No on T
Some years ago Encinitas created its own Environmental Commission. The Commission has weighed in on issues such as bicycles, roads, and other infrastructure issues. It was instrumental in Encinitas passing a plastic bag ban in order to reduce plastic waste in our oceans. By all accounts, the Environmental Commission is considered vital to our community and gets regular kudos for its work from the City Council.
Now the City of Encinitas is proposing Measure T, or At Home in Encinitas, that will have a huge and negative impact on our city. It upzones 113 acres citywide, allows for 48-foot buildings, converts commercial land to residential at 30 to 41 units per acre with density bonus, and adds 20,000 more cars per day to our streets.
The City Council spent over $100,000 of taxpayer money for a Measure T Environmental Impact Review from an outside consultant. This review incredibly determined that despite all Measure T’s upzoning and changes to building code, not one single environmental concern could be found. But has the city sought the opinion of our own Environmental Commission?
No, the Commission is missing in action. No opinion, no review, no nothing. Why do we have this Commission, then? Is the City Council afraid of the Environmental Commission’s opinion on Measure T? Vote no on T to do what the city won’t: Err on the side of safety and protecting the environment.
Joseph L. Kroupa,
Encinitas
We the people to amend US Constitution
An event is taking place in Williamsburg, Va., from Sept. 22 and Sept. 23, that is going to demonstrate to the nation, that “We the People,” through our State Legislatures, have the power to stop the overreach of the federal government.
The Convention of States Project is conducting a simulated Article V “dry run” convention for proposing amendments.
“Commissioners” from all 50 states will be discussing, debating and voting on amendments that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and place term limits on federal officials and members of Congress. The Constitution provides two methods of proposing amendments — by a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress, or, by two-thirds (34) of the states submitting applications to Congress to choose the date and time for a convention of the states.
Regardless of how an amendment is proposed, it must be ratified by three-fourths (38) of the states to become part of the Constitution. The convention mode allows the states to propose amendments to restore the balance between the national and state governments without the consent of the Congress, the president, the governors, or the Supreme Court.
Momentum is building across the nation for the States to use their authority under Article V to stop our runaway federal government.
The convention can be seen live Sept. 23 from 6 a.m. to 1 p.m. P.S.T., after registering at conventionofstates.com/livestreamrsvp. This is a great opportunity for schools to show children how the Framers intended us to use the Constitution to correct the problems we face as a nation.
More information about the Project at: ConventionOfStates.com/ or cosaction.com/ and [email protected].
Lou Oberman,
Cardiff-by-the-Sea
1 comment
Dear Editor:
Last week [23 Sep], a Letter to the Editor from Joseph Kroupa asked why the Encinitas Environmental Commission has not been asked to take a position on Proposition T. As chair of the Commission and a 35-year Leucadia resident who helped write our current General Plan (and who voted for Prop. A), I hereby respond.
In my view, Prop. T is a political issue, rather than an environmental one. Those who oppose local population growth and higher-density development — Mr. Kroupa, myself, and many other established residents — will correctly cite the adverse impact additional people will have on the local environment. Those who favor increased development, a “strange bedfellows” mix of conservative developers and liberal housing advocates, will correctly cite the potential environmental benefits of stopping sprawl by cramming more people into a smaller land footprint. The environment becomes a mere political football in a fight to preserve quality of life, which is defined differently by these disparate groups.
As a lifelong political pragmatist and centrist, I am weighing Prop. T in the context of state law and the very real threat of outside intervention into what I have always believed should be a local decision. (I wear the NIMBY label proudly, because the only people who truly know and deeply care about any given neighborhood are the folks who have put down roots there.) When marking our ballots, we must ask ourselves objectively what the consequences of Prop. T’s passage or failure will most likely be. Follow your heart (No on T) only if your head tells you this is indeed the wiser course. If the state indeed holds all of the high cards, we may not want to play a losing hand.
Comments are closed.