Monday, October 02, 2006

No one would ever sell their personal property the way the city did

Stop the Land Transactions?

From the September issue of Encinitas Views:

Q. Why do some in the public think there should be a moratorium on real estate transactions until a new council is elected?

A. The short answer is a list. The Mossy car dealership purchase, the Saxony land swap, the La Costa open space, the Seeman & Lone Jack vacant land and, unfortunately, the Hall Property. If the city were our real estate agent we would have fired them long ago. We repeatedly overpaid for land and failed to do adequate investigations of the land before completing the transaction. The squander will haunt our budgets for years.

Q. The council is proud of the Mossy dealership purchase. They say it solves a major problem for the city. Why is that on the list?

A. Yes, it solves a couple problems. First, it gives us a place to put a permanent public works yard and the Mossy site is turnkey. They had demolished the old public works site without locking in a replacement. They had cornered themselves. Second, it takes the Saxony land swap off the table. Against great public opposition, the council had decided that the Ecke’s Saxony property was where the public works yard should go even though the site hadn’t been considered as part of the original public search. Once the UT reported that the city was well on the way to giving Ecke $6 million worth of city land in exchange for some of Ecke’s agricultural land that was only worth $700,000 the public came unglued. This should have been troubling for Council Member Dalager because he had publicly declared the land swap to be a “no brainer.” The Mossy purchase helps to bury that plan.

The problem with the Mossy purchase was at $9.5 million the city flat out paid too much for the property. The city’s own appraisal says the fee simple market value was $8.5 million dollars and that value is dubious given information within the same appraisal. We paid at least one million dollars too much. Probably three. We should have been able to get a spectacular deal. At the meeting announcing the purchase, Dalager went on and on about how Mossy admitted that this was their only dealership location to flounder and that Mossy had tried but couldn’t find another buyer. Ironically, Dalager, who is a lawnmower repairman by trade, thought that he had out-negotiated one of our country’s most successful car dealers.

Q. You say the Mossy site was turnkey but didn’t the council just vote to spend half a million dollars on converting the dealership to a public works yard?

A. That expenditure wasn’t discussed at the meeting they announced the Mossy purchase. We should give the council a break here, no one could expect any site to be perfectly set up for our needs, but… that fits their pattern of behavior, you know, commit to a big project without first acknowledging and adequately planning for the entire thing.

Q. Your list of transactions includes the sale of surplus land. Were mistakes made on sales too?

A. The best way to describe it is to say that no one would ever sell their personal property the way the city did. Because the council needed to inject cash into their budget the city sold off land in Olivenhain and an ocean view lot in Encinitas. (The Olivenhain site could have been a nice park or fire station.) This was in 2004. The real estate market was red hot and the method of marketing the property certainly should have been questioned long before the close of bidding. Only one bid was received and few people inquired.

The city put up signs on the property for a short time and put a dinky little notice in the UT. That’s it. Few potential buyers were aware of the offering. The single bidder was a neighbor of the ocean view lot. He had bid the minimum bid identified in the notice. After discovering he was the only bidder, he notified the council that he was changing his offer to 90K less than he had originally offered. The council accepted the new offer after the city’s appraiser conveniently reduced the appraised value, which was below the publicly noticed minimum bid.

They should have never renegotiated. They should have never accepted anything under the minimum bid. They should have marketed the property so that a large pool of potential buyers were aware. This was quality property and there were a lot of speculators looking to sink big money into Encinitas property at that time. It was a frenzy.

Q. Was the La Costa Avenue open space property quality property?

A. From a development standpoint that property was useless. For some reason we paid top dollar for those 17 acres, $1.4 million in 2002. The owner of the property bought the site in 1998 for $260K and public records show that he attempted to put a single home on the site. The property is super steep bluffs with one flat area at the base of a ravine. The property was unstable and would require a mammoth engineering effort to build on. That’s the site that slid out onto La Costa Avenue in the big rains two years ago. (Public records show that city engineers knew the site’s stability needed to be addressed even before the city bought the property, which was made worse when the city permitted the developer to clear much of the site’s vegetation. Nothing was done until after the landslide happened. In 2005, the city estimated that half a million dollars worth of work went into stabilizing the site.)

The seller’s politically connected real estate agent had been marketing the property as a development mitigation site. Basically, the site wasn’t developable. That means three things: 1) it was going to be open space before the city purchased it, 2) the developer should be happy when the site finally slid across La Costa Avenue that he didn’t own it anymore, and 3) you would expect that the property would be worth less than the $260k he bought it for (after adjustment for inflation). The city got duped.

Oh, oh wait. Even if the site was buildable, the development would have had to meet the general plan’s open space provisions because of the site’s steep slopes. By the site’s well know development restrictions much of it would have been open space. The whole thing wasn’t a very efficient use of open space purchasing funds.

Q. The Hall property is the pride of the council and its development is the reason some council members want to be on the council. How can that be on the list?

A. The potential of the Hall Property absorbs the hopes of the entire city. It would be great to see it become our crown jewel. Unfortunately, we paid too much for the property. Had we paid a reasonable amount we would have more money available today to
put into building park infrastructure. Instead, the council is in a position where they are taking on massive debt to help pay for projects thoughout the city. We certainly didn’t get the Hall property at a price that reflected the lack of access to the site or the uncertainty of the property’s level of contamination.

The Hall property held greenhouses for decades and in the early years many nasty pesticides were used there. Some people think the city purposely broke the California Environmental Quality Act in an effort to hide the contamination. That violation was the subject of a lawsuit the city lost in 2004, which forced the city to do an adequate study of the site.This should have already been done. It should have been done before we closed escrow and bought the property. You should read the judge’s ruling. It isn’t a pretty portrait of our city’s administration. We won’t know if we bought a park site or useless toxic site until the city releases that environmental impact report. The EIR was due out in July 2006.

encinitasviews@gmail.com

68 comments:

  1. Recall all the council persons involved in the sale of these properties. They squandered our public monies. Why keep them in office any longer?

    ReplyDelete
  2. People don't seem to care. Did they care about the squandered money used for the Manchester property? Anybody even know how many hundreds of thousands/millions were wasted over there?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Now it makes senseOctober 02, 2006 8:53 AM

    We thought they were purposely scamming the SDWD ratepayers with the really bad deals between the city and the water district. Maybe they are just so bad at dealing with real estate that they couldn't negotiate with themselves without tripping over themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Our understanding is that the City spent 2.5 million on the Manchester property, including the preliminary environmental impact report that showed, without a doubt, that it was unsuitable for development due to its being a protected wetland. As we said at a Council meeting, back then, when you buy a horse, you get it "Vetted." The transaction won't go thru without a veterinarian’s report. When you buy a home, you usually have it inspected. At a minimum, you get a "termite report." Our City Council plowed millions into a property that can only be used for open space. The County, through Pam Slater-Price, bailed us out and paid somewhere between 1 and 1.5 million dollars for the property. So we lost at least a million dollars on that bad, bad deal.

