Friday, October 13, 2006

NCT endorses Barth, Dalager, rejects plumber

Vote Dalager and Barth in Encinitas

The North County Times has endorsed Teresa Barth for the open seat and is re-electing Dalager, calling 2nd Street plumber candidate Doug Long "Dalagher 2.0".

I agree with this position although Brown is a intriguing candidate to me. However, the NCT is right on this one.

Teresa is a good solid choice. She is sincere, down to earth and keenly intelligent. I feel that we are lucky that such a quality person is running.

We give Dalager a ton of grief on this blog, manly for his bumbling steps when it comes to managing our tax money. But he is a likable guy, he has been around forever, he always answers my e-mails and I like surfing with his son (which means nothing really, I'm just bringing it up).

On his best days Dalager is Andy Griffith, a folksy small town guy. On his worst days he is Gomer Pyle, confused about the complex beaucracy he must manage.

In my opinion a Dalager/Long council is a recipe for disaster. The NCT is right, Doug Long is Dalager 2.0 and therefore repetitive. We need diversity on the council. Cloning Dalager is dangerous.

Besides, if we vote in another dude the council will be a total sausage fest with only one female on the council and that would be lame.

Teresa Barth for city council.

29 comments:

  1. Remember to bullet vote for Barth. "a vote for anyone else is a vote against Teresa"

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm sorry, but Dan is not a likable guy. He is a sexist pig, and uses that Gomer Pyle act to throw people off. He really thinks he's a genius and smarter than everyone else and doesn't even remotely understand that he was elected to represent the PEOPLE. Nope, he just does what HE wants and that's a lousy combination. He also wants to ruin Leucadia via Redevelopment. Where does he surf? I don't buy it. He also defended Duke Cunningham at the Candidate Forum at Paul Ecke School. Need I say more?

    Bullet vote for Teresa Barth.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yes on Teresa Barth, no DalagerOctober 13, 2006 9:19 AM

    We actually made the mistake of voting for Dalager last time, because we so badly wanted a change. But he has let us down, and we won't make that mistake again.

    Dan Dalager has been like a lap dog to Christy Guerin. There is a reason he gets grief on this blog: he supported Prop A, Prop C, the lighting and landscaping ballot, that also lost. He was given lots of money by various individuals who represent development interests first. And he wants to develop his own property, from what was to be four homes, we now hear, to ten.

    He voted for the new raise for City Council, and he really hasn't had time to make himself well familiar with the issues he is voting on. He started out voting against pay raises and pension raises for City Staff, along with James Bond, then caved on that, too. He didn't vote to let the recent $20,000,000 bond go to the people for public approval. He could have done so. He wants to over-devlop the Hall Property, and voted, before, to give the demolition a "negative environmental impact declaration," which was against California environmental law. He used to support the Coastal Commission, but now says he wants to go fight it, come November, along with Christy Guerin.

    He has made too many mistakes, and betrayed our trust, in my opinion. I am bullet voting for Barth, too. To me, the next best candidate is Tom Brown, but it concerns me that his campaign manager is Tom Shepard. Who can tell us about that guy?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Bullet vote for Teresa Barth.

    ReplyDelete
  5. JP, we disagree with you on this, too.

    We need new faces, we do want Teresa Barth, so that's good, but come on, Danny Dalager has let us down and has got to go.

    If you went to the forums in Cardiff, Leucadia, then Olivenhein, you would not have been impressed with Dan Dalager, and his record shows he is not going along with most of the voters in this City, including his votes on Proposition A, Prop C and many other issues.

    ReplyDelete
  6. great letter in the COAST NEWS today, JP!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hey, it's America!

    We can all disagree and still get along. Great dialog on this blog.

    I like Tom Brown. Dude has shown his smarts running and growing a business (as opposed to inheriting it from daddy and doing nothing with it for decades)
    He will watch and spend wisly our tax dollars. He will be able to call bullshit on city staff if they get their project budgets out of whack.

    Q. Are they all Republicans?

    ReplyDelete
  8. I completely agree with the last post

    ReplyDelete
  9. Sorry JP-

    Great letter to Coast news, but I also agree Dalager is bad for Encinitas. He has no vision for moving leucadia into the future. Under his leadership, we would turn into Carlsbad Jr.

    Love your blog and keep it up! Our Ocean is the reason we live here.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I wish Tom Brown was our champion. He is not. He still doesn't get how bad the City acted on Prop C.

    We can't believe he will protect our tax dollars if he can't come out against that slam dunk issue.

    See all the archives on this on this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I didn't endorse Dalagher, the NCT did.

