.
Feedback

Opinion

Disagree with your neighbor? Don't just stew over it; write about it. Flag as Inappropriate

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Posts awaiting your approval 0
Vicki Campbell June 17, 2013 at 04:42 pm
Prop A will help residents and stop greedy developers from buying city council. Vote YES
Rick Moore June 18, 2013 at 09:27 am
I wholeheartedly agree with the recommendation that folks read the initiative. When you readRead More sections 6 and 9, you will see that Prop A sets a 30-foot or 2-story ceiling across the entire city, overriding lower height limits in many areas. The Downtown Specific Plan limits residences to 22-26 feet, as detailed on the DEMA website, so Prop A would actually allow the building of taller homes. It makes no exemptions or allowances for historic buildings like La Paloma, church towers or other structures over 30 feet high; the only exceptions are medical complexes and public high schools (see clause 6.2). Rebuilding or renovating (more than 50%) would require expensive public votes. Should the SRF be required to pay for an election to rebuild the Lotus Tower? Such contingencies are allowed for in our Historic Overlay Zone, which would clearly be overridden by Prop A. So is the Encinitas Preservation Association's plan to convert one of the boathouses to a museum. Again, Prop A would require an election (see section 4.1, clause e), which the EPA cannot afford. Prop A would thus favor large developers who have the money, time, lawyers and other resources to campaign for their project. How many nonprofits and small businessmen can afford to spend a minimum $30,000 just to get their project on a general election ballot (upwards of $300,000 for a special election like this one)? Yes, folks, please read the initiative, especially Section 9, which lays waste to anything that conflicts with it. That's why this has been dubbed Propzilla. I trust that most Encinitas citizens are smart enough to see that this meausre is deeply flawed, problematic and counter-productive. We can find much better ways to limit growth and preserve community character.
BlueAngel2 June 18, 2013 at 10:20 am
SAVE ENCINITAS FROM RANCID DEVELOPERS. VOTE YES ON PROP A!
BlueAngel2 June 8, 2013 at 11:20 am
It just goes to show if Stocks or any of his puppets are involved, you will not hear the truth aboutRead More this proposition. They continue to confuse the issue. Please do not throw your vote away to ruin our city and enhance the developer's pockets who do not care what they do to our beautiful Encinitas. Vote YES on PROP A!
Status Quo June 19, 2013 at 11:53 am
Looks very much like your Prop A will pass, though 'BA2's tactic seems to be part of the problemRead More also.
BlueAngel2 June 4, 2013 at 10:40 am
Vote YES on PROP A! The City Council is not experienced in real estate, zoning, construction orRead More development to make decisions for us.
CardiffCreature June 4, 2013 at 10:44 am
Prop A will not control growth. It will make sure that BOTH the council and the public get toRead More directly weigh in on the deals being brokered between big developers and the city. This won't end the indirect developer subsidies, but it sure will help.
Lynn Marr June 6, 2013 at 02:26 am
Yes, it will help to slow growth, by making sure that the public approves raising height limits orRead More upzoning, for developments over the parameters of a MAXIMUM of 30 ft. and two stories. Lower set height limits will not be repealed, because they are not in conflict with the initiative or the General Plan. David Ahlgren's fear and speculation is not backed up by one single fact. He just raises the usual building industry "mantra" of alleged risks created by unnamed "unintended consequences." Council's attempt at a preemptive ordinance does NOT guarantee that will be placed on the ballot in 2014, and does NOT eliminate other loopholes such as the "less-than-5-acre" exception, the "categorization of intensity of use" exception, and the height limit exception. The only loophole that Council's drafted ordinance affects is Council's ability to vote by a 4/5 supermajority on upzoing if it is done with respect to a "significant public benefit." Not only is Council's recently drafted ordinance NOT guaranteed, in that a future Council could reverse it, if it is not enacted through a public vote, but also Council's attempt at preempting the "right to vote on upzoning and raising height limits initiative" DOESN"T eliminate the other loopholes that still exist in our General Plan, Policy 3.12., which exceptions I've spelled out, here.
Lynn Marr June 6, 2013 at 02:37 am
An initiative to Prop A has worked in Escondido, without any lawsuits. "In the 26-yearRead More history of Encinitas, no council has ever used this provision to approve a major project without first a vote of the people." That's completely untrue. The North 101 and Downtown Encinitas Specific Plans were pushed through by the Planning Department, the Planning Commission and a supermajority of past Council AGAINST the wishes of citizens, against years of feedback from Specific Action Review Committees (Sparc)s and Community Advisory Boards (CABs), who wanted to stay with the limits of the General Plan of two stories, 30 ft, MAX, with certain exceptions, consistent with the Initiative! Just posting your opinion without any supporting evidence, Mr. Stocks, is only hurting your "cause." We and everyone we know, all our friends and neighbors, are voting YES on A! Voting YES is best if you want to take back your ability to help slow growth and to take back local control. Yes on A is a vote for Democracy and against insider influence and spinmaster jive promoted by marketing masters of misinformation, attempting to manipulate the uninformed masses with distortions of the truth. We don't need to be spoon-fed our opinions, but can think for ourselves, and act to protect and preserve our community character and our quality of life.