    Mossy profited from the inexperience and negligence of our Council in dealing with this. Dan Dalager said at the Cardiff forum that Mossy would not have negotiated if the public were informed of any of the terms. Why does that sound like a bad omen? Because the public would have asked questions, asked if there were any other offers on the property. Plain and simple, the City Council, acting on bad advice, and in closed sessions, is screwing us, the taxpayers by negotiating bad deals.

    Between the million dollar loss at the Manchester property, the million dollar loss between the appraisal of the Mossy property and our buying price, and the missing 1 million from the Cardiff Sanitation district, our corrupt and negligent City Council has "blown" a bare minimum of 3 million dollars, in these three instances, alone.

    Yet they can't get over themselves, patting themselves on the back every chance they get, and shunning the true founders of this City, and the people who care enough to sit through the frustrating, deceptive Council Meetings where everything is basically already a done deal.

    By the way, the NCT gave our Council a raspberry today for the way they treated the skaters who came to be heard at the last Council Meeting. Council "pretended" to listen, but did nothing but go along with staff's recommendation without justifying the action with acutal reports of problems. It sounded as though the only ones who had been complained had been some merchants re skaters using the sidewalks, and that was not what the new ordinance was about. Also, Council could have given the skaters some relief in the off-season in the parking lot at Moonlight Beach. They wouldn't budge an inch.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Surely there are experts that the City has hired to guide them in these purchases. It seems they are getting some pretty bad advice if that is the case. So, there are others responsible. If that is not the case, and they consider themselves expert real estate professionals, there is no excuse.

    This type of activity has been going on since cityhood. The purchase of the City Hall site is a perfect example. The seated council paid way more for that site than was reasonable, but we have all forgotten and moved on.

    With so much at stake, one would believe that numerous consultants and professionals would be advising the polititions. Just gets back to ego and lack of accountability.

    I'd love to hear who these experts are or if they even used any. Good question for Dan. Is he an expert?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Surely there are experts that the City has hired to guide them in these purchases. It seems they are getting some pretty bad advice if that is the case. So, there are others responsible. If that is not the case, and they consider themselves expert real estate professionals, there is no excuse.

    This type of activity has been going on since cityhood. The purchase of the City Hall site is a perfect example. The seated council paid way more for that site than was reasonable, but we have all forgotten and moved on.

    With so much at stake, one would believe that numerous consultants and professionals would be advising the polititions. Just gets back to ego and lack of accountability.

    I'd love to hear who these experts are or if they even used any. Good question for Dan. Is he an expert?

    ReplyDelete
  7. The value of any given piece of property at any given time is "what a willing qualified buyer will pay to a willing seller". Period.
    Any freak can second guess any deal after the fact.
    Shiela Cameron championed buying the loser Manchester site.
    Dennis Holz and Maggie Houlihan championed the LaCosta purchase / land swap for its habitat value.
    The Hall property purchase was another Dennis Holz feature, and he showed vision for geting it.
    The Mossy deal moves the public works yard out of a residential neighborhood for the first time in city history.. WHAT'S THAT WORTH!!!

    Nothing, if your only goal is to attack the city, and everything if you are someone who actually cares about the future of our city and its residents.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Better after NovemberOctober 02, 2006 6:45 PM

    Our only goal isn't to attack the City. It's to get some better leadership on Council.

    By bragging about getting the public works yard out of a neighborhood, you get no brownie points, Ms. Guerin & assoc. We never heard one complaint from the neighbors where the yard was before SDWD (Board of Directors = City Council = conflict of interest for SDWD ratepayers) sold it to "itself" the City (oh, but what about Olivenhein Water District?), or where it was at the former Pacific View site. We think it's a lot quieter than San Dieguito High School where they are constantly doing construction, having buses come and go, etc. And that's in a neighborhood. Encinitas is made up of neighborhoods. The neighbors were not complaining where the yards were.

    You can call yourself a visionary, but can you include in your vision open government, transparency, honesty and trust. Is part of your vision drilling for oil, like Bilbray promotes? You have said you will do exactly as he wants, stick with his "oil" platform.

    And by attacking the watchdogs, the messengers, you are trying to distract from the message, the questions; such as, why did Dan Dalager say the appraisal and purchase price for the Mossy property was 8.5 million, when in fact the appraisal was for 8.5 and the purchase price was for 9.5? Why did Mossy get an extra million?

    Why do we do these sloppy and ineffective backroom "deals," and then say, oh, we won't look at ourselves, now, try to make improvements NOW? We can do better, and will do so, come November.

    Current Council, headed by lameduck Mayor Guerin, with her loyal lap dog Dalager has no qualms about attacking individuals whom they feel are essentially defenseless. And they do so after oral arguments, or public comments at Council Meetings when they know Council can always have the "last word." Well, we hope your last words on Council will be coming soon, Dalager and Guerin. If you can't stand the heat, stay out of politics, and don't pretend as though you are not partisan, and yes, supporting your elitist friends, your golf buddies, and those that will patronize your lawnmower shop, Dan Dalager, giving you big monetary contributions for your campaign, in the name of individuals, of course, so you don't have to disclose them.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Encinitas aswirl in controversies

    By: J. STRYKER MEYER - Staff Writer

    In the land of controversies, Encinitas City Attorney Glenn Sabine recently defused what could have been a doozy during the political season.

    Sabine sent a memo to Mayor Christy Guerin and the City Council stating that two Fair Political Practices Commission officials, Dixie Howard and Tara Stocks, found no "impropriety" in a cash disbursement to Councilwoman Maggie Houlihan's husband during a 2004 trip to Hondo, Japan.

    Sabine wrote in a May 22 memorandum: "Council Member Houlihan informed me that her husband received the Reimbursement independently (outside of her control or direction) in consideration of his status as an official participant in the Hondo Triathlon. ... Finally, we should note that any travel and related costs for City Officials of a trip such as Hondo do not constitute gifts under the Political Reform Act provided they are reasonably related to the legitimate purpose of the trip ---- facilitating a Sister City relationship."


    Sabine was responding to an April 14 e-mail from Christy Guerin, who wrote: "It has come to my attention that funds for Council member Houlihan's husband were refunded by the City of Hondo of approximately $1,000.00 cash ... This was the only gift that was received from Hondo to any council member, and my concern is that it was never reported. ... I feel compelled to ask you to review the legality of this cash gift."