    What is Brown's position on mobile home park preservation?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Totally disagree about Tom Brown. He voted for Prop A. He sees no problem with the Council taking on $20 million of debt. He hired a really slick campaign consultant and has covered this city with his signs - most of which are in the public right of way. He would be more like Jerome than Dan but he would vote on issues the same way those boys do now. Vote only for Teresa.

    ReplyDelete
  13. About signs - Brown signs are everywhere and none have been taken down. But guess what, 3 of Teresa's on Birmingham telephone poles were stolen and today several were stolen from private property. So keep an eye out - they must be worried about Teresa because her's are the only signs being stolen. Childish little boys always do things like this.

    ReplyDelete
  14. UNION-TRIBUNE EDITORIAL
    In Encinitas, Dalager and Long

    October 6, 2006

    If sparing Encinitas the problems of growth drove its incorporation as a city 20 years ago, it didn't quite work. Encinitas has grown exponentially, and the Nov. 7 election issues echo those of 1986.

    The important difference is that elected city officials instead of county supervisors now make the decisions. Five candidates now vie for two council seats.

    In the exceptionally civilized candidate debates, Paul “Pablo” Martens has offered unfailing pleasantness and needed humor, but little else.

    Tom Brown, also a longtime resident, is a very successful businessman. Building school and park infrastructure in and outside the city has given him an appreciation of the difficulties in local dealings with state and federal officials, in particular with CalTrans, a state agency whose high-handedness in Encinitas has earned the city's enmity.

    Brown wants to restore trust between the council and the residents of a city with five boroughs with distinct differences in needs and attitudes. His apparent approach, however, is to bring these disparate groups together by somehow pleasing them all. That's a surefire set-up for disappointment, for him and the city.

    Teresa Barth, a longtime activist from Cardiff, is taking her first shot at actual city governance. She helped lead the successful opposition to the Ecke family's request last year to trade land and road improvements for the city for release from a previous promise not to develop more of its agricultural acreage. She alone among the candidates opposes the recent council decision to issue bonds to build needed fire stations, a public works yard and a much-wanted public park. Ridding the budget of waste and inefficiency, she maintains, could free up $20 million.

    Barth could not, however, begin to identify $20 million in waste in what is essentially a tight city budget. With another family's request to rezone money-losing agricultural land for development looming, her pledge to oppose all “spot zoning” suggests a short-sighted devotion to a singular vision of Encinitas as quaint, walkable Cardiff writ large.

    Her insistence that “simple fixes” exist for problems like the redesign of a lethal railway crossing – which takes federal approval – shows dismayingly unfamiliarity with the nuts and bolts of governing and the limits of being one member of a council of five.

    Barth has some good ideas – low-water city landscaping, green city buildings and more use of appointed city commissions as a community voice. The council should appoint her to one, as a learning experience for both.

    Doug Long grew up in Encinitas, runs a family plumbing business, chairs the Parks and Recreation Commission, is a constant presence at the council's meetings. He has a long list of volunteer work for the city, much of it unsung. As important as his firsthand experience with those nuts and bolts of city governance is his open mind on city issues. He is neither too quick to criticize nor too slow to question. We recommend his election to City Council.

    Dan Dalager, local businessman and council incumbent, is seeking a second term. During his (council-appointed) year as mayor, he angered many residents, and pleased others, by reinstituting the “Christmas Parade” instead of the “Holiday Parade.” More recently, he persuaded the National Endowment for the Arts to bring “Operation Homecoming,” a tribute to the armed forces in Iraq, then approved its presentation on a Jewish holiday.

    Sensitivity is not his strong suit.

    But Dalager does have a strong suit that is readily apparent in candidate forums and that residents should not lose: his solid knowledge of how city government works, of its limits, of the persistence, patience, persuasion and teamwork it takes to get projects done.

    For their experience and knowledge, we recommend Dan Dalager and Doug Long for Encinitas City Council.

    ReplyDelete
  15. What a fucking joke. Dan only knows how to sharpen a dam good slingblade, nothing more! The rest is a bad act.

    ReplyDelete
  16. This is why I don't subscribe to the Union Tribune. Bad, bad idea, and this article was written with an obvious development slant.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Dan---his solid knowledge of how city government works, of its limits, of the persistence, patience, persuasion and teamwork it takes to get projects done.

    WTF?

    ReplyDelete
  18. What projects has Dan gotten done besides the tot lot?

    NOT the Hall property, not even the EIR which is late.
    NOT the Library, which is years late.
    NOT the Traffic Plan, which is years late.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Give him credit for the tattoo parlor and the new liquor permit for selling more alcohol along the 101 corridor.

    Gomer Pyle wouldn't approve those for his town. Zahzam.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I like tattoo parlors and liquor stores.

