Friday, July 08, 2005

Logan Jenkins Keeps Tabs on Leucadia

Union Tribune columnist Logan Jenkins often writes about Leucadia with style and wit. Thanks bro!

click me

From the signonsandiego website:

Logan Jenkins has been a San Diego Union-Tribune columnist since 1996. On Thursday and Saturday, his column runs in the North County edition. His Monday column appears in every U-T edition.

A native San Diegan, Jenkins is a third-generation newspaperman with more than 20 years of experience.


5 comments:

  1. Jerome Stocks is proposing an ordinance. Any ordinance can be amended or rescinded by a majority of the city council now or in the far future. Councilman Stocks' proposed ordinance smacks of PR.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Citizens need to be activistsJuly 09, 2005 6:23 PM

    Yes, any ordinance can be proposed, passed, amended or rescinded. This ordinance, despite the big PR buildup for Stocks, is a good idea. We hope a majority of Council agrees.

    We wish there could be some built-in provision in the actual wording which would provide that the ordinance could not be rescinded without a 2/3 public vote, as well. Otherwise a corrupt future Council could simply vote to rescind the ordinance, and we would be back to square one: local government might makes developer greed, lack of commitment to community character, right.

    We are not a charter city. Could we consider becomming one? That is, could we explore adopting a charter or Constitution that protects more of our basic rights?

    For example, we believe the City Attorneys should be independently elected, and should be dedicated, working only for the City of Encinitas. Right now a private lawfirm, Sabine & Morrison, has many conflicts of interests with individual citizens. The more they litigate, the more they get paid, ultimately, by the taxpayers, win or lose.

    Also, it is inequitable that the City Manager of a City our size, just over 60,000 residents, including children, is now paid $168,000 per year, including alternate Fridays off. This is more money than state legislators make!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Clarify ordinance languageJuly 09, 2005 6:36 PM

    The proposed ordinance should be worded so that 2/3 of the registered voters in the area to be condemned by eminent domain must agree to the "public taking" of their/our private properties for so-called "public benefit." The ordinance should, in fact, spell out that property will not be taken for private development, but only for actual public use.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Good ordinance language.

    What can be added to prevent a Council from condemning property for public use (art center, civic center) then holding on to the property for a year or two and then selling the property to a private developer?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Seems as though any time property is given or "taken" for public use, that public use should be guaranteed; that is, it should require a 2/3 vote by the property owners in the areas that have been willed to the City (or the School District, or the County for that matter.

    If the City currently owns the property, then the surrounding property owners should have a specially weighted vote, as in the recent weighted vote whereby the ballots were tallied according to a determination of expense to each property owner, re Lighting and Landscaping Special Assessments.

    ReplyDelete

Thank you for posting on our blog.
Anonymous comments are allowed after moderator review.
The moderator works at his leisure.