    Guerin wrote that she and Councilman Jerome Stocks, no relation to Tara, went on that trip and were unaware of the $1,000, and no one in their entourage received a G-note from their Sister City counterparts.

    Thankfully there's no wrongdoing, because the usually quiet, placid borough of Encinitas has been simmering lately with controversies.

    The Sister City program has come under fire from a surprising number of critics, including Bob Bonde, a member of the Encinitas Taxpayers Association; former Councilwoman Sheila Cameron; and Carolyn Cope, one of the founders of the program.

    The criticisms include that the Sister City program has become too elitist while excluding ordinary citizens; that Encinitas elected officials are spending too much money to bring officials from Hondo, now incorporated into the city of Amakusa, to visit Encinitas next week; and that not enough funds and attention are being directed toward the city's 20th anniversary of cityhood.

    There are so much controversial issues swirling around that the upcoming election for City Council has taken a back seat to them.

    Another issue that has generated some controversy is Friday's "Operation Homecoming" event in Encinitas.

    Two years of hard work by Encinitas Councilman Dan Dalager and several city volunteers and civic groups convinced the National Endowment for the Arts to bring its "Operation Homecoming" book-reading tour to Encinitas on Friday night. Some critics have accused the city of being insensitive to the Jewish community by holding the event on the Jewish holiday of Rosh Hashana, which begins at sundown Friday. This is somewhat of a coup for Encinitas, yet such success has garnered barbs too.

    -- Contact staff writer J. Stryker Meyer at (760) 901-4089 or jmeyer@nctimes.com.

    ReplyDelete
  10. When did Christy Guerin get her expensive Kimono from Hondo? Or was that just a rumor?

    Christy Guerin felt "compelled" to come forward. Yeah, right. After she read Maggie's husband's critical letters about her and Council in the NCT and the Coast News. She waited a year to come forward, and she did nothing to "come forward" to stop the clown from following Maggie around after the previous Hondo junket.

    Maggie's made mistakes; we all have. One of Christy Guerin's mistakes is not to have stepped down as soon as she accepted her position with Bilbray. We could get along just fine with four Council Members until November, or January. Wish the new council could take their seats sooner, ASAP. Meanwhile, Council could vote to select a different mayor.

    Bossy Guerin has stuff over everyone's head, we suspect. The point is, she is still sitting there acting like a queen, reigning mighty on Council. Lap dog Dan Dalager just wags his tail and sniffs. He himself has suggested he "may not be around" on Council, after the election.

    James Bond has lost his ability to shake or stir. Stocks looks down his nose and talks while the public is trying to present their views at Council meetings. Guerin does this, also.

    We hope we can have a change, and that we can reopen the channels of communication, and yes, trust.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Lap dog feak- Go chain yourself to a tree.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Houlihan the Houligan took $1,000 from a foreign country? She failed to disclose this gift? $1,000 is WAY above the $350 anual gift limit per the FPPC, but this is not an issue?
    Give me a freakin break!
    A dirty corrupt politician posing as a peoples champion is what I see!

    ReplyDelete
  13. The value of any given piece of property at any given time is "what a willing qualified buyer will pay to a willing seller". Period.
    Any freak can second guess any deal after the fact.
    Shiela Cameron championed buying the loser Manchester site.
    Dennis Holz and Maggie Houlihan championed the LaCosta purchase / land swap for its habitat value.
    The Hall property purchase was another Dennis Holz feature, and he showed vision for getting it done.
    The Mossy deal moves the public works yard out of a residential neighborhood for the first time in city history.. WHAT'S THAT WORTH!!!

    Nothing, if your only goal is to attack the city, and everything if you are someone who actually cares about the future of our city and its residents.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Boy I didn't realize until today that the current city council posts on this blog. It is obvious that some of them posted on this issue. I love Dalager's new moniker, 'Mayor Guerin, with her loyal lap dog Dalager' it really fits. Lets call Stocks by his real name Jerome Stocks. He was Jim until he wanted to run for city council. Hoolihan has always been a person that doesn't care about the community. She, like the rest, is interested in what is in it for me.

    We should build a list of their trangressions and recall the entire council right after the election in November.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The bottom line is that in November we don't want to vote for Dan Dalager.
    I won't.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I negotiator the the city of Enc. when buying land or property is the City Manager. Yes, it definitely should be a professional but instead it's the City Manager so look to Kerry Miller for the awful purchases in the last few years.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Getting it out of the hood; "WHAT'S THAT WORTH!!"

    I don't know what that is worth. How much is it to you? Two or three million, maybe? Tell us how much.

    Do you think the council should know? Can they tell us, they never mentioned anything like that, but they did say they were great negotiators.

    Even if it is worth it to the city, Mossy still walked away with more than they could get from any sane buyer. All we can do is speculate now but shouldn't we evaluate our leaders' actions? When you look at it, doesn't look good. They paid a million more than their own apprasial said the property would sell for.

    So, how much is it worth it? Could you make the same arguement if we paid $34 million?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Made as Instructed (MAI)October 03, 2006 8:37 AM

    The council told the public they based their price on the appraisal, not on the value to the city. Why not be open about the fact that it was "WORTH" paying more than any other "sane" buyer?

    The appasial ran cover for the council. Here are some reading notes from the Mossy appraisal

    Don't forget that the site is not bad for a public works yard if they do a couple things right.

    * The price just happened to come out at the price that they "negotiated." Sweet. At face value that is not getting the city much of a deal.

    * The appraisers opted to use the one sales comparison with the absolute highest per square feet sales price to determine Mossy's property value. It was a little sketchy and seemed like the other comps weren't really relevant.

    * That one comparable had "mixed use entitlements." Those entitlements could have been worth a huge amount and they were not deducted from Mossy estimate, which doesn't have the mixed use entitlements. Did they adjust for that? The downward adjustment might be in the ball park of 20%.

    * There are three other comps worth noting. The first was the hotel with an ocean view and that doesn't support the sale price (below by about $700,000) and would be less if adjusted for the ocean view. The other comp that has a similar location to Mossy sold for half of what mossy sold for (on a square foot basis) and the comp site has way better freeway visibility than Mossy. The comp that was a recent sale of a lot with similar size but with more improvements sold for an equivalent of $7.6million.

    * Let's not forget the comps are from sites that could sell. The council said that mossy has tried to sell the site but could find no buyers. The site is tarnished. No one, not even Mossy can make it work at this location, according to Dalager. This is Mossy's only location to fail. Why would we pay top dollar, or over inflated top dollar?

