Letters to the Editor: June 8, 2012

Failure of leadership

 Encinitas’ utter failure to follow through on ANY of the suggestions of Rick Engineering to mitigate flooding, for which consultants we taxpayers paid dearly in 2004, shows an ongoing failure of leadership on the part of council incumbents who have been in office since that time, particularly our current mayor, Jerome Stocks, who is running for re-election in November.

This is another in a long list of failures, including Stocks’ failure to follow city process, parliamentary procedure, State Law or Encinitas Municipal Code in many of his recent actions as this year’s appointed mayor.

The U-T Watchdog reported Encinitas only had 4 percent liquid reserves for fiscal year 2010-2011. Our city has insufficient capital improvement funds for traffic circles, postponed road repairs, or completing the dog, skate and sports park complex on the site of the former Hall Property.

Moreover, locals and commuters do NOT favor roundabouts, which would encourage unchecked development. “Mitigation” tools for high-density developers, roundabouts have no formal traffic standards. Thus, the “level of service” can’t drop to “F” along corridors where they’re installed.

Stocks and cohorts should’ve been more concerned about chronic flooding, made worse by City practices, than paying roundabout consultant/lobbyists to hold numerous workshops, then massage the data, to comply with pre-existing conclusions desired primarily by developers, through a game of smoke and mirrors: “beautification,” designed to deceive and to win at any cost to citizens and Leucadia’s “funky” community character!

Stocks was quick to disagree with the U-T Watchdog’s liquid reserves report, both on the U-T Blog and through a recent article published in The Coast News. Yet Encinitas officials have neglected to respond to media requests for comments on the Grand Jury report re the city’s failure to follow through on any plans detailed nearly eight years ago to ease flooding in Leucadia,

Lynn Marr,


Really a plan?

Is the proposed Del Mar Village Specific Plan really a Specific Plan? If read correctly, it appears, on one hand, to state what, where and how the downtown should be developed, yet on the other hand, if the developer of property doesn’t like that criteria, they can develop using the old zoning standards. What if developers decide to use the old standards?

Not concerned about the developer, but what about us? What specifically are we going to be asked to approve with our vote in November? We have before us only a guideline of what the downtown may, or may not look like in the future, dependent solely on the developer, NOT SPECIFICS! In the haste to get the Plan approved by August (as stated in the Plan itself), such specifics as design, land development standards and financing won’t be spelled out until AFTER OUR VOTE. Will we like what is spelled out? Maybe too late!

But, more importantly, a Specific Plan is required to be consistent with the adopted Community Plan. In my opinion, the proposed Plan destroys our adopted Community Plan. Please read, at least, the vision of the SP, and see if you think it fits the vision of the CP.

I’m going to vote NO.

Ralph Peck,

Del Mar

Taxing what hurts us

New York City Mayor Bloomberg’s decision to ban supersized sugary sodas has resurrected the age-old debate over the role of the state in protecting the public health.

In recent years, this debate involved bicycle helmets, car seat belts, tobacco, trans fats, saturated fats in meat and dairy products and sugar (or more aptly, high-fructose corn syrup). Public subsidies for tobacco, meat and dairy, and corn production added fuel to the debate.

I would argue that society has a right to regulate activities that impose a heavy burden on the public treasury. National medical costs of dealing with our obesity epidemic, associated with consumption of meat, dairy, and sugars, are estimated at $190 billion. Eliminating subsidies for these products, as well as judicious taxation to reduce their use and recoup public costs should be supported by health advocates and fiscal conservatives alike.

Benjamin Franklin claimed that nothing is certain except death and taxes. Ironically, death can be deferred substantially by taxing products that make us sick.

Edward Cole,


Support Title IX

On June 23, 1972, Congress passed Title IX and it created a pivotal change in the lives of millions of women and girls in America.

Educational institutions were required to provide equal access to education programs and activities regardless of sex. Most people think Title IX only relates to sports, but the truth is, we now have many more women doctors, scientists, engineers, dentists, lawyers and business owners than we had in 1972, as a result of this legislation. In 1972, many colleges did not accept women into medical, dental, engineering, law or science programs. Women represented fewer than 10 percent of the students in these 4 areas of study.

On June 23, thousands will gather for the Title IX 40th Anniversary Celebration at the Oceanside Pier Amphitheatre from 4 to 7 p.m. This momentous and inspiring event will pay tribute to Title IX and reflect on women’s achievement, as a result of access to education and opportunity.

The event is free to the public and will feature dynamic speakers – Olympic athletes, female leaders in business, science, medicine and education. In addition to the great speakers, the crowd will be entertained with dance performances, live music, women’s expo, food and more. Our speakers will be available for a meet and greet and autograph signing. Bring your mothers, daughters, sisters, wives and girlfriends. If your life was changed by Title IX, tell us how. Learn more and send us your story at kinaneevents.com/title9.html.

Kathy Kinane,



1 comment

Asking for Truth June 7, 2012 at 8:07 pm

Fake General Plan research, round abouts at 1 million each, the threat of increased City pensions! The City’s finances are a disaster, and the only thing that they can do is to try to build their way out of it–which will never work!

The reason that we pay $1 million for each round about is not because the citizens wanted them, but the builders want them! The round abouts allow for traffic to be taken out as a factor under CEQA law–so builders can cram more buildings onto small lots and make them, ‘penicl out!’

The Planning Department paid over 1 million dollars to MIG, and almost $200,000 to Austin Foust for round about work–just so that they can they can weaken citizens property rights.

We have to get new Council members to do an actual evaluation of how bad this City really is. Get ready! We might be more like Bell than we think!

Comments are closed.