Wednesday, July 20, 2005


Streetlights in Encinitas is one of those things that confuse, baffle and fluster city leaders.
They constantly hear how people want streetlights but then it turns out people really don't want streetlights and especially if taxes are going to increase.

Let me lay it out for the council members and the city manager:

You don't put 30 ft. tall streetlights on small residential streets!

Why? Because as much as people enjoy a well lit street they don't want lights beaming into their bedrooms at night. That is horrible! That is a mood killer. That is BB gun time.

Honey, I think we need thicker curtains.

Residential streets can be lit just fine with porch lights. There are lots of groovy porch lights for sale at the sprawling Home Expo off Leucadia Blvd.

Yes, the coast highway business district needs streetlights. But once again, not 30 ft. tall lights like look like something out of an H.G. Well's novel.

Smaller human sized street lights are best. 8-10 feet with softer bulbs. You want the streets to have a warm welcoming quality, not a blinding prison camp vibe.

Street lights in southern California should be solar powered and should push the light down to the street and not out to the sides. I think most of us have visited the Palomar observatory and know how light pollution is destroying that local institution.

Also, you don't try to sneak in a new tax for streetlights, especially in a city prospering like this one. People are not stupid, they see how many pet projects this city has. Now the this council can look forward to liteature in their mail box next election that reads, your name here supported a tax increase in 2005...

Here is a letter that ran in the July 14 San Diego Union Tribune. I noticed it was written by the same guy that did a presentation at the last council meeting about eminent domain.

Flush Encinitas should cut, not raise taxes

The Encinitas City Council repeatedly proclaims that it has done a wonderful job with the city's budget. The city has plenty of money, enough to absorb citywide pay and pension raises and increases in staffing. If things are so great, why does the council proceed so frantically when it comes to obtaining more taxes?

Consider the recent clean-water tax. It was illegally enacted. Then the city spent money to defend it in court even though the obvious outcome would be a legal defeat. Recently, the city sent ballots to city landowners in the hope that we would elect to send the city more money for its streetlight assessment. The city manager sent residents an accompanying letter filled with confusing and scary propaganda that the city would cut services if revenue did not increase. Fortunately, residents voted against increased taxes.

Unfortunately, the council has wasted tens of thousands of dollars on it is failed efforts to raise our taxes. If we trust the city's rosy predictions, the city's income should be increasing in the next few years. Instead of increasing the size of government, let's give tax money back to the residents. Let's use those future revenue increases to eliminate the lighting assessment that the council was trying to increase.


There is also a letter from Surf City Times editor Mike Andreen praising Jerome Stocks in the same issue. click me


  1. Mike Andreen has a lot of nice things to say about Stocks.

    Look at your old issues of the Surf City Times, espically the really old ones with almost no adds. Notice the big add on the back page for Barrat America. These are the same developers that gave Stocks illegal campaign contributions.

    Does that make Andreen Stock's hired publicist?

  2. They are drinking buddys.

  3. All politicians get free PRJuly 22, 2005 9:41 AM

    Anyone who reads the SCT knows that Andreen is a big Stocks booster. Yeah, just what do you have to declare, "contribution" wise?

    Most politicians are great at achieving lots of free pr moments. I saw in the paper today that Stocks may run for State Assemblyman. Political motivation is ok, if it achieves the right ends. I wouldn't mind getting Stocks out of office here! But the proposed local ordinance is better than the zero guarantees we now have.

  4. Great letter, Kevin. Right on!

  5. If Stocks goes on to a higher office, all his pro developer votes will be used in the higher office. Stocks is bad for Encinitas and would be worse for county or state.

  6. Just wonderingJuly 22, 2005 5:31 PM

    Bond tried to move up the political ladder, said he wouldn't run again in Encinitas. After he lost at the State level, he came right back.

    But perhaps if Stocks concentrates on higher office, we can replace him here with someone better. When he attempts to return, after he loses for State Assembly, we will have a better chance of getting him out. Incumbents seem to have a huge advantage, particularly in our "vote for three" or "vote for two" Council election system.

    No single candidate has had a majority of the votes, to our knowledge. Just how many registered voters do we have in Encinitas, anybody? We know Maggie Houlihan got more than anyone at just over 9,000 votes. There are over 62,000 residents here, we believe.

  7. Maggie was top vote getter of all timeJuly 27, 2005 12:30 AM

    There are 35,000 registered voters in Encinitas. Maggie actually received 13,101 votes. The official results were ...

    Candidate / Votes / Percent

    Maggie Houlihan 13,101 18.48%
    James Bond 12,688 17.90%
    Jerome Stocks 11,754 16.58%


    Alice Jacobson 8,921 12.59%
    Bruce Ehlers 8,859 12.50%
    Robert Wilder 6,812 9.61%
    Donn K. Harms 5,832 8.23%
    Seth Frank Cowen 2,915 4.11%


Thank you for posting on the Leucadia Blog.
There is nothing more powerful on this Earth than an anonymous opinion on the Internet.
Have at it!!!