    * The appraisers also note the property is tainted and not likely to support a dealership. They make some calculations of the property's worth as something other than a dealership. These are sketchy, check ‘em out.

    * The sale's contract identifies the sale as friendly condemnation. Stocks danced around this issue. I don't know if this confers tax advantages to Mossy or causes problems for the City in that they are restricted to selling at the appraised value (assuming it is a decent appraisal). Mossy approached the City with the idea to sell and that council was saying they weren't condemning the property... so why do it this way? Did we really have to sweeten it up more?

    • How much does that sweeten it up? If it is a lot, should the city have been able to use that to get the price lower?

    * How can they justify a condemnation when we already had a site selected for a Public Works Yard. A few years ago we were told the Quail Garden's site was the best site in town and WOULD work. We still have that site (although it is easy to argue that the site isn't best used as a PWY site). You know how these guys work, maybe that assessment had all to do with the Ecke land swap and that is why we got into this mess? Darn those meddling taxpayers.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Was Houlihan the one who came up with the idea to buy the La Costa open space? She should have done a better job on that one, but where was the rest of the council and staff?

    Did some of the other council members step back because they knew Doug Harwood might stand to gain from the sale?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Mayor Christy Guerin should call the DA's office about her conflict on the sheriff's contract under a section 1090. Did the County ever notify her that she should vote on the city contract?

    Check the State Attorney General's web site for this opinion:

    Opinion of the State Attorney General, No. 00-706, Oct. 23, 2000.

    CONCLUSIONS
    1. A person may serve simultaneously as a deputy sheriff and a city council member.
    2. A city council, one member of which is a deputy sheriff, may enter into a
    contract with the sheriff to provide police services to the city, provided that the interest of
    the deputy sheriff is disclosed to the council and noted in its official records, and the deputy
    sheriff completely abstains from any participation in the matter.
    ANALYSIS
    The two questions presented for resolution concern whether a deputy sheriff
    may serve on a city council, and if so, what restrictions might affect the city’s ability to
    contract with the sheriff for police protection services.

    ReplyDelete
  21. The old public works site next to the old library became a liability and unworkable when the citizens decided to place the new library in the current location. The citizens, the community. The potential Quail site was supposed to be a park originally, remember. Then the library. Then it got wrapped up in a potential Ecke land swap which the citizens voted against. To take the Quail site, worth 8 million and then build a public works yard at a projected cost of 11 million would have put the cost at 19 million if there had been no cost overruns. The Mossy site cost 9.5 million, the public works department told the council during open session that another 3-500,000 would be all that was required for the conversion to be effective. So the public works Mossy site comes in at less than 11 million compared to 19 million on the Quail site. This isn’t new math, subtract 11 from 19 and the whole number is the approximate savings. Don't give me that palaver about the Pacific View site, it belongs to the school district and is going to be used for something other than public works. And if you will check the minutes/video you will find that conversion expense was brought before the council.

    On the Hall property: If the city were to list the property for sale it would sell for more than enough to pay off any debt and leave a great deal leftover, don’t think so, ask Mike Pattison. The EIR when it comes out is not going to list this as a super fund clean up site. There may be areas that need to be addressed but at one time much of the land in Encinitas that has houses on it today used to have flower growers on it and we don’t see a rash of rashes or cancers in our residents.

    Being a council member is really a thankless job. You don’t get paid enough and you have to try to please a community. As the story goes:

    An old man, a boy and a donkey were going to town. The boy rode the donkey and the old man walked. As they went along they passed some townspeople who remarked it was a shame that the old man was walking and the boy was riding.

    The man and the boy thought maybe the critics were right, so they changed positions.

    Later they passed another group of citizens that remarked, “What a shame, he makes that little boy walk.”

    They then decided they both would walk. Soon they passed some more people who thought they were stupid to walk when they had a decent donkey to ride. So, they both got on and rode the donkey.

    Now they passed another group of animal rights citizens that shamed them by saying how awful to put such a load on a poor donkey.

    The boy and the man decided they were probably right, so they decided to carry the donkey. As they crossed over a bridge, they lost their grip on the animal and the donkey fell into the river and
    drowned.

    The moral of the story?

    If you try to please everyone, you might as well...

    Kiss your ass goodbye!!

    ReplyDelete
  22. Just a minute, Gil. The property next to the Cornish library was owned by the San Dieguito Water District, not by the city. The Water District leased space to the city.

    The city council took the property and title in a slicker way than eminent domain. With the city holding title, they applied for a state grant to fund over $7 million of the library cost. The city needed title for most of the property to get the grant. There were three parcels on the Cornish site, one belongs to the county.

    The Water District property was more than sufficient for the District. The city was one that had a problem of no property for their public works yard.

    The District isn't part of the city government, but of course you know that.

    If you keep changing history, you can add the story of a little bull goes a long way.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Yes and No. The city took over the water district facilities. Why? Because they needed something to convince bond holders that the bonds they wanted to float would get repaid if all else failed. "All else", means black friday. What about General Obligation Bonds, why not use those? There is no way that a GOP is going to pass in this community. This community couldn't even get 2/3 of the vote on the Ecke Ag conversion vote and it was an agreement set in stone in perpetuity and you think any new bond that encumbers the citizens homes is going to pass? I don't think so. So how does a growing city fund the things it feels it needs, Lease Revenue Bonds. Is it dangerous? Yes,if you believe the city is going to become insolvent. Do I believe that the tax base is going to nose dive or that the pension obligations are going to become an albatross around the city's neck and that the bond repayment will fall on the water district ratepayers? Not if everyone is paying attention. And that's no bull.

    ReplyDelete
  24. What's "Encinitas Views"? Who puts it out and how do you get a copy?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Gil, you are beginning to sound like one of the zillion ads on TV promising eternal wealth and good fortune by taking their courses.

    The city is already in the sewer, gurgling its last breath in two or three years.

    Encinitas is at buildout, it's not growing, unless you're counting the proposed 19 luxury houses off La Costa in the open space/wildlife corridor.

    You miss the point. Why should the Water District ratepayers be resposible for the City's debts? Encinitas isn't responsible for San Diego's debt. Or is it? The city council is using a library to front for the bonds to pay for 3 brand new fire stations and the Mossy property; let the city take out the bonds under the name of the city of Encinitas. The city shouldn't put the majority of the cost on a Water District that has no say. Leave the Water District out of it.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Gil is full of palaverOctober 03, 2006 7:53 PM

    Gil, in your story about losing the donkey by the man and boy's trying to carry it over the bridge, that is what happens when people don't think for themselves. Also, no donkey worth its salt would let an old man and a boy carry him. Your analogy may be funny but it doesn't make sense and is irrelevant.

