Friday, January 20, 2006

I Challenge You to Adopt a New Attitude....

Contents of letter to Glenn Sabine dated January 19, 2006:

Mr. Sabine,

I wonder if you would be kind enough to clarify for me and the rest of Encinitas the advice you gave Council regarding proceeding with the mail ballot for Proposition C based primarily on stipulations in the Jarvis Taxpayers Association Settlement (hereinafter, JTPA Settlement). I also have a couple of other questions that were not resolved to my satisfaction and I hope you will entertain them too.

First, you advised Council to proceed with the mail ballot as they have been planning to for a couple of months now. My understanding is that your opinion relies almost entirely on the stipulation in the JTPA Settlement that the fee issue must go to a vote at the earliest opportunity. Did this stipulation preclude ironing out problems beforehand or endorse voting before all the details could be thoroughly researched? I know the JTPA Settlement prescribes a deadline of the first available voting date, but is that not a factor that could tolerate discretion? If the ballot measure is not ready to be voted on for whatever reason, would it not be judicious to pause and suffer the possible consequences rather than to plunge headlong into additional problems while blindly excusing any duty to exercise better judgment by claiming that you are bent on obeying the letter of the law?

Or, more appropriately, wouldn't it be prudent to consider the ballot logistics unresolved, acknowledge a valid challenge to the appropriateness of a mail ballot and prescribe a delay in the ballot to allow these questions to be remedied? I find it difficult to understand how you can proceed with a mail ballot if this fee is really a tax masquerading as a fee. Just because it was deemed a fee in the JTPA Settlement? Certainly if you saw some benefit to delaying the proceedings you would find a way; that fact is no secret to any interested observer.

Let me now turn to another aspect that troubles me. If the purpose of the proposed ballot is to determine the will of the people, how can the Councilmembers endorse and you fail to warn them, that including City property in the group that will receive ballots is tantamount to putting thousands of votes in the hands of a very small, biased entity -- namely City Council or Staff. How can it be remotely fair for 5 people to control the votes correlating with all of the City owned property? That certainly challenges the one person/one vote concept, doesn't it? And what about the prospect of large developers who likewise control numerous parcels -- are they not also in a position to distort the true agenda of the people by virtue of their control of more than one vote?

Additionally, in all the foregoing discussion, the ballot was to be directed to all property owners with water meters, rather than all parcel owners. This is a major difference and one which was sprung upon us in chambers while the Councilmembers were anxiously awaiting their opportunity to place their votes. If you were attempting to play fairly and avoid creating an adversarial relationship between residents and their elected officials, you failed miserably by allowing such a major change to go undisclosed until a vote by Councilmembers was imminent.

I admit resolving this equitably requires creativity. Perhaps you are not currently tasked to think outside the rigid confines of the letter of the law; and that is regrettable because you have missed an opportunity to aid our City Council and our City's residents and, instead, have directed us all down a path that promises only greater conflict and waste.

I challenge you to adopt a new attitude toward your role as City Attorney and I challenge you to begin right away. There is a greater good called Justice, that should be served by the application of law. When the application of law fails to serve Justice, then it is the duty of every individual to correct the offending law, including you, Sir. Surely you witnessed an opportunity to do just that last night.

It occurs to me that you may not feel obligated to respond, inasmuch as you answer to the City Council and do not see yourself beholding to the residents of the City of Encinitas. But perhaps it does not completely elude you that the Councilmembers serve at the pleasure of the voters of Encinitas, so expanding your viewpoint to do what is best for the community should not escape your gaze. It is with great empathy that I acknowledge the weight of the responsibility that rests on your shoulders, while I remain somewhat disappointed in what appears to be your adversarial attitude toward the members of the community who may disagree with your interpretation of the law on occasion. I trust you will find a way to overcome your anticipated reticence to consider my request for a reply.

I look forward to receiving your correspondence,

Bob Evermore

I would like to add that if Mr. Sabine does not change his attitude then perhapes he could change his latitude.

7 comments:

  1. Great Letter Bob!!
    I'll eat my hat, shorts and sunglasses if you get a response. This guy is paid by the people but represents only the confused council. Not sure who they represent... It sure as hell is not the voters.
    We will have the pleasure of filling his pockets when this whole thing goes to court. How do we win?

    ReplyDelete
  2. According to Stocks Bob is an "angry" man.

    Maybe stocks is confusing Evermore for Bananinga
    see http://www.thecoastnews.com/articles/1184/

    ReplyDelete
  3. From TCN article,

    Stocks said he was advised by City Attorney Glenn Sabine that since he lives more than 500 feet from the Crest Drive intersection that he could vote on that matter — the location was unanimously endorsed by the council Nov. 9, 2005 — but not about the Willowspring Drive location, since he lives closer to that one.

    “I will be recusing myself from any future discussion of traffic lights at Crest or Willowspring, just to avoid even the appearance of impropriety,” Stocks said.

    You betcha Stocks should recuse himself. He should have the first time around too, he lived next to the initially recommended site for the light (<300 feet), thus the vote had direct relevance to his personal property value and he was required to recuse himself. He has no shame. They really think that the public is not watching, as this is not worth wasting all that time he has spent grooming for his future political career... from now on we call him Jerome "Duke" Stocks.

    Anyone who knows that guy knows to pay attention to when he attacks people. He does that when he is in trouble ( Christy does the same thing).

    ReplyDelete
  4. Now why exactly is it that on a 5-0 vote the Council all of a sudden wants to revist this decision? Sounds fishy.

    A little c.y.a?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Stocks was asked to recuse himself on the Barratt appeal. Stocks took illegal contributions from Barratt and other developers (he did give it back after being exposed by the NCT).

    This "support" was on top of the tens of thousands Barratt put into the ugliest campaign this City has ever seen (Harwood and Ecke helped too). Now why do you think Barratt thought it was worth investing in Stocks to the point of crossing the legality line?

    That is why it looks bad. Barratt cheated on their Andrew Avenue development and left the neighbors a big mess to deal with. The neighbors appealed the project to the Council.

    There was an appearance of impropriety when Stocks didn't recuse himself from the appeal vote. So much for his concern regarding the public's trust.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Once again, Mr. Stocks is wrong. I am no longer angry, even though I was at one time. And I wasn't angry because I'm an unreasonable person or because I'm just inclined to be angry. I was angry for a specific reason; because Mr. Stocks avoided answering the direct questions I posed to him in my repeated emails and because he brushed off my concerns as irrelevant and because he lied to my neighbors to try to get them to go away and because he always had a convenient shade of gray with which to paint his responses to anyone who opposed the signal at Crest and El Camino Real. Well, now that he has recused himself, albeit with a parting shot in a pathetic and transparent attempt to absolve himself of any appearance of ethical breach, and now that Ms. Guerin has publicly announced that the signal placement will be reconsidered, I am no longer angry. In fact, I am quite pleased. It gives me some measure of solace to know that there are some dark corners even Mr. Stocks cannot wriggle out of unscathed. And it gives me hope because even a decision that has been put to rest by a vote of the Council is not above recall.

    I confess to having one additional wish: I wish that when it is again time for Mr. Stocks to run for office, regardless of which office it may turn out to be, that none of his shenanigans will be forgotten and that the voting public will be made aware of the type of representative he has failed to be in his current role as a City Councilman.

    ReplyDelete
  7. YAAAARRRGH!!!!!

    ReplyDelete

Thank you for posting on the Leucadia Blog.
Anonymous comments are allowed, after moderator review.
The moderator works at his leisure.