Tuesday, October 04, 2005

City Council Unearths Magical Zoning Amulet

onion_news3318

After years spent poring over mysterious and arcane plat sheets and deciphering long-forgotten building codes, the Encinitas city council unearthed the mysterious City Zoning Amulet Friday.

"Behold!" Jerome Stocks shouted, holding aloft the solid-gold amulet, which is emblazoned with the Ever-Evaluating Eye of Surr-Vey, Lord Of Demarcation, He Who Measures And Assesses. "With this sigil, the power of zoning comes. Through me, the power of zoning flows! All will behold my power, and I shall bow to no man when designating matter-of-right developments for major retail and office spaces to a maximum lot occupancy of 75 percent for residential use!"

onion_news3319

Christy Guerin took her turn and held the glowing amulet aloft and transmuted a neighborhood of low-income apartments into a semi-wooded, single-family, residential district with an adjoining riverside park.

Though the amulet had long been dismissed as urban legend, a mythical ideal of zoning perfection handed down from city planner to city planner, the Encinitas city council became convinced that not only was it real, but that it had been used to lay out the cities of Ur, Atlantis, and Inver Grove Heights, MN.



apologies the the onion.com

12 comments:

  1. Oh MY GOD!

    We can't let Ecke know that the amulet has been recovered...

    we'll be doomed

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes, Council has magical zoning abilities. They can go to another government deity, in robes, sitting on high, get "declaratory & injunctive relief."

    This means, hey, I am the law. I can make my law fit any form. I can change it from case to case. What I say goes. Do as I say, not as I do.

    Council needs a magic mirror, too. Who is the unfairest of them all?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Unfairest of them all is a hard question. They should each get an award for it at a proclamation night during the council meeting.

    ReplyDelete
  4. beasts of public burdenOctober 05, 2005 4:27 PM

    Yeah, what is it with proclamation after proclamation, aka, "public service announcements?" While we love our school kids, true public servants, etc., it seems Council has announcement after announcement, and no time limits on Counil's own self aggrandizing comments.

    I keep wondering, too, just exactly who is Christy Guerin's husband? She keeps mentioning and mentioning him, of late, but never says who he is, or what he does. Do we have to hear her talking about her golf lessons with her (step?)kids, her running successes, with "my husband," ad nauseum? Last time when she was handing out "citations" for herself and some folks who ran in a race (undoubtedly for an excellent cause, we agree)half the people who participated were not there to partake of the public glorification. Christy was!

    This patting on back stuff takes time away from community discussion about the agenda items. People who fill out the speaker slips are hurried along, while Council just comments and comments, on every issue. The certainly like the sound of their own voices. And there is no real back and forth, real dialogue. It is only Council's usually preformed opinions, stated, and restated.

    On Sept. 14, Council said it didn't have to abide by the Coastal Act regarding replacing low income and affordable housing! City seems to think their opinions are law, that they trump the State, even the Constitution!

    Beware of our beasts of public burden, not public trust.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "On Sept. 14, Council said it didn't have to abide by the Coastal Act regarding replacing low income and affordable housing!"

    When was that said and in what context?

    ReplyDelete
  6. David Harris, of housing authority was asking for "direction" on policy. Council voted, unanimously, that covenants, on title re low income affordable housing are not binding on new owners.

    Mr. Harris said there was a less than 30% reporting rate of homes restricted by these covenants. Council voted that homes "legalized" or demolished would not be considered as appplicable to the Coastal Act requirement that when homes identified as low income, affordable are eliminated, they must be replaced.

    Replaced by whom, one asks? Certainly not the City. Council just basically said to staff, don't worry about the Coastal Act. We are definitely for property rights, but the City should be consistent. No one is treated the same. Money very much counts. City makes up its own laws as it goes along, then retroactively applies them.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Expose CorruptionOctober 06, 2005 11:10 PM

    How come so much hoopla about Tom Delay? Didn't Dalager accept a $50,000.00 campaign contribution from FlowerPac?

    Sad day when Texas has better laws than Encinitas re illegal campaign contributions, influence peddling. Stocks and Bond have both admitted to receiving plenty of dough-re-me from friends of Eckes, too. Council is not impartial on big development.

    Vote no on A,in November, and initiate honesty. Vote out incumbents in 2006.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Don't be upset with Dan. He truely does want to be friends with everybody (ladies, watch out for the kisses!)

    He talks a lot about the founding fathers but is blind to introspection. If someone is able to show him what is really going on he might do the right thing... but it is way too much work by the public to bring him around.

    Don't forget that when Ecke and the Council came out of the secret meetings on Prop A (the MOUs back then), he was saying things like it was a "no-brainer" to rezone and land swap.

    Many in the chuckled and thought that was a very appropriate comment.

    But the point is that he has backed off a major push for Prop A. Compare his stance to Christy's. I don't think it is his shame for getting elected with Ecke's money, I think it is guilt.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Councilman Dalager tap dances the Ecke tune with the rest of the Council. He may not be bellicose on Prop A, but he's still singing with the chorus. If he had guilt, he would speak out against the Prop.

    ReplyDelete
  10. In case somebody doesn't know, MOU's are Memos of Understanding, issued after closed sessions. Anytime that action is taken, presumably including issuing a MOU, that should be reported in the open meeting which follows the closed session.

    If we put in Public Information Requests, they should also be reported, including any votes, and the minutes of meetings where Council took action, intervened, or voted upon an MOU, or anything else. This is per the Ralph M. Brown Act. The city uses this act for its pending litigation loopholes. It was designed and enacted to insure open government, not attorney client or executive privilege!

    Dan may mean well. He should get out of politics. Then we can all be just folks again. He doesn't seem to have what it takes to stand up to the rest of Council, ever, that we've seen. He typically simply goes along with the majority. Life is too short Dan. Our advise, get out before you become permanently discolored by the stain of dishonor that blemishes some of those you are currently associating with.

    If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas. Better get some Advantage, or Frontline. Watch out for ticks, too.

    ReplyDelete
  11. There are a lot of in and outs with this Ecke thang.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Dan Dalager has already crossed that bridge.

    ReplyDelete

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