    Also, it doesn't make sesnse, Gil, about your saying the Quail site is "worth 8 million." The City already owns that, so we would not be paying that out. It should not cost 11 million to build a public works yard, which is mostly paving for the vehicles to be parked. The office space should not be $300.00 per sq. ft. That is crazy for a public works yard. It's a yard!!

    And you are the one giving out a bunch of palaver, Gil. Why didn't you answer Dr. Lorri's questions, before? What do you stand to gain by keeping quiet? Why could the City have not inquired about leasing or buying the Pacific View site? It was "turn key" just as much as the Mossy place. There, at Pacific View, it only cost $165,000 to make it suitable for a publics work yard, not $500,000 as Council is now claiming, for Mossy. And Lap Dog Dan Dalager was the one who was quoted by Bob Nanninga in the Coast News as saying the appraisal was for $8.5 million, wrongly claimly the selling price was for $8.5 million, and the site was "turn key."

    The SDWD ratepayers are being screwed. We do not want our money to guarantee revenue bonds. If the people want a sports complex and/or a park, they will vote for a general bond. We can make up our own minds, instead of having them made up for us. Gil, you don't vote here. We know you don't have to pay the big sanitation and water fees on your property tax bills that many pay here, added on to our already high property tax if we bought withing the last 15 years.

    And you know what, Gil, we do know of a "rash" of people who have grown up in this area who have cancer now, in their thirties on up. I met one at Henrys who told me she had no history in her family of cancer, and she lives right next to the Hall property.

    It takes years, and intensive research, to discover where these "pockets" of cancer are, Gil. You are no expert, and are a bag of hot air on this subject. Why don't you tell us what you found out about the City Attorney and leave the bogus Mossy overly expensive purchase price out of your comments?

    One reason this deal is so unfair is that James Bond and Christy Guerin, who are on the board do not live in the SDWD. They are in the Olivenhein Water District. They should not be sitting on the board of directors.

    Christy Guerin has an employment relationship with the sheriff's dept. thru her husband who is a commander. A marriage relationship does constitute an employment interest, period. She could have and should have abstained from voting on the contract. A public speaker asked her to abstain, and she blatantly refused. She keeps saying, I have always voted on these contracts and I will continue to do so.

    Yes, the Attorney General needs to be notified. Guerin said our City Attorney, Glenn Sabine told her it was okay. Once again, bad advice.

    ReplyDelete
  27. No, we are at the in-fill stage. I couldn't get down vulcan to the cardiff post office this morning because of the new construction. The city tax revenue to the GF increased 8 million last year. The communities continued presence and desirability has pushed the tax base up. City of Encinitas General Obligation Bonds like most places in Ca would never pass the voters. Does this mean that all new city services should just be left as is or somehow funded in an as we go basis, I just don't think so. If the city is in the sewer why do real estate prices keep climbing? Not because of developer fees, because Encinitas is a very desirable community to live in. As Dennis Shea said "It's not perfect but it's as close to paradise as you can get." The formation of the JPA was the only way to move ahead on projects at more than molasses speed. Is it reasonable to expect the ratepayers of the water district to be left on the hook for the bonds? No, and it's just not very likely to happen. The city would first make every effort to cover the bond service out of the general fund even at the expense of some city services. This does not realistically include the water district unless the basic US economy collapses. If the economy collapses your water is going to be the last thing, along with sewers, that get turned off. If the economy were to collapses I would be more concerned about finding food on the super market shelves especially since the yards around most of the new homes aren't large enough to grow the beans you'll need to feed your family. And the issue on the wetlands/wildlife corridor is still open to input both at the city and coastal level. Get your objections on paper and mail to the city and Gary Cannon at Coastal.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Gil, stick to championing the porta potties. And you did a good job on A. Now you are just plain wrong.

    You didn't answer any of the questions about the very dubious appraisal of the Mossy property. You just throw some million dollar numbers together and say, "it could have been worse."

    Also, my understanding is that a little old lady donated open land on Orpheus, to be held as open land, in perpetuity, to the City when she died. This land was traded for the La Costa property wasn't it? Sheila Cameron was dead set against this open space being zoned as commercial. Where does that stand? Those issues are directly related.

    Maggie did think it was a good trade because of the number of acres in question. The deal is, if the land is very steep, and has already been denuded of its greenery, it becomes a huge liability. The money the City spent cleaning up the mess after the last floods does not include the free removal of dirt by some developer in Carlsbad who wanted the dirt for infill.

    Maggie has a lot to learn. Her husband should not have accepted that money. However, she has not been leading Council, Christy Guernin has. Maggie, somehow, got more votes than anyone in the last election. More than Stocks or Bond. Yes, we would like a recall after kicking out Dalager and saying ta ta to Bossypants Guerin.

    ReplyDelete
  29. My PO Box is 1048. If you would like you can send me the list of the rash of cancer cases, i would be especially interested in those under twenty-five since those older probably have stuffed themselves on processed garbage "fast" food. As a licensed pesticide applicator this interests me. Truthfully. I'm more concerned with the food imported from SA that is on the shelves of most markets and sprayed with who knows what, and some veggies from CA labeled organic.
    As for Ms. Guerin, her days as a council member are quite limited, let's hope that her replacement is worthy. You've got two votes use them wisely, I have no votes but still care about the city. I expect to continue to appear before Coastal and I am clueless what I am supposed to know about the city attorney. The only thing I asked was if I could get J. Smith's qualifications bio. He said yes.
    On the Pacific View site, I asked the city if we could do a friendly condemnation at a council meeting, they just ignored me and smiled.
    The water bill for the nursery runs 1500-2000 per statement. We don't get ag rates, we pay the same as a homeowner.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Gil: You promised us that you would get the information from Glenn Sabine on Jennifer Smith's qualifications as Finance Director. Well, we are all waiting. Come clean.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Thankfully Encinitas does not have pages, otherwise Slingblade would be in big trouble.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Gil, we thought your P.O. Box is 333, Cardiff 92007?

    Go to the public health dept. and ask for statistics. My daughter, who eats no junk food got cancer at 33. Her friend, classmate, recently died of cancer.

    We have many friends who have contracted cancer, too, now deceased. Walking over the bridge to Cottonwood Park, from Smart & Final, at the Japanese delegation/Chisty Guerin birthday shindig, the water looked hideous, scummy, with bottles and cans lying there. This should be cleaned up weekly.

