In The Coast News article, “Contributions rolling in for Prop A,” (June 7), Christie Guerin says Prop A has “drawbacks.” I beg to differ.
Prop A allows citizens to vote yes or no on high density projects, maintaining a greater measure of control over excessive changes to their own neighborhoods. Why not?
As a member of the board of North County Advocates (I live in Leucadia), I voted to spend some of NCA’s money on Prop A and have contributed some to its passage myself.
The people supporting Prop A have a proud record.
In Encinitas, we brought you Cottonwood Creek Park, Moonlight Creek Park, Indianhead Canyon, and the Hall property park. One of our special friends followed the landscaping on Leucadia Boulevard to Highway 101, pressuring for its beauty. Like it?
In Carlsbad, the City Council had to form their Facilities Management Plan (FMP) and put it on the ballot in order to defeat the citizen’s initiative (much like Prop A) controlling growth. The FMP requires developers to pay for the city services their developments require — like new roads, park space, more police and firemen, and expanded library space. Otherwise, all residents would pay to accommodate the developer’s development bringing more traffic and more neighbors.
Our people also kept the developer from blowing up the waterfall in the canyon off Cadensia.
City Planners are paid out of developer fees. The more they build and the denser it is, the higher their six figure wages and pension plans. Wake up. Learn to love democracy and take responsibility for your city.
Very truly yours,
A repetitive barrage of lies
Opponents of Prop A are losing ground and are running scared. They are resorting to established tactics of clinically certified Sociopath liars by misrepresenting the truth and scaring you into believing these lies. Sociopath liars are doing exactly what they accuse others of doing. They project the consequences of their actions onto others.
This is evident in the opponents’ latest mailers. They claim terrible things “could” happen if the citizens of Encinitas approve Prop A and gain control over inappropriate development. The exact opposite is true under Prop A. But those terrible things would actually result if the building industry continues its firm grip on our city officials.
Contrary to former Planning Commissioner Jacobson, Prop A will give residents a stronger voice over their community.
Contrary to Plumber Doug Long, Prop A will protect height limits as they are now.
Contrary to Councilman Mark Muir, Prop A will not cost taxpayers millions of dollars. Costs of elections are paid by the developer, not the taxpayer.
Contrary to former Mayor Rick Shea, Prop A will not decrease residents’ property values.
Contrary to Deputy Mayor Shaffer, Prop A will not cause more high-density development.
Contrary to Councilmember Gaspar, Prop A will preserve homeowners’ rights to improve or restore their homes.
Contrary to Opponents, Encinitas residents do not presently have the right to vote on height increases.
Contrary to Mayor Barth, “There is no basis for the claim that the Coastal Commission will need to certify or delay the effective date of Proposition A… I cannot recall a single case where a Proposition was ever brought to the Commission for review.” — Sara Wan, former Chair, California Coastal Commission.
Statements used by Prop A opponents in their deceptive fliers, mailers, and phone-calls are out of-context quotes from a biased pro-development study. This Rutan and Tucker analysis was ordered by pro-development City Manager Vina without prior Council approval and is full of deceptions, misrepresentations and outright lies.
The profiteering land barons and developers, who do not care about your community character, have thus far contributed over $60,000 to perpetuate these lies about Prop A, even after they have been proven wrong.
Take Control Over Your Neighborhoods.
VOTE YES on A
Need a daily paper with real news coverage
I am aware of the wholesale, Happy Memorial Day firings of North County reporters including Oceanside’s beat reporter Ray Huard. I am very sad to see him go as he always treated me fairly and seems just to be a decent human being.
Once Manchester took over the U-T and eviscerated the North County Times, we all knew reporting would be slim to none.
We did get some good reporting from Ray and others including those who covered MiraCosta, Tri City, NCTD, and school sports, however the coverage was thin and spotty and obviously over-edited. Now with all those reporters gone who knew the subject matter and the players in each area, why should anyone in North County subscribe to the U-T anymore?
North County businesses should not advertise in the U-T either because we simply are not reading it! Some of us may subscribe online, if we can choke down our own ethical stances on the U-T, but that media does not give display advertisers any meaningful coverage. You are paying a lot for nothing!
As they say, good riddance to bad garbage. We are so thankful for The Coast News, The Patch and KPBS! Is anyone out there interested in doing a North County daily anymore or a daily online newspaper? I think you could easily swoop in and grab all the North County advertisers and you know you would have readers, too. This area is ripe for the picking.
We can’t have enough trails in Carlsbad
Let’s think big in planning the next phase of trails in Carlsbad. Not just a few feet of trails like were proposed with the Quarry Creek project. Instead let’s look at things like the Waterfall to the Waves Trail, connecting the sacred El Salto waterfall to the coast. Even bigger — connect all the way to Palomar Mountain along the route taken by early Luiseno people hundreds of years ago. Even better, link homes and jobs so people don’t need to get in their cars. Let’s make these off the beaten track trails the focus of transportation plans — and not just an afterthought.
RE: Letters published June 7
To Mr. Leighton: Total support for your letter regarding Doug Manchester, and his grab of almost all balanced news in San Diego and the North County. That and the firing of a great editor, Kent Davy. That and the fact that the former NCT is another newspaper he made into a screed for his politically extremist views. Those and the fact that he’s fired several good, hard working employees.
To Mr. Donovan: You call Joe Moris a “rarity among present-day journalists’? Sadly, he really isn’t all that rare, he’s the same as those published in the extremist rants in the op/ed pages of the Manchester rag daily. Mr. Moris extols the wonders of Mexican medicine, and of his adopted land of retirement, but ignores the fact that millions of Mexicans have immigrated to the United States. Why Mr. Moris? And if our medical industry is costly I’ll support those who try to make it affordable, not those who walk away.
On his web site Mr. Moris opines that, “I am bullish on helping those who have lost so much in this recession and have resigned themselves to working until the day they die to have hope again of retiring comfortably.” That sentiment — about having to work until the day they die — applies also to those that built his oceanfront condo in Puerto Vallarta for $135,000. The people of Mexico need help in establishing a better quality of life, a better government, a better public health care system, and a better police force, not carpetbaggers.
Take back control
We live in an age where half-truths, outright lies, and the use of smoke and mirrors reign.
In order to broadside the Prop A safeguards which will preserve our small beach town character by a vote of our citizens, our Council adopted a craftily written change to one portion of our governing documents eliminating the 4/5 override in our General Plan.
What we are not told is that another Policy (3.12: 4) still retains their 4/5th majority vote in other matters.
The new Policy 3:14 adopted by our council states:
A public vote shall be required on City Council approved General Plan Updates that are comprehensive in nature, and shall become effective only when a majority of those voters who cast ballots vote for the change. A comprehensive plan update shall be a City sponsored work program titled as such that substantially changes and/or re-adopts the text and maps of the existing elements.
In the above policy we are told the public will get to vote on an update of the General Plan if there is a comprehensive work project sponsored by the city titled as such, which substantially changes existing elements.
What you are not told is:
The city decides what is comprehensive in nature. The city, not you, decides what is a substantial change. Also, no mention is made of the developer-sponsored projects. The public gets to vote only on city sponsored work projects titled as such. So nothing has really changed, has it?
In the past, when the developer requested amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Codes they were granted to him.
It seems, despite all their changes to the General Plan, the council still maintains the power to grant favors to the developers. A No on A is a vote for developer control.
Take back control of your city.
Vote YES on Prop A.