Letters to the Editor: July 20, 2012

General Obligation Bonds are safe, allow public vote 

According to relevant case law, shared with Council prior to the July 11 Council Meeting, while lease revenue bonds may be “legal,” LEGITIMATE CONSIDERATION MUST BE PAID for “use and occupancy.”

SDWD ratepayers’ “revenue stream” (The water district is NOT citywide) was not derived from or related to occupancy and use, with respect to the lease revenue bond originally issued for purchasing the Hall Property. When the so-called revenue stream is actually Encinitas General Fund, lease revenue funding is not legitimate, according to our State Constitution.

Precedent mandates revenue must be generated when a lease bond is issued, for a ball stadium, or a parking structure, for example. While I wholeheartedly support a dogpark, skatepark, playing fields, and improvements to Moonlight Beach (WITHOUT the parking structure!), I don’t support Mayor Stocks’ overly optimistic claims of financial health, including that we have less than 10 percent bonded debt, while not accounting for unfunded pension liabilities.

This current spending scheme seems reckless, particularly with questions surrounding bad debt through banks’ poor decisions, and lack of governmental regulation. Because Encinitas hires a high-priced attorney to “float” a lease revenue bond (no accounting of the COST of “Bond Counsel” was addressed) does NOT mean we shouldn’t ask for the opinion of the Attorney General, as suggested by the State Administrative Manual.

Although Council previously voted not to charge league players a fee to use fields, the league representative admitted the leagues would NOT be adverse to paying for use of park fields, as they currently pay fees to school districts. These fees likely wouldn’t be enough for required field maintenance, much less paying off debt service and principal.

Excessive monies were “reallocated,” completely unfunding open space acquisition, and storm drain solutions to deal with Leucadia’s chronic flooding, Deceptive borrowing and shuffling funds doesn’t create free money!

Lynn Marr


In October 2011 the San Diego County Department of Environmental Health (DEH) directed the City of Encinitas to move contaminated toxic laden soil off the Encinitas Community Park property.

What did our City do to avoid following the DEH directive to haul this toxic soil offsite? The City hired a prestigious law firm to dispute the DEH decision. And you paid for it.

In legalese reminiscent of Bill Clinton’s “It depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is,” arguments were presented to the DEH stating that the toxic laden soil was not “hazardous waste” because it was not being moved off site.

They argued that the 46,000 cubic yards of toxic laden soil, DDT, DDE, toxaphene, and dieldrin, should instead be buried under the playing field at the south end of the property.

Sadly, in February 2012, the DEH reversed its directive.

Say a goodbye to public health being a top priority for our City.

For more information https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?global_id=T06019780964

What loving parents, responsible for the well being of their child, would allow their child to play in a park where one does not know where soils which eclipsed contamination standards as well as other less toxic soils which measure above California Human Health Screening Levels are buried?

How to finance this park? The City voted to reallocate 5 million dollars from 17 infrastructure projects which need attention, i.e. flooding of Leucadia Blvd. 101 intersection, the fire station, quiet zone for train whistle, plus 14 other funds which have been slated for work. Those funds still need to be replaced by you, the taxpayers.

In addition, the City voted to take out a loan for the other 8 million. Simply put, after 10 years, the City still cannot afford the park.

The City states the 19.3 million dollar cost is for a complete park. Fine print states it is for the basic park. Costs for playground equipment, paving four parking lots, building the amphitheater, teen center, and aquatic center are not included.

Goodbye fiscal responsibility.

Did you know the City held a meeting at the Community Center to discuss the expenditure of nearly a million dollars for 34 lights between the heights of 40 feet to 90 feet, about as high as a nine story building, to light the park site? The light trespass on neighboring properties can be as high as the illumination from 80 full moons.

Next on the horizon…lights until 10:00 p.m., amplified sound speakers, traffic congestion 365 days a year, cell towers on top of the lights, light pollution, sound pollution, air pollution?

Goodbye forever, dark skies over Cardiff and parts of Encinitas!

Marie Dardarian,

Cardiff by the Sea

“We have to vote for it, so we will know what’s in it”! Remember that?

Well, I just read some more of the voluminous proposed Village Specific Plan the Council is going to adopt in August and we are going to vote for in November, and look what I found.

The Plan states we now have 280,000 square feet of buildings in Downtown Del Mar, and the amount planned for at final build out is 600,000 square feet! That DOUBLING the size of buildings never sounded like implementing the small-town, low-key village described in the Community Plan I read.

But, WOW, I just read further, and found that 600,000 figure is based on raising the Floor Area Ratio from 45 percent to a new base rate of 100 percent! But, in addition, in order to provide incentives for doing this and that, there is a new maximum F.A.R. rate of 150 percent! That means that, if all the new development includes the preferred development of this and that, the maximum amount planned for at final build out CAN BE AT LEAST 900,000 square feet!

Now that really isn’t the future Del Mar I see described in the Community Plan! But, that is what the proposed VSP says to implement the CP.

Ralph Peck,

Del Mar

How safe is Tri-City Hospital?

How safe is your hospital? The August issue of Consumer Reports rates hospital safety using six criteria, including: (1) Infections; (2) Readmissions; (3) Communication; and (4) Scanning.

Tri-City Medical Center was rated as follows: (1) Infections- Worse than average; (2) Readmissions- Average; (3) Communication- Far worse than average; and (4) Scanning- Average.

Hospitals were assigned an overall safety score ranging from 0-100, with a top score of 72 and a bottom score of 16. How did Tri-City Medical Center stack up against surrounding hospitals? Regrettably, below average.

Tri-City’s overall safety score was 44. Palomar Medical Center scored 46; Scripps Encinitas scored 54.

Rather than barraging residents with self-congratulatory advertising,

Tri-City Hospital should focus on providing world-class patient care.


Randy Horton,

Board Member, Tri-City Healthcare District


Related posts

Lowe’s shouldn’t trump creek


Letters to the Editor


Does Carlsbad care about creeks, beaches and coast?


Optimistic about Encinitas General Plan


Letters to the Editor


Letters: July 23, 2010