    Cottonwood Creek with little or no environmental impact report took 12 years to complete. We are not holding our breath on the Hall property turning into a park. It can be done, but with great care because of the contamination.

    If you got Jennifer Smith's bio, please release it, here, so we can all stop wondering about that.

    Do not blame people getting cancer on the the victims of this disease. When the City of Encinitas turned the treated wood into chips, a huge cloud of carcinogens was released into the neighborhood near the Hall Property. The winds were strong. The City should have never done the demoliton, without an environmental impact report. The demo included much soil disturbance, as retaining walls and pipes were removed, without caution.

    Jerome Stocks claimed at the Council Meeting before last that the Quality of Life group prevented Council from doing a clean-up. Council, through contractors, shredded poisonous wood, graded in toxic soil, sending more dust into the air, all with a "negative environmental impact declaration." This was the clean-up that was needed, cleaning up from the huge mess, health hazard, and liability that Council, through its ignorance and neglect created.

    Glenn Sabine stated, at the time of Judge Annello's ruling, as quoted in the NCT: We wouldn't have done anything differently, we aren't doing anything differently now, and we won't do anything differently in the future." The reporter asked him why the Quality of Life people bothered to sue, then. He said, "for the nominal victory and the attorney fees."

    That is a slap in the face to Judge Annello who ruled that the City had not followed environmental law. Glenn Sabine is mirroring his own wicked ways, as he does sue those he considers powerless for the "nominal victory and the attorney fees." He gets paid big, big bucks for not settling and oppressing those whom he considers defenseless. Christy Guerin lies when she says, "we tried to resolve the lawsuit many times." Lies and more lies.

    Gil, please don't be a part of the lies and cover-up. We know you pay a lot of money for water as a grower. However, you do not pay the additional fees for water and sewer that are placed on the property tax bills of those that live in this city.

    ReplyDelete
  33. LOSERS LOSERS LOSERS

    ReplyDelete
  34. What a bunch of long winded losers.

    This fixation on tearing down good hard working people, who are serving the city (Jennifer Smith) and others, is insanity.

    Ms. Smith has all the expeiance in the world and a the prerequisite degrees. That's been vetted by personel. Thats their job.

    Encitas has many decisions before it. This whole sister city thing is relativly meaningless other than the way it was handled by Christy. Christy is not running again.

    I'd love to see more of the solid important issues debated on this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  35. For the Newsletter, go to

    encinitasviews@gmail.com

    and request it.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Geez, Gil. You have suddenly gone mute again. Let's have the information on Jennifer Smith's qualifications. Or did you make a deal with Sabine?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Gil makes a good point about whether or not we came out ahead when we paid 9.5 million for the car dealership. We did. Does anyone on this blog deny that?

    I wish Gil was on the council and not the guys we got because gil’s justification makes sense, but it was not the justification used for the 9.5 million dollar price tag. The council claimed, except Bond who was quite on the subject, to be great negotiators and they had got the taxpayer a great deal ON THE PURCHASE PRICE. The staff report says the price was set by the appraisal not on the global savings to the city or by how much the city had set a side. They didn't use Gil's justification.

    A number of people spoke out saying that the price was way above what the market could justify and that is why they wanted to review the appraisal. No one on the council responded with Gil's justification.

    We came out millions ahead of where we were. That doesn’t justify paying an inflated price.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Gil, here you go again. If you want to be known as the man of truths get your facts straight before you blog. You probably believe in the old adage that if you want your story to be believed put some truth in your lie. That way no one can figure out what is true and what is not.

    Stay in Questhaven!

    ReplyDelete
  39. City is SecrativeOctober 04, 2006 11:16 AM

    Yes, on the Mossy deal, we feel as though, at a minimum, we paid $1 million too much. So, yeah, the taxpayers, ratepayers are losers.

    By calling names you don't dissolve the questions. As for the Jennifer Smith question, if she is qualified, then why did the Attorney from Calaware have to write a threatening letter to get her qualifications released? Why do we still not know what the qualifications are?

    Should we take your word for it, bitter poster? She does have a personal relationship with Glenn Sabine, the City Attorney who refused to release her info upon public info requests. One can expect people to be dubious, not to have trust, when everything has to be so secret, in the name of "privacy," but the citizens are not given our rights of privacy, in turn.

    City Council, presumably, made a big deal out of this by refusing to promptly release the information that was properly requested.

    ReplyDelete
  40. It seems so simple Gil. You said you met with Sabine about Smith's qualifications. Yet, you still won't post them. Why is that? You seem to have an opinion on everything else. Any truth to the rumor you are involved in the Brown property land deal? Is that why yo are so quiet about Smith and Sabine?

    ReplyDelete
  41. The San Dieguito Water District ratepayers should have a vote on whether they want the JPA to sell the $20,000,000 in bonds.

    Can the referendum process be used?

    How many signatures are needed for the petition?

    ReplyDelete
  42. Jennifer Smith is qualified with the prerequisite degrees and experience to be finance director.

    Those of you bloggers who think otherwise are on a witch hunt that will make you look bad.

    Now_____ The whole Glenn Sabine, Jennifer Smith.... Kerry Miller, Pam Alexander stuff is terrible.

    IMHO One or the other, should cease working for the city of Encinitas. There are to many problems associated with these relationshis at this level not the least of which is the public trust.

    I think it's great that they are in love and have a relationship that is is nurishing and happy.

    One needs to leave and I'll think less of them if they don't.

    That is the issue in my simple small mind.

    ...and in tho small chance someone really gives a darn, I'm not bitter, honest. :) I'm not I'm not I'm not.

    ReplyDelete
  43. the casual observerOctober 04, 2006 7:09 PM

    Nuturing love, so that's what they are calling it these days.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Funny- Adam Kaye said "what's wrong with love" when I attempted to get him interested in the story of Smith and Sabine. So far, he hasn't been at all interested in any of the information I have offered him from the City. Strikes me as odd, but oh well. It will call come out in due time.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Creepy wacky moron sicko jerks.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Folks I did my job and got Glenn Sabine to prepare and release the basic qualifications necessary to satisfy me and Calaware. The Department Directors Qualifications have been available since early September, all you had to do was file the form requesting them.
    The documents consist of twelve pages which includes the cover letter fax page from the Risk Management Department. I will leave the a copy at Anderson Stationers tomorrow morning and you can stop and pay Mr Anderson to make you a copy or JP can pick up a copy and post it on the blog. I did not realize that I was expected to spoon feed it to you.
    I have three PO Boxes in Cardiff, one personal, one business and one other.
    I am not a party in the Browns land in any way other than as a farmer using a share of their land.
    As for staying in Questhaven(Elfin Forest), who would get things from the city that some of you are too lazy or lame to get for yourselves.
    I was wrong about the SDWD being ultimately responsible for the LRB, it clearly states in the documents that that is NOT the case and that the ratepayers are NOT on the hook. That info is online under the council meeting where the docs are available.
    I am going downtown tomorrow and will stop at Department of Public Health for info related to cancer in the community...if such documents exist and this isn't just a bunch of palaver.
    JP - I do love your blog.

