.
Feedback

City Council Lifts Banner Ban with New Display Policy

Councilmembers also directed staff to expedite the banner permit process for the 101 Artists' Colony, which produces the annual Arts Alive program.

The Encinitas City Council Wednesday night unanimously approved a new banner display policy, which lifted the ban in time for this year’s Arts Alive program. 

The council also directed city staff to expedite the banner permit process for the 101 Artists' Colony, which produces the program, so the organization can print its banners later this month.

"We've got some sponsors ready to go and maybe you could do us a favor," said 101 Artists' Colony President Danny Salzhandler before the vote.

The banner permit process was suspended in April after the city was threatened with legal action for blocking banners with the image of late Encinitas Councilwoman Maggie Houlihan. The Artists’ 101 Colony covered Houlihan’s picture with vinyl stickers after the city deemed the image violated banner rules.

The council established a subcommittee during its Aug. 22 meeting to revise the rules regarding the use of light poles for the city’s downtown banner program and appointed Councilman James Bond and Councilman Mark Muir to the committee. The council was unable to reach a consensus on the wording of the ordinance during its Sept. 26 meeting. 

Bond said Wednesday night that the issue had turned into an “attorney slugfest.”

“I’d like to think that the citizens of Encinitas could follow common sense and the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law, because we’re never going to be able to make that letter perfect,” he said.

The new law clarifies the intended purpose of the banners, specifies that banners not related to specific events not be displayed for more than 90 days and gives the council the right to terminate the banner program at any time.

The policy permits banners that promote or depict civic events such as art festivals, athletic events and car shows, as well as city points of interest, attractions and milestones. The policy prohibits the promotion or depiction of living political figures, however.

Council candidate Lisa Shaffer pointed out that the new policy would have permitted banners with Houlihan’s image.

“If this proposed ordinance had been in effect, Maggie’s image would have been allowed,” she said. “So, what’s the point?”

Shaffer also questioned the reasoning behind a sentence in the proposed ordinance that stated, "The purpose of this section is to avoid public controversy regarding the perception of any such figures, either positive or negative."

“Why is that a legitimate goal for the city?” Shaffer asked. “Why are we censoring art in order to control what people perceive about public officials?”

Councilwoman Teresa Barth suggested the council remove the sentence. The rest of the council agreed prior to the vote, including Muir, who said he didn’t want the process to become paralyzed by overanalysis.

“I want to go forward with this thing,” he said.

