Tuesday, January 31, 2006

The Plot Sickens

Related North County Times story

Many of us have wondered why the city council would have chosen a costly and cumbersome mail-in-ballot for Proposition C. It would have certainly been more fiscally responsible, expeditious and fair to have waited one more month until the general election in April. Even the city’s own survey indicated that the number of voters that would respond to a mail-ballot process would be dismally low. So why use a mail- ballot?

Until this week, we thought that we were aware of most of the loopholes and dirty tricks that have been used by the city and, unlike the supporters of Proposition C; have not been afraid to detail our accusations. Monday we became aware of what may be the real reason that the city chose this type of process and it could be the dirtiest trick of them all.

Let me back up for just a minute and explain the financial disclosure aspects of a typical election, maybe even use Proposition A as an example. For a normal or general election, the city requires that groups working on either side of an argument or proposition (candidates too), file a periodic statement detailing the amounts and sources of any donations and expenditures to date. We all remember how the Yes on Proposition A folks outspent us by a few hundred thousand dollars and how the exact numbers were published regularly by all of the newspapers. We even knew who the donors to each cause were. It was fair and above board. It is how all elections should work.

On Monday of this week, the Encinitas Taxpayers Association was told by the City Clerk that it is the intent of our city to not require Mr. Aceti’s group, Encinitas Citizens For A Clean Ocean, to file any financial disclosures. According to the clerk, it is city attorney Glenn Sabine’s opinion that a financial disclosure is not required because this is a MAIL-IN-BALLOT. They have no intention of requiring any information as to the source of funds used by Encinitas Citizens For A Clean Ocean to produce and mail the three color post card that was sent to 22,000 property owners (estimated to cost $11,000). They have no intention of asking …… where the funds came from to manufacture the hundreds of signs that were placed in the public right of way (estimated at $3000).

Interestingly, the city does want a financial disclosure statement from the Encinitas Taxpayers Association and we will gladly comply. We have nothing to hide since we have been funded by citizen donations ranging from $5 to $250. We are a 100% volunteer organization, and we have not had the benefit of a city sourced professional consultant.

We should all demand that Encinitas Citizens For A Clean Ocean volunteer to submit a financial disclosure form detailing their source of funds and we should contact our city council to express our displeasure with this latest trick. Elections of any type should be fair so that the results can be respected by the citizens. Why would this election be any different?

Bill Rodewald

Encinitas Taxpayers Association

Adidas "Leucadian" Flip Flop Take 2

Funky or Blighted?

Sunday, January 29, 2006

Their Eyes Bigger Than Our Wallets

Good Adam Kaye piece in the North County Times about the city finally sobering up to the fact that all the groovy capital projects they have planned are really, super duper expensive.


Nobody has asked what I think but here it is anyway (heh heh),

The Library $13.6 million

I agree with councilman Jim Bond when he says we can't eliminate the view deck. All architecture begins with the site and that site has one of the best views in this whole town. I like that he envisions intellectual conversations taking place on the deck of a fine library looking across our fine downtown. I can't promise anything intellectual coming out of my mouth but I do look forward to sitting on the deck with my wife while she does research and I can use some w-fi to blog with my laptop. That just sounds really great. It sounds like living in a real town even.

The library design is what you call non-threatening yuppie modernism. There are a lot of wacky angles and such that are driving up the cost. The city hired a value engineer for $150,000 but all they needed to do was give the plans back to the architect and ask him to streamline the design a bit.

My advice, take out the angles and just make a nice big deck. The curve with those jagged angles just don't work for me. Unless the architect can justify the existence of the curve and the angles we should axe them.

This is the University of North Florida's library. It's bigger than what we want and I couldn't find the cost but imagine something like this, only 2 stories and with a nice big deck. I think that is the direction our library should take.