    Just change the word liquor to "market" and change tattoo into "body art studio" and there is less drama.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Change body art studio to poking holes in the body where the sun don't shine.

    Dalager should have adviced all teenagers that tattoos will help them get a better job. Dalager thinks tattoo are mainstream - no longer for gangbangers and prison inmates. Add body piercing, a stud or bar in the tongue or farther south.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Charlie Marvin didn't want that tattoo body piercing parlor next to his property.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Tattoos have become mainstream, therefore most of them are terrible. Take a look around at the young mom's shopping at Trader Joe's and Henry's, the majority of them have awful lower back tattoos. It's pretty funny.

    Tattoos at their worst are a stupid fashion statement, at their best they are artistic self expression.

    Charles Marvin didn't want the tattoo studio next to his property? What, is he a NIMBY now?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Maggie sues the pants off BowmanOctober 14, 2006 1:20 PM

    Maggie Houlihan vs. Russell Bowman, filed 10/11/06, for Libel, in North County.

    GIN056174

    The city hired a Mexican worker to paint out the remaining signs that said "Vote No on Maggie." So all the signs, and the crosses are now gone.

    One of the workers said that Maggie Houlihan is going to try to claim damages of $5.00 for every car that went by on the freeway while the "whore" sign was visable.

    This is overkill on Maggie's part. She could have gotten a restraining order, but now doesn't need to. She already has sympathy. She should drop this lawsuit, in my opinion, as it makes her look aggressive and vindictive.

    She knows that the workers and Bowman don't think that spreading mulch constitutes a grading violation. She knows they think they are being singled out because she lives across the street from this former greenhouse property. They wanted to develop as many others have, including just North of Bowman's property. Council plays favorites, pure and simple. Crosses should not be "declared" illegal structures, either.

    The City government should not get caught up in these personal feuds.

    ReplyDelete
  25. The city is doing what it is doing to protect itself from more serious legal liability. They voted 4 to 0 to give Bowman a variance based on falsified testimony and documentation. Even Sabine gets this. Maggie should really sue the city, but that would be very funny, sort of like Maggie sueing herself.

    The property to the north of Bowman was developed at low density in the 1980s. Bowman still has the right to develop his property at the density it is zoned for. He asked for an upzoning and was turned down by the council 4 to 0. The council essentially reversed itself after realizing its mistake of granting the variance. Even Dan Dalager has stated in public the documents were false, yet he voted to approve the variance. I accept the city's decision and action against Bowman. It is not often in this city that the council, at least tacitly, concedes a mistake. Of course, the council would never admit it openly.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Oh, the lawyers tell them not to admit mistakes, of course.

    But I thought the property to the north of Bowman's, just over a wall, was pretty densely developed? I could be wrong. But I think it has a higher density than that of the 80's. It looks like new build.

    I don't believe the City gave Bowman a "variance," as such. They considered that he had shown same or similar legal, non-conforming use, despite the questionable evidence. The matter wasn't about granting a "variance," but was about granting him the right to continue his landscaping biz.

    The greenhouses existed before the developments. I think Bowman made a mistake with the signs. Now Maggie is making a mistake trying to "profit" at the expense of Bowman. This will turn into a test over Bowman's rights of free speech. Personally, I don't think he will settle.

    The case can also revolve around how "whore" is defined, and who is harmed by reading this word. Maggie could not sue for the occupants of the cars driving by, only for herself. As she is a public figure, the standard to prove libel is much, much higher.

    Also, Bowman could counter-sue the City for showing discrimination in enforcing its own grading regulations with regard to the illegal grading of the Hall Property during demolition and "clean up."

    ReplyDelete
  27. Questions for DalagerOctober 14, 2006 4:47 PM

    Let's ask Dalager (you spelled his name wrong, JP, lol) questions about the Bowman/Houlihan deal at the DEMA forum at the Community Center. When is it again?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Just a few points about the Bowman fiasco. The recent General Plan Ammendment request was not processed by Bowman, but rather by a developer to whom Bowman wanted to sell. As the developer (Cottage Development) was not successful, the deal fell thru.

    The existing project North of Bowman is Pointsettia Park, a gated development built in the early '80s with a fairly low density. It may look more like 3-5 units per acre because of a large open space in the center that is part of the density calculation.

    Bowman was granted a minor use permit that allows/permits/extends an existing landscape maintenance business to continue on that site (with conditions). This use permit runs with the land, so it will be in place for a long time (thanks council).

    There have been others who have tried unsuccessfully to develop that site. Complications involving full EIR (freeway noise) have generally nixed them.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Previous poster, thank you for a most informative post!

    When is the next forum, at the Community Center?

    ReplyDelete

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