Greg Hay June 6, 2013 at 07:19 pm
Lies, lies and more lies. That's all the supporters of "No on Prop A" can come up with.Read More Even their slogan is weak and devoid of anything of substance… "It's not what it seems"… Really, THAT'S your argument against it?
BlueAngel2 June 6, 2013 at 07:22 pm
YES on PROP A which is NOT deeply flawed and very well written.
BlueAngel2 June 1, 2013 at 06:33 pm
Vote YES on PROP A
Lynn Marr June 2, 2013 at 02:55 am
We are, and so glad everyone I know will be. Thanks BlueAngel! Vote Yes so that we can be the BESTRead More we can be!
Greg Hay June 6, 2013 at 07:20 pm
Lies, lies and more lies. That's all the supporters of "No on Prop A" can come up with.Read More Even their slogan is weak and devoid of anything of substance… "It's not what it seems"… Really, THAT'S your argument against it?
Lynn Marr June 2, 2013 at 02:53 am
I'm voting yes to take back local control in Encinitas, to give the electorate the freedom to decideRead More if and when we want to raise the height limits delineated in the General Plan, of 30 ft., MAX and two stories, not including basements, by being able to VOTE. Voting is the truest neighborhood needs assessment! Most people I know are smart enough to see through the hype of the No on A "special interests" who are pro-development. We won't be manipulated by fear of so-called, vague "unintended consequences," and outright falsehoods about not being able to remodel, etc. Passing Prop A will not put anyone in an HOA, lol. With passage of Prop A we will be able to remodel, to preserve pre-existing historic sites and structures. We still could apply for minor or major use permits without having to rezone, with respect to creating a museum out of one of the Boathouses, for example. Vested property rights will remain in effect for those structures already exceeding the maximum originally allowed in the GP, and with elevated pads. I'm looking forward to a new day in Encinitas, where we can more fully participate in the democratic process. Public input was overruled by the Planning Commission, the Planning Dept. and a supermajority of past councilmembers with respect to Specific Plans. Those of us who served on Specific Action Review Committees and Community Advisory Boards wanted to approve mixed use, to allow Artists to have studios above their galleries, and artisans to have living quarters above their lofts. That's how mixed use was sold to us. But what happened was so different, and discounted the many hours we contributed, and contributed, before, through the North Coast Coalition to Incorporate Encinitas, to take back local control! We, and everyone we know, will be voting YES on A!
Greg Hay June 6, 2013 at 09:00 pm
Jerome Stocks, the man who ruined so much of Encinitas already that the voters overwhelmingly votedRead More him out last election… wants to keep ruining Encinitas. Thanks, buddy.
BlueAngel2 June 4, 2013 at 04:56 pm
YES, YES, YES on PROP A. The citizens of Encinitas will vote to do the right thing.
Greg Hay June 6, 2013 at 07:19 pm
Lies, lies and more lies. That's all the supporters of "No on Prop A" can come up with.Read More Even their slogan is weak and devoid of anything of substance… "It's not what it seems"… Really, THAT'S your argument against it?
Greg Hay June 6, 2013 at 07:24 pm
But then again, if anyone would be considered an expert on 'deeply flawed' legislation, it wouldRead More undoubtedly the person Encinitas citizens just voted out of office (presumably because ofoverall incompetence), Jerome Stocks.
BlueAngel2 June 2, 2013 at 07:18 pm
Because Stocks is voting NO, we will VOTE YES ON PROP A
Lynn Marr June 3, 2013 at 01:53 am
Right, BlueAngel; he helps the YES on A campaign, lol.
Greg Hay June 6, 2013 at 07:31 pm
I have to admit, Mr. Stock won me over with his reasoned, well-research, and thoroughly logicRead More arguments here, concisely pointing out both the pros and the cons. Because we all know, if anyone would be considered an expert on legislation, it would undoubtedly the person Encinitas citizens just voted out of office (presumably because of overall incompetence), Jerome Stocks.
Jerome Stocks June 1, 2013 at 04:16 pm
www.encinitashope.com
CardiffCreature June 4, 2013 at 11:04 am
These types of housing will be adopted by the people of Encinitas when the city council brokers fairRead More deals with the big developers. Don't forget that Prop A doesn't require a vote for major developments if the developers want to develop within their rights.