The Hall Park $11.7 million

The Hall property park is way over the top. We don't need a giant sports complex that parodies the YMCA. I say plant some grass, put in some benches and try to seek private donations for the baseball diamonds. If they city really wants a skatepark then they need to get creative and approach the multi-billion dollar skate industry that exist right here in north county.

The city should design the park so that in the future some of the more expensive amenities and be easily added.

Downtown Encinitas StreetScape Program $3.1 million

Shelve it for now. The downtown area looks good, sure it needs some fine tuning but obviously the downtown is popular and thriving. Give the money to the library.

The street fair draws a crowd, no worries.

3 New Fire Stations
$7 million

Go ahead and build them, it's political suicide to deny firefighters anything. This city always gives the fire department whatever they want even if they can barely put out a fire. (I kid, I kid)

Remember when 4 downtown business 2 blocks away from the fire station burned down?

Leucadia Boulevard Improvements $2.8 million

This had better mean finally doing something about the FUBAR 101 intersection. Isn't there supposed to be an account hidden somewhere for this that was overlooked to make Leucadia seem more blighted? Do this.

Olivenhain Road Widening $925,000

This involves using eminent domain to take part of the horse farm. It is bizarre how clunky that road merges. I think some creative minds could figure out some creative line painting though. This widening is to serve the newbies of San Elijo Hill returning from Target.

Safe Routes to School
$3.8 million

I'm not really sure what this is but with a name like that the soccer moms are probably licking their chops. I always made it to school safely (unless Swami's was good). I say give this money to the library. Don't get mad, tell your kids to carry pepper spray and look both ways when they cross the street.

North Coast Highway 101 Improvements

Keep Leucadia funky? You guys want to take one for the team and send this 3.5 million to the library?

New Public Works Facility
$5.2 million

Jerome Stocks says we don't need one, good enough for me. Give that money to the library.

Moonlight Beach Master Plan $700,000

New megaphone for the lifeguards to yell at me when I accidentally surf 2 feet into the empty swimming area?

From the article:

Officials blame skyrocketing materials prices ---- for concrete, steel and asphalt, in particular ---- as the forces behind the higher-than-expected bids.

The rebuilding following Hurricane Katrina, an unprecedented demand for materials from Southeast Asia and ever-escalating petroleum prices are driving up the cost of the key ingredients for projects such as the library and the StreetScape Program, officials say.

The competition for materials from Asia is something that is putting a lot of pressure on my family business so it is close to my heart. I could easily write a 3,000 word rant about this subject but I will spare you.

Unfortunate quote from article,

What to do?

"Rob from Peter for Paul, borrow from Paul, or do a combination of the both," said Richard Phillips, assistant to the city manager.

Saturday, January 28, 2006

Thursday, January 26, 2006

Yes on C Arguments are Really No on C Arguments

Reading through the Yes on C website, you'll find many compelling arguments for the clean water program.

The North County Times contains a Maggie Houlihan editorial that includes the following interesting information:

The program costs approximately $3.5 million annually: $1.3 million for operations and $2.2 million for capital projects. Encinitas land owners are being asked to approve a fixed $5 per month assessment for 10 years.

This will generate one-third, or $1.1 million annually, of the revenue needed to support the program. The remaining $2.4 million would continue to come from the city's general fund.

Encinitas enjoys an excellent quality of life and prides itself on well-maintained parks, roads, beaches, trails and natural open space. More than $50 million in revenue is pumped into our economy annually by beach visitors alone.

If the beaches alone generate $50 million then coughing up $3.5 million to maintain them is a no brainer. No need for a new tax, the beaches are paying for themselves.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006

The Prop C Burrito Analogy

I keep hearing how voting yes on C is only like giving up one burrito a month (that sucks if you only get to eat lunch 30 days a month instead of 31 but whatever). This burrito analogy is classic justification for the government to nickel and dime you for your entire adult life.

Prop C is unique because by it's nature we end up with some people in Encinitas all pitching in to buy one giant burrito everybody gets to take a bite of. The freeloaders taking their free bites of the burrito get to enjoy the burrito and call the people who paid for the burrito tightwads for being against buying the burrito when the city had enough in the burrito fund to begin with.