    ReplyDelete
  47. I hope a few of you agressive anti city types will post apologies.

    I won't hold my breath.

    ReplyDelete
  48. We are not anti-city, we are anti closed session deals, and duplicity.

    If you were on the wrong side of some of the City's tactics, anonymous Council person, you would have lost trust in the "good faith" of our current Council, too.

    I am sorry that we had to go to a Public Disclosure attorney, to Calaware, because it took the City far longer than the legally mandated ten days to release the info. I am sorry you didn't let us know as soon as you found something out, so we wouldn't assume the info had not been released. When we get public info, we do not hesitate to share it here, particularly to avoid misunderstanding and distrust.

    ReplyDelete
  49. No one is asking you to spoon feed us anything, Gil. All we know is anecdotal evidence of friends and family, and friends of family, in this immediate area, who have gotten cancer. I don't know how the rates compare. I am not a statistician.

    People do care. Dan Dalager made another poor showing at the Olivenhein Forum last night, by the way.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Sorry for City's disdain of publicOctober 05, 2006 7:35 PM

    The City is supposed to be by and for the people, not for the elitist few, like Queen Bossypants Guerin and her loyal lap dog Dalager, and the tail wagging fire dept. ex chief, and pension happy buddies. Oh, by the way, the Encinitas Fire Dept. is in Court now, suing the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, just like Christy Guerin, through her commander husband Alfred, has.

    We're sorry you guys keep getting hurt, Chirsty, but can still run races in Japan and here. Guess those stress fractures are worth $2,000 per month, but don't stop you from racing, or running your mouth.

    ReplyDelete
  51. I'm having a problem with Gil's post. The Directors Requirements are available. I have a copy. The problem is that many of our Directors don't have the qualifications set forth by the City of Encinitas. To get this information, a member of our community(not Gil) got a hold of Terry Frankle, the attorney for Calaware. He, in turn, wrote a nasty letter to the City stating that they were violating the law by not turning over our requests to see all of the Directors qualifications, including Jennifer Smiths. The City has still not given us all of their qualifications, because each director had the opportunity to write his or her own qualifications, as Kerry Miller asked them to do it after the Calaware letter. The original applications that the Directors filled out for employment with the City just aren't around anymore. The City can't find them. This includes, according to the City, Jennifer Smith's. So I have to wonder how Glenn Sabine satisfied Gil's request, when Gil has never seen her original application for employment? The City says they don't have it, so it is impossible for Gil to have seen it. Does he trust Glenn Sabine to give him the truth? I thought Sabine and Smith had something going on with one another. That's what Gil suggested in one of his posts. Others have also stated the same thing. Kind of confusing, at least to me.

    ReplyDelete
  52. If you believe the information is bogus convince Mr Francke that is the case and get a court order requiring additional information. I have read Ms Smith's "redacted resume" and YES I am satisfied she is MORE than qualified to hold the position she has with the city. Actually, I believe the city is fortunate to have her. Kevin brought me the information provided by Mr Francke and I did show it to Mr Sabine and he said the information would be forth-coming and it was. The original job applications contain information of a personal nature and are none of Dr Lorri's business unless she can convince a judge that there is a compeling reason for that information to be released. Just because you want that personal information Dr Lorri is not compeling. If you want juicy tidbits I would suggest picking up some of the tabloids at the supermarket the next time you are in the check-out line. You, as a Dr. should understand confidentiality better than most.
    In no post have I suggested anything questionable between Mr Sabine and Ms. Smith. That sounds like idle gossip to me and I want no part of it. The fact that Mr Sabine is tenacious does not lead me to not believe what he has told me or that what has been released to the public is not true.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Smith and Sabine were together in Italy at the end of July and the first part of August. Everyone at the city knew this. Even Christy Guerin said in public afterwards that they had the right to go on a vacation. I agree with that. But Guerin seems to have missed the point. Isn't there a conflict of interest here? Shouldn't Sabine recuse himself from any matters involving Smith? It's all far too cozy for me, that is, the working relationship, not the personal relationship. The latter is their own private business. And Gil's holier-than-thou attitude is not helpful.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Oh, Gil, get a grip. Why are you trying to sound holier than thou? Glen Sabine may be stubborn, but he is not honest, trustworthy, or a good attorney for our city.

    We should have an elected city attorney. Sounds like you, Gil, were spoon-fed the info, and then you claim that is what we expected.

    Nobody cares about Glenn Sabine or Kerry Miller's sex life that I know of. What we do care about is that they are using positions of power to exploit our community by overspending, taking away our checks and balances, and robbing us of our ability to trust them.

    Glenn Sabine did not release the information in a timely manner. He did not release it until he was threatened with a lawsuit. He is the City Attorney for La Mesa. There he threatened a citizen with a lawsuit for defamation for implying at a public hearing, that developers are given special consideration. Duh! Gil, you may be related to lawyers, but that doesn't mean you are a good judge of character, or have any business analyzing anyone's motivations. Gossip is part of life, Gil. If you don't want to be involved, then don't post inflamatory remarks, especially about Dr. Lorri. We are lucky to have her posting here. And yes, she does live her and pay property taxes here, vote here. Remember, you don't.

    We do appreciate your help with the Coastal Commission, and in helping to get this "redacted" info out.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Gil, be nice, pleaseOctober 06, 2006 12:52 PM

    Yeah, Gil, they could just block out Jennifer Smith's street number, telephone number, or any info that was "private." Dr. Lorri should be able to see the original material, with these privacy "block-outs" and not be told it's "missing," if it is being withheld.

    If you did have property here, Gil, you might know that Glenn Sabine does not respect people's property rights, or our rights of freedom of speech, either. Everything Randal Morrison does, is on Sabine's behalf, too. You have no idea, Gil. Just like Council had no idea how much they agreed to overspend, overpay, on the Mossy Deal.

