Friday, May 31, 2013
Wednesday, May 29, 2013
New Leucadia Instagram
Follow them @leucadia101mainstreet and use the hash tag #loveleucadia if you are into this sort of thing.
http://instagram.com/leucadia101mainstreet
Thursday, May 16, 2013
Wednesday, May 08, 2013
Rae Armantrout Brings the Ruckus
Sorry to hassle you all with another boring apolitical post, but you might want to consider attending the Ducky Waddle's Poetry Ruckus tonight (Wed May 8th). We are featuring Rae Armantrout, who is a professor of Poetry and Poetics at UCSD and was the 2010 recipient of the Pulitzer Prize for Poetry.
Ducky Waddle's Emporium (414 N Coast Hy 101) opens doors at 7PM, local poets perform at 7:30 and our distinguished guest goes on at 9 PM.
Check out the Coast news article on our guest speaker (clicky clicky)
Monday, May 06, 2013
Sunday, May 05, 2013
Toxic train accident in Belgium reminds us of local danger
News story: Toxic chemicals on fire after train crashes in Belgium
See also Leucadia blog post from 2008
Add this to the list of your daily paranoia. It's not hard to imagine a Santa Fe freight train having an accident in the Leucadia corridor. Imagine toxic smoke blanketing homes, apartments, businesses, Paul Ecke Central elementary school, the Head Start pre-school, etc.
Saturday, May 04, 2013
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)