Jay Berman June 4, 2013 at 11:12 am
Encinitas is pretty much built out, what would a "big" developer develop ? Property ownersRead More should be able to rebuild or remodle or modify their properrties with limited interference from government. We should allow the height limit to go to 33' from 30' so a third story may be built as long as it doesn't interfere with views and it fits in .. We do need more housing and many of the structures in Encinitas are old and falling apart. We need common sense, not more laws and hate for "big" develpers get you nowhere ...
Jay Berman June 6, 2013 at 10:04 am
I think direct democracy doesn't work. Citizens will vote on emotion or hate for developers. WeRead More elect city council to make these decisions. We let our council know how we feel before they make decisions, we show up at council meetings ... ballot box development is just a very bad idea ...
BlueAngel2 June 6, 2013 at 11:32 am
I have already voted and my vote was not out of emotion or hate for developers. If we want ourRead More wishes to be known and heard then voting on an issue is the way to go. Vote YES on PROP A!
Lynn Marr June 7, 2013 at 04:54 am
Jay, thank goodness California has state law which allows for public initiatives. The legislatorsRead More felt, and the public concurs, through populist movements, that direct democracy can and does work. If that were not the case, then why trust the public to vote on ANYTHING, or for ANYONE? I feel that most people in this city can think for themselves, and will VOTE YES to allow the public to vote, in the future, in elections paid for by developers, on whether or not we want to upzone or raise height limits.
SusanT June 4, 2013 at 10:19 pm
No "dueling attorneys": the General Plan now reads max height 30' and no one in theRead More Planning Dept interprets that to mean one must build to 30' and no less; there is no reason to believe that with Prop A, the Planning Dept will change how it interprets the words "max height 30'." The Coastal Commission gets involved only if a structure or zone tries to be less restrictive (denser, taller) than the max allows. More restrictive, no Coastal Commission approval needed.
SusanT June 4, 2013 at 10:28 pm
The Rutan report is the source of Sabine's opinion; however, where the Rutan analysis wasRead More speculative, Sabine seems to have turned the "ifs," "maybes," and "potentiallys" into absolutes.
Lynn Marr June 6, 2013 at 02:57 am
Lorri, Mr. Sabine, our outgoing, we hope, City Attorney, categorically LIED with respect to hisRead More impartial analysis. It was NOT impartial, and turned the pro-development impact report's speculation and conjecture into a blatant untruth, from "could be construed to raise certain residential height limits," to "WOULD" raise lower set height limits. This was explained to Council, but they wanted to swallow the "bilge" of the Orange-County law firm's prejudiced report, designed to create confusion and manipulate the public and Council with fear. Everett DeLano, the land use and environmental specialist attorney who wrote the initiative, answered Council's question on Page 60 of the 3/12 Staff Report, on the City's Municipal Election webpage. Only those parts of Specific Plans, policy or Encinitas Municipal Code which are in CONFLICT with the initiative will be "superseded" by it. The 30 ft., two story height MAXIMUM of the initiative is consistent with the same language in the General Plan, which has NEVER been challenged by developers wanting to raise lower set residential height limits. http://archive.ci.encinitas.ca.us/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=697346&dbid=0 Delano wrote and filed a three page letter with the City, which is part of the 3-12-13 Special City Council Meeting Agenda Report (Pages 60-63), in which he states: The Initiative Does Not Increase Maximum Heights “The Report asserts that the Initiative “could be interpreted to increase the maximum height for certain buildings and structures.” (Report at 15.) This is incorrect. The initiative provides a maximum overall height limit. And while it specifically repeals Zoning Code Section 30.16.010(B)(6)(d) (relating to the determination of finished pad elevation), the Initiative does NOT repeal other sections Code, including Section 30.16.010(B)(6)(a) (relating to height limits for residential buildings). The Report’s reference to Section 9.1 of the Initiative is misplaced, since that Section supersedes provisions ‘which are in conflict.’ Since Section 30.16.010(B)(6)(a) is not in conflict with the maximum height limit in Section 6.1, it is not affected by the Initiative.”
Karen May 29, 2013 at 06:16 pm
How can we find out how much the posters went for? I had a bid on 2 of them, but couldn't make theRead More auction. Guess I didn't get either because I would have been contacted by now, right?
Julie Ann Stricklin May 30, 2013 at 12:29 pm
Hey Karen! What numbers did you bid on and how can I reach you? There were about 12 banners that didRead More not sell. Let me know how you reach you and I will get that info to you :)
BlueAngel2 May 29, 2013 at 08:59 pm
City Council members are afraid to take on the developers for fear they may not get reelected toRead More another term. They are selling the citizens of Encinitas for the developer's money and votes. We, the citizens of Encinitas, will decide their fate come election time. Vote YES on PROP A.
Lynn Marr June 6, 2013 at 03:03 am
We are voting YES, and recommending that all our friends and neighbors do so, too!