    We don't need more nepotism and elitism at City Hall with City Manager and City Attorney being married to staff, including Staff directors, like Jennifer Smith. This invites problems, since they often can make recommendations on the pay increases for one another, and over spending, in general.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Stop by and get the documents from Andersons, read them then decide if Ms Smith is qualified. On the Mossy deal I still think the city ended up with a good thing. I'm certainly not holier than anyone but I'm also not convinced that everything done in this city is a big conspiracy. I spend every cent possible within this community, buy all my food, gas for my fleet, and anything else here in Encinitas often times when I could buy it for less elsewhere. I don't own property here because this city changed from being ag friendly to very non ag friendly. Not whining just stating a fact. I do still love the community and hope that both my actions and words back that up.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Ok, Gil. Talk qualifications. What they provided was standard media press release info.

    Jennifer Smith spent a month or two interning during the two summers she was getting an MBA. She came west and started work as a management analyst in Encinitas sometime in 1997. Kerry Miller came in Nov. 1999. Sometime in 2001 she was promoted to assistant to the City Manager. In mid-2005 she was promoted to Director of Finance.

    She isn't a CPA, but you would hope that she would catch some glaring mistakes in the budget/CIPs. It hasn't happened yet, the mistakes are still there.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Dear Gil and everyone who reads this blog:

    1. I have no use for soap operas, as I listen to them everyday, so thanks for the suggestion Gil, bit I think I will pass on reading the National Enquirer.

    2. My concern has never been just Jennifer Smith. The concern is: are our Directors qualified to do the job that the City has hired them to do. The answer is NO! Half of the Directors do not have Master degrees per their own admission. Dan Dalagher put it this way when I asked him about this. He said "If Bill Gates wanted to be our IT Director, I would be thrilled." I agree, even though Bill Gates does not have a Masters Degree. That is NOT the point. If the City has laws that require a Director to have a Masters, plus other qualifications, then either don't hire Bill Gates or change the laws. It is illegal to discriminate the last time I checked.

    3. It concerns me that none of the Directors personnel records are even available. They are all lost? Seems a bit strange, as most Cities and companies keep original job applications. I could care less where Smith or any other Director of the City lives. That information is so easy to get elsewhere if that is all that I wanted. So, sorry Gil, I am really not into voyerism. I am into calling the City out on their own discrimination policies. What is good for one, has to be good for all, or it is illegal. Some of the Directors do have Masters Degrees, and some do not. Our City states that a Masters degree is required for the position of Director. So, what's up with that? Perhaps you can enlighten me Gil, since you seem to know a heck of a lot more than I do.

    ReplyDelete
  59. No, if that was Kerry Miller and Christy Guerin's own money, they might not be spending it so freely, without considering other offers, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Yeah, Gil, Council and City Manager Miller have been "spend[ing] every cent possible within this community," spending taxpayers' money "here in Encinitas" often times when they could pay far less with open bids, open market, and open communication with the citizens.

    Do you know how corrupt government officials typically discount someone, take away their voice and credibility? They simply say, or imply that the whistleblower, watchdog or concerned citizen is paranoid and thinks everything is a "conspiracy." Don't buy into that kind of mental manipulation, Gil. It doesn't become you.

    We are talking about our dealings with the City and the City's lack of transparency. Maybe they treat you better than some of us? Read today's Coast News, yesterday's NCT. People are not happy. That doesn't make us conspiracy nuts.

    Have you wondered why you can't get them to try out the porti potty idea? Didn't you know, and claim the Eckes, Guerin and Dalager got together and "conspired," re more development on agricultural land that was to be preserved in perpetuity?

    Thanks for loving our community, Gil. We all want changes, I think. Don't kill the messengers because you don't want to hear or believe the message.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Gil: You avoided answering the question about the conflict of interest with Smith and Sabine in their working relationship. With your lawyerly bent you surely have an opinion on this. I personally think it is extremely inappropriate and unethical. I have seen these inappropriate relationships in working situations, and it never benefits the company, the governmental entity, or the organization involved.

    And please do not demean Dr. Lorri. It is not helpful to the discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Jennifer Smith has a Masters in Public Administration, not an MBA.

    ReplyDelete
  63. And how does that qualify her to be financial director?

    ReplyDelete
  64. Sorry folks but Ms. Smith seems qualified and bright.
    Dept. of Public Health didn't have stats on caner in Enc. Said I might check with EPA, Cal Osha or Amer. Cancer Society. I just don't have that kind of time for a potential wild goose chase. I have no first hand knowledge of any relationship between Sabine and J Smith so I can't possibly comment based on factual information. I did meet my wife in a work environment but I did not pay here anymore or treat her any differently than any of my other employees while she worked for me. She was one of my best workers and I hated to lose her when she quit.
    PIII did not "conspire" to put more homes on preserved Ag land to my knowledge. He took the time to try to convince me the time had come to consider it. I disagreed and said that it should go before the citizens, which he then did. He convinced some of the counsel members to support that issue but the citizens decided it was not time yet.
    I don't feel that I am being manipulated by city hall, maybe the blogger that told me to check the stats on cancer in the community. I am gone to the desert for four days so I won't be able to respond for a few days so perhaps everyone can get back to the up-coming election and the candidates various qualifications.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Sorry folks but Ms. Smith seems qualified and bright.
    Dept. of Public Health didn't have stats on caner in Enc. Said I might check with EPA, Cal Osha or Amer. Cancer Society. I just don't have that kind of time for a potential wild goose chase. I have no first hand knowledge of any relationship between Sabine and J Smith so I can't possibly comment based on factual information. I did meet my wife in a work environment but I did not pay here anymore or treat her any differently than any of my other employees while she worked for me. She was one of my best workers and I hated to lose her when she quit.
    PIII did not "conspire" to put more homes on preserved Ag land to my knowledge. He took the time to try to convince me the time had come to consider it. I disagreed and said that it should go before the citizens, which he then did. He convinced some of the counsel members to support that issue but the citizens decided it was not time yet.
    I don't feel that I am being manipulated by city hall, maybe the blogger that told me to check the stats on cancer in the community. I am gone to the desert for four days so I won't be able to respond for a few days so perhaps everyone can get back to the up-coming election and the candidates various qualifications.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Anytime people get together and talk about something, make a plan, Gil, or work together for positive change, there are those who will call them conspiracy theorists.

    That was the point; and when Council has so many closed door sessions, with no "reportable actions," we know they are not being open with us, having public accountability.

    "No one would ever sell their personal property the way the city did." That's a fact.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Gil, it's real easy to get first hand information on the Smith/Sabine relationship. All you have to do is ask Sabine, since you often talk with him. I know for a fact that he told someone that they were married. Either way, married or not, there is a conflict of interest, and the two should not be mixing personal and city business. I think you find it convenient not to know the truth about them. Nobody cares about their private life, but we do care about their city business life.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Yes, Gil. An inconvenient truth?

    ReplyDelete

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