic.
If Katherine would stop and meditate and light some homemade incense from the farmer's market she would realize that yes, there are actually old people living in Encinitas.
Old people are sometimes called senior citizens and some of these senior citizens have lived in Encinitas since like, I dunno...at least the 80's or something.
Senior citizens are on these wacky things called fixed incomes. It's because these freeloading senior citizens got too old and feeble to show up for their jobs (yeah right, lazy bums) and now eek out the rest of their pathetic lives on something called social security.
These crazy "ME FIRST" senior citizens once sacrificed a lot to fight off these jerks called the Nazis. I think it was for selfish reasons.
Anyway, Katherine says she hates the "welfare" that is Prop 13 but also hates people who don't pay their fair share. The funny thing is, in the article she commented on it clearly states that not everyone will pay if prop C passes. That sounds really FAIR Katherine!
Not everyone who owns a home in Encinitas is wealthy. Some people have owned their homes for a long time, at least before the rest of the world discovered our small town, rushed in, tripled the prices, tripled the population and tripled the runoff.
So Katherine, do you own a home with a water meter?

Why should only people with water meters pay for a program that benefits everyone?

Greedy much?



Yo, Whistler's mom! Get out of your chair and write Kerry Miller a check for $60 bucks pronto.

Return Your Prop C Ballot by Certified Mail

If you want to be a total pain in the ass return your ballot by certified mail. That way somebody at the city has to sign for it and you get a receipt.

I Challenge You to Adopt a New Attitude....

Contents of letter to Glenn Sabine dated January 19, 2006:

Mr. Sabine,

I wonder if you would be kind enough to clarify for me and the rest of Encinitas the advice you gave Council regarding proceeding with the mail ballot for Proposition C based primarily on stipulations in the Jarvis Taxpayers Association Settlement (hereinafter, JTPA Settlement). I also have a couple of other questions that were not resolved to my satisfaction and I hope you will entertain them too.

First, you advised Council to proceed with the mail ballot as they have been planning to for a couple of months now. My understanding is that your opinion relies almost entirely on the stipulation in the JTPA Settlement that the fee issue must go to a vote at the earliest opportunity. Did this stipulation preclude ironing out problems beforehand or endorse voting before all the details could be thoroughly researched? I know the JTPA Settlement prescribes a deadline of the first available voting date, but is that not a factor that could tolerate discretion? If the ballot measure is not ready to be voted on for whatever reason, would it not be judicious to pause and suffer the possible consequences rather than to plunge headlong into additional problems while blindly excusing any duty to exercise better judgment by claiming that you are bent on obeying the letter of the law?

Or, more appropriately, wouldn't it be prudent to consider the ballot logistics unresolved, acknowledge a valid challenge to the appropriateness of a mail ballot and prescribe a delay in the ballot to allow these questions to be remedied? I find it difficult to understand how you can proceed with a mail ballot if this fee is really a tax masquerading as a fee. Just because it was deemed a fee in the JTPA Settlement? Certainly if you saw some benefit to delaying the proceedings you would find a way; that fact is no secret to any interested observer.

Let me now turn to another aspect that troubles me. If the purpose of the proposed ballot is to determine the will of the people, how can the Councilmembers endorse and you fail to warn them, that including City property in the group that will receive ballots is tantamount to putting thousands of votes in the hands of a very small, biased entity -- namely City Council or Staff. How can it be remotely fair for 5 people to control the votes correlating with all of the City owned property? That certainly challenges the one person/one vote concept, doesn't it? And what about the prospect of large developers who likewise control numerous parcels -- are they not also in a position to distort the true agenda of the people by virtue of their control of more than one vote?

Additionally, in all the foregoing discussion, the ballot was to be directed to all property owners with water meters, rather than all parcel owners. This is a major difference and one which was sprung upon us in chambers while the Councilmembers were anxiously awaiting their opportunity to place their votes. If you were attempting to play fairly and avoid creating an adversarial relationship between residents and their elected officials, you failed miserably by allowing such a major change to go undisclosed until a vote by Councilmembers was imminent.

I admit resolving this equitably requires creativity. Perhaps you are not currently tasked to think outside the rigid confines of the letter of the law; and that is regrettable because you have missed an opportunity to aid our City Council and our City's residents and, instead, have directed us all down a path that promises only greater conflict and waste.

I challenge you to adopt a new attitude toward your role as City Attorney and I challenge you to begin right away. There is a greater good called Justice, that should be served by the application of law. When the application of law fails to serve Justice, then it is the duty of every individual to correct the offending law, including you, Sir. Surely you witnessed an opportunity to do just that last night.

It occurs to me that you may not feel obligated to respond, inasmuch as you answer to the City Council and do not see yourself beholding to the residents of the City of Encinitas. But perhaps it does not completely elude you that the Councilmembers serve at the pleasure of the voters of Encinitas, so expanding your viewpoint to do what is best for the community should not escape your gaze. It is with great empathy that I acknowledge the weight of the responsibility that rests on your shoulders, while I remain somewhat disappointed in what appears to be your adversarial attitude toward the members of the community who may disagree with your interpretation of the law on occasion. I trust you will find a way to overcome your anticipated reticence to consider my request for a reply.

I look forward to receiving your correspondence,

Bob Evermore

I would like to add that if Mr. Sabine does not change his attitude then perhapes he could change his latitude.

Who Is Going to Count the Votes? Trustworthy?

Burning questions:

Who is counting the mail in ballots? Can we trust them?

Do you trust the postal service to get your ballot to the city on time?

Can you drop the ballot off at City Hall? And if so, how do you know your NO vote won't be thrown in the trash?

Many of the NO on C signs posted around town are suddenly missing. Who tore them down?

Who is in charge of this election?

update, from Enc Taxpayers Assoc. website:

* Votes are going to be collected by the city and counted by one of the city’s paid consultants.

Who out there wants to count them for free?

Dirty Tricks

Council chose a water meter tax and a trash bill collection process rather than a more equitable property tax collected by the county so that it would only need 50 plus % of the votes rather than the legitimate 66.6% tax requirement.

The water meter tax is unfair because single family homeowners will be required to pay almost all the tax. Approximately 1/3 of all Encinitas residents will not pay the water meter tax and business will not pay their share.

To read more Dirty Tricks by the Encinitas City Council click here.