Kimberly June 1, 2013 at 06:23 am
But Batman, why should you be able to have a family when there are so many orphans in the world?Read More Isn't the earth over-populated as it is? Maybe you and your wife should just concentrate on your careers.
Batman June 1, 2013 at 09:03 am
No, the world is not overpopulated. This zero population growth scheme is anti-humanist (Luciferian)Read More doctrine. Humans only live about 75 years. It wouldn't take long for widespread birth control and abortion to wipe us out. Exterminating humanity is the ultimate goal of marxism, facism, feminism, totalitarianism and every other "ism" on the planet.
Kimberly June 1, 2013 at 09:32 am
(Was being sarcastic)
Frank H. Robles May 17, 2013 at 06:34 pm
He should have been locked up with buddy "Duke Cunningham", they both took money from theRead More same contractor, who's also in Jail...!!!
Status Quo May 19, 2013 at 11:49 am
Thanks Arthur, For charting a path, for some Republicans who lost their own way. As our currentRead More President attempts to spin things his way, cogent thinking Republicans will pick their way through the morass - created from bad management and being lied to by their Government in-power. The Wiki-like views expressed in some comments here, is simply not reality - but does come-across as grasping at straws to stuff their own straw man argumentums being propped-up by the left. This path is yellow-brick wishfulness to pull-off, and tricky as truth catches up to knock 'em down over time. At this time, the Monkeys of Mayhem are flying with both wings a flappin' - causing sweat to well up for the man behind the curtain and trying to look in control. Why does, that US Constitution continually get in Mr. Obama's way?... Process, which Mr. Issa is following - to inconvenience of the lever puller. Checks and balances, is a hinderance to President Obama's ideology, and he seems to find disgust in the Limitations of Government prescribed in the Bill of Rights?
Batman May 19, 2013 at 08:52 pm
Go get 'em Darrell! Melt the wax man down!
BlueAngel2 May 20, 2013 at 11:19 am
I was under the impression that posts were not to be insulting to other posters, but it appearsRead More Stocks takes a lot of liberty in that area. I guess we should assume that is the "nature of the beast" so to speak. He has a bad habit of name calling when people don't have the same views as he does.
Daniel Woolfolk (Editor) May 21, 2013 at 11:37 am
BlueAngel, I hadn't seen that one. I deleted. Please flag comments that you feel are inappropriateRead More and that will help out. I don't look at every comment. Also, I would urge you to change your user name to your real name. People who use their real names do have more leeway and their comments tend to be more constructive than those of anonymous accounts.
BlueAngel2 May 21, 2013 at 06:24 pm
Thank you Daniel. I will stick with my current user name. It is effective.
Donald Sonck May 14, 2013 at 09:04 pm
Waxman couldn't "fight" his way out of a wet paper bag, let alone on his political votingRead More record.He has been a wacko liberal California Conressman for far too long! Now he's joining forces with his Senate contemporary, Barbara Blockhead, err, Boxer, to pass carbon tax legislation....yet another job-killing measure for the entire country! These are just a couple of far too many looney-tunes representing our state in Washington. Maxine Waters is another. Love your blogs, Arthur!
Arthur Christopher Schaper May 14, 2013 at 09:19 pm
David: Please follow me on Twitter @ArthurCSchaper Please also visit: waxmanwatch.blogspot.comRead More Spread the Word -- End the Reign of Waxman the Taxman!
Arthur Christopher Schaper May 14, 2013 at 09:22 pm
Indeed, Issa is going after bigger fish, of Leviathan proportions! Benghazi-gate, Solyndra-gateRead More Fast and Furious-gate, IRS-gate, EPA-gate The Obama Administration has been a "gated community" of corruption and scandal. Only now the "floodgates" of media scrunity had to be unleashed, or else they would lose what little credibility they have left.
Frank H. Robles May 14, 2013 at 02:00 am
Oh Yeah...!!! KG ...LOL with you...!!! Good sense of Humor on a lot of your post's...!!!
Arthur Christopher Schaper May 14, 2013 at 06:51 pm
At this point, who cares where Mr. Stevens "shoved his show." He died serving hisRead More country, yet the Chief Executive and his state department did not serve him. It's time to shove the "Obama side-show" out of Washington for good.
Komfort May 14, 2013 at 07:02 pm
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57584252/benghazi-timeline-how-the-probe-unfolded/?tag=socsh
Debbie3231 May 7, 2013 at 10:38 am
My heart breaks when I read these stories. However, we all need to be reminded every day the painRead More and suffering of the millions and millions of innocent and defenseless animals who suffer at the hands of humanity. I will never understand for as long as I live how mankind can be so callous and brutal in the way they are able to treat the defenseless and why. Thanks for your letter and reminder to us all.