Follow us on Twitter | Like us on Facebook | Sign up for our daily newsletter

Chris may October 11, 2012 at 10:23 am
All this time and money wasted because Stocks did not want anyone to honor a council member that died in office.
Bruce Stephens October 11, 2012 at 11:21 am
You can be that when Stocks passes, no one in here in Encinitas will be putting his face on any banners. A dart board, maybe.
Cyrus Kamada October 11, 2012 at 12:05 pm
I'm very surprised that no mention is made in this article about the "SignGate" controversy which drew several speakers, including the Encinitas resident who captured Stocks and Muir placing signs illegally, Joseph Corder. In his appearance, Joe responded to Mayor Stocks' attempt to smear him by sending out video of an earlier appearance by Joe before the council in 2010. In that appearance, he attacked Councilwomen Teresa Barth ( then up for reelection ) and Maggie Houlihan. He later spoke with Ms. Barth, and after hearing her side of the story, he apologized. It turns out that Mayor Stocks supplied Joe Corder with the script and video he used in that attack, the same video he is now trying to smear Joe Corder with. Disgusting.
Here is a link to the Channel 10 News coverage of last night's city council meeting. Very curious that there is no mention of this in the article above. http://www.10news.com/news/encinitas-mayor-councilman-blasted-for-putting-up-campaign-signs-before-allowed
Chris Thomas October 11, 2012 at 01:01 pm
Stocks thinks this is a big joke. His team has created an attack video on Mrs Houlihan, is sending out fake emails pretending to align with the open government groups and it appears that one of Stock's henchmen, a guy from Oceanside named Andreen and Stocks himself are filling the local blogs with misinformation under assumed names.
We need citizens to inform themselves to the fact that the Stocks//Muir group will handle this campaign just like their video indicates. No ethic and no regrets. Why are the illegal signs still up? Will they be going down two days earlier? Vote for an open and ethical city council. Vote for Krantz and Schaffer.
Chris Thomas October 11, 2012 at 01:43 pm
Looks like the unerhical Stocks/Muir political machine is at work. A large fake email is out pretending to support Schaffer and attacking Mrs Hiulihan, council member Barth, the Coast News owner, Krantz and more.
Please people, inform yourselves and let's get a council we can feel good about. Twelve years of this is enough.
Robert Paulson October 11, 2012 at 08:42 pm
True that!
Robert Paulson October 11, 2012 at 08:53 pm
Stocks is there because he won the election. The only way to get rid of him is to vote him OUT. The people (special interest money) of Encinitas got what they voted for. It's time for the people of Encinitas who have neglected their civic duty in the past to get out of their ruts and vote. If you do not vote, Stocks will win again
Lynn Marr October 12, 2012 at 11:20 pm
I am grateful people came to the 10/10 Encinitas Council Meeting to protest Stocks' disregard of the law, in particular his improperly suspending current law so that no applications for banner or sign permits in the public right of way were accepted April 1, for FIVE MONTHS!
If we sit on our hands, our freedoms will continue to be abridged by bullies, who use their power to rob us of our individual liberties, our neighborhood cohesion, and our community's diversity in character. Stocks, as we know, doesn't follow parliamentary procedure or Roberts Rules of Order. He unilaterally shortens our allotted time to speak, as listed on the agenda, while allowing City and Water District reports to go on interminably. These should be restricted to no more than half an hour, particularly when there is a full agenda and many public speakers. Instead, the public's right to speak is taken away and a "connected" few, special interests, get to go on an on, approaching or for more than an hour! After the bad publicity for Jerome Stocks, associated with what's being called "Sign-Gate," we now discover he, in conjunction with the city manager, who seems to "jump" at Stocks' command, have now cancelled the October 17 Council Meeting! This decision, to cancel a regularly scheduled Council Meeting, was accomplished behind closed doors, without public input. It certainly APPEARS to be a futile attempt to stop the public from being able to "weigh in" during oral communications!
Lynn Marr October 12, 2012 at 11:27 pm
All of Encinitas Council should be calling out points of order, at Council Meetings, objecting to outgoing Mayor Jerome Stocks' actions. Councilmember Mark Muir, when he said he supported Councilmember Teresa Barth's motion on lifting the ban on banners, at the 8/22 Council Meeting, should have corrected, “I mean that as a second! “
Then Council could have voted. Instead, a bogus subcommittee was appointed, an alternative not on the agenda, so no public speakers could address or object to the advisability of that move to delay and extend the banning of freedom of expression within a limited public forum. As usual, the subcommittee idea didn't come up until the public hearing portion of the discussion had been closed. Stocks has the audacity to blatantly manipulate the agenda, to take things off the agenda, to CANCEL a Council Meeting without a vote. Stocks effectively changed the law in order to ban banners, while trying to do retroactive damage control . . . in a futile attempt to cover-up or excuse his violations of the Constitution and EMC. He then proceeded, through his bogus subcommittee, at the wrongful advise of our biased (toward Stocks) City Attorney, to codify the very abuse of discretion to which lawyers, artists and the general public objected!
Lynn Marr October 12, 2012 at 11:42 pm
Stocks, in his flagrant disregard for the letter of the law, demonstrates he thinks he is the law, & therefore above it. The issue of campaign sign law is not about hours or days; it's about Stocks' hypocrisy in his lack of respect for the public trust, for our Constitutional & common law rights, our property rights: our right to pursue happiness while causing no harm.
Stocks appears to think he can break the law with impunity, going so far as to say at the Forum on Tuesday that Encinitas Municipal Code is not law! The ordinances which comprise EMC are city law, & can have the repercussions of a fine or charges of a misdemeanor violation, if someone is found guilty of violating one or more of them. Like outgoing, convicted Mayor Dan Dalager, before him, Stocks has been talking out of both sides of his mouth. With one face he calls for decorum, while the other side threatens us with the “big guns” of a bully, who disregards, disrespects and attempts to devalue the voice of the community as we ask our representatives to stand for truth and our freedom to enjoy & be grateful for our quality of life. Stocks has been a bully in his arrogance & contempt for "detractors." We know how he avoids eye contact with those of us with whom he disagrees , when we speak from the dais at Council Meetings. We know how he threatens to eject members of the public for allegedly not obeying his rules, yet, now, he asks us to put our trust in him by voting for him! No way!
Robert Paulson October 13, 2012 at 12:02 am
Corrupt politicians begin in the business world at the local level or in the military, then enter local politics to further their own interests and work their way up in the system picking up allies with special interests who help finance them. Dump Stocks now or you will see him running at the state level in the future.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Encinitas Patch? Find your Local Patch »

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
gay_wayland June 16, 2013 at 06:20 am
when and where is the sale? Where should donations be taken?
Dr. Michele Drake June 19, 2013 at 11:50 am
The benefit garage and bake sale is this Saturday, June 22 from 7 a.m. to noon at 1463 Golden SunsetRead More Drive in San Marcos (San Elijo Hills). Here's the link to the event: http://encinitas.patch.com/groups/events/p/drake-center-garage-sale-to-benefit-autism-therapy-dog_3a2145e8
Dr. Michele Drake June 19, 2013 at 11:50 am
All donated items can be dropped off at The Drake Center, located at 195 N. El Camino Real inRead More Encinitas.
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 15, 2013 at 09:47 pm
It would NOT surprise me. I thought we dumped Stocks. Why is he still around?
Encinitas YES on A June 16, 2013 at 02:44 pm
My YES on Prop. A sign was stolen yesterday. Other YES on Prop. A signs are disappearing. YetRead More another deceptive and untruthful mailer from the opponents of Prop. A was in my mail box. There's a shrillness and desperation in their opposition. They can't rely on facts and fair play. Polling data not looking good?
BlueAngel2 June 16, 2013 at 03:17 pm
YES ON PROP A will be victorious!
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.
TB-ENC June 7, 2013 at 02:01 pm
How is this not a racist group with Hispanics in California at 14 million second behind whites atRead More 14.8 million. We only need one chamber to represent all Californians.
BlueAngel2 June 8, 2013 at 02:09 pm
So any group other than white is a racist group?
Miranda Klassen June 5, 2013 at 10:39 am
Congrats to all on the groundbreaking. Reesey has done an incredible job with making Lux what it isRead More today!
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.