I think I noticed the new paint job. I will look next time I drive by but I will be sure to do it during the day because the council says we don't have enough cash to keep the street lights on.
So they're trapping and strangling baby chicks and their mothers in a net for all to see (at a cost of $19k) so that the poor, stupid people of Encinitas don't slip and fall in the bird poop?Horrible.
Yes, this was a vanity project instigated by Jerome Stocks. As we can see, he is currently chairman of NCTD, but they declined to repaint the bridge, saying it was non-essential.So, without much ado, or public input, probably just another item on the infamous "consent calendar," after closed meeting negotiations with the private contractors involved, we are subjected to the desires of gung-ho Council Members trying to foist their so-called "beautification projects," upon us, at our expense. This project further errodes the Council's public image. It involves cruelty to animals, waste of public funds, and betrayal of public trust.
City cheats us as a way of doing its business, for ill-gotten gains. Anybody ever wonder about the election we were supposed to get to have re the illegal storm drain assessment that we all paid at least $90.00 each into, at five dollars a month on our EDCO bills?February of 2004 NCT had an article about this issue. The Jarvis Taxpayer Association successfully took City of Encinitas to Court. Per the Stipulated Judgment, City was to pay fees for Jarvis lawyers, City was to hold an election as soon as possible, and every address that had been billed was eligible to make a claim for a return of the fees paid.The City settled because it was wrong. Dan Dalager voted with Christy Guerin and Maggie Houlihan to illegally charge a "clean water fee," on our trash bills, which was really a tax. The City tried to claim this was a "weighted fee" because only those with water meters had to pay. This is more bs. The fee was tied to the trash bills. EDCO was told to bill, and collect, then transfer monies to City, or else: City would get a new trash carrier as exclusive contractor, such as Coast Waste Management.Even if it were a fee, according to Prop. 218, passed in 1996, a super majority of "local legislature" (City Council) should have been required to enact such a fee. Dan went over to the dark side on this one.In one newspaper piece, Maggie, who, per the settlement, is not supposed to campaign for or against the measure said, "I don't know anyone who is against paying for cleaning up our storm drains." She is supposed to be neutral. Plus, she again is twisting the facts. Many of us care tremendously about the environmental well being of our community. However, this money, because it is a city wide need, should absolutely come out of the General Fund. Perhaps if those things that should be paid by the General Fund, such as lighting and landscaping, and storm drains, were, then we would not be in the position where Council can glibly give corrupt city attorneys and our too often inept City Manager big, undeserved raises. City cannot even pay its SDG&E bills on time!!
In a very recent Howard Jarvis court action update letter re the clean war fee, taxpayer association states: "The city agreed to cease collecting the [storm water] fee as of July 1, 2005, to propose any replacement fee to the voters at a future election, and to pay refunds to anyone who filed a claim." The judgment pursuant to stipulation states: Defendant City of Encinitas shall submit its Clean Water Regulatory Fee (Resolution No. 2004-05) for ratification or repeal in accordance with article 13D, section 6(c) of the California Constitution either at the next regularly scheduled election or the next election for which it would qualify, or by a mailed ballot proceeding completed no later than such election.City has not honored a its own stipulated court order.
Another question: according to the wording of the stipulated judgment, it appears the election should either have been scheduled for Nov. 8, the special election, or it could, and should have gone out with the same ballots as the lighting and landscaping increase assessments, which proposal was defeated, as we all know.Wouldn't have combining these two issues sped up the process, and insured that the voters and citizens could feel we are finally receiving "due process of law?"Also, combining the two separate questions on one mail out ballot could have saved a lot of money in consulting, mailing and counting costs, city's built in administrative fees.The City seems to have its head in a bank bag, and its heart in a storm drain.
All your money are belong to us.
From a North County Times article:City Hall closed for 90 minutes yesterday.
Thank you for posting on our blog. Anonymous comments are allowed after moderator review.The moderator works at his leisure.