We all get to enjoy a bite of the burrito so the burrito should be paid for out of the general fund.

Tuesday, January 24, 2006

Shocking Display of Power

Monday, Jan. 23, in a shocking display of power, Kerry Miller ordered three different departments to send out teams to remove all Vote NO on C signs. The signs disappeared from the city - even many from private property. One woman called city hall and complained that her sign had been removed from her private property and her sign was returned to her. (talk about admission of guilt)

There is a siege mentality in this city. It's them against us. Unfortunately, they are using our tax dollars against us. They are determined, at any cost, to get what they want.

There is no level playing field and they know it. They have the money, the city employees and council members writing editorials. And this from a city who by state law is to take no active part either for or against a ballot measure.

Is this the United States or what?

There are so many illegal acts adding up that there can be no possible outcome but a lawsuit.

Monday, January 23, 2006

This Just In

Dear J.P.,

In the interest of balance, please add this post (below) to your website:
http://leucadia.blogspot.com/. Also, please add www.yesonpropc.org to your

Thank you,

Steve Aceti


“Don’t be fooled by opponents of Prop C”

Patronize a local coffee house on a regular basis and you'll spend more than
a property owner in Encinitas will pay each year if voters approve
Proposition C. At $5 per month per meter, it's a small price to pay to
ensure that our streams, lagoons and beaches remain clean and healthy and
that there is room in the general fund for capital projects like the new
library. Based on recent polling, the proposed clean water fee will pass by
a large margin, notwithstanding the efforts of a group of “tax crusaders”
who sued the city to force an expensive election and now have the audacity
to fight it.

For more than a month, the Encinitas Taxpayers Association (ETA) has engaged
in a campaign of misinformation to distract voters from the facts. The ETA's
website and handouts are replete with false information and manufactured
quotes from local officials. The group’s members adhere to a policy of talk
loudly and, if that doesn't’t work, start yelling. It's a campaign of
desperation and, as a result, everything the ETA says and does should be
taken with a large grain of salt.

Here's what the opposition doesn't want voters to know. The city's Clean
Water Program is not a voluntary effort. State and federal laws require that
the city keep its waterways; lagoons and beaches free from bacteria and
pollutants. Compliance with these regulations, which were thrust upon local
governments without any funding, requires that the city install storm drain
filters, remove litter and debris from storm drains and beaches, treat storm
water run-off before it reaches the ocean, test ocean water at local
beaches, post signs warning surfers and others when water quality is not up
to standards and make information available online about water quality at
local beaches.

The city's Clean Water Program is vital to our local economy and quality of
life, but it has required extra personnel and equipment to carry it out. The
current cost of the program is $1.3 million dollars and the $5 fee will not
even cover the full cost of the program. Changes in regulations have caused
the city to increase its investment twice since the program was first
implemented in 1999 and the cost will go up again this year due to new

The $5 fee will be fixed for ten years and it can't be renewed without voter
approval. The money generated by the fee will go to a dedicated fund which
will be overseen by a citizen's committee appointed by the city. Every city
in North County charges a clean water fee, but the Encinitas fee was the
only one met with a lawsuit. Don't be fooled by the opponents of Prop C.
They're fighting an uphill battle and running a dirty campaign that is an
insult to the intelligence of Encinitas residents who are smart enough to
cut through the smoke and mirrors. Vote yes on Prop C. www.yesonpropc.org.

Steve Aceti
Encinitas Citizens for a Clean Ocean

1133 Second Street, Suite G
(760) 944-3564
(760) 944-7852 fax

Sunday, January 22, 2006

Are You Entitled to a Vote But Will Pay Nothing?

The city spends $1.3 million yearly to monitor and maintain its storm drain system, which empties into the ocean, lagoons and creek that surround the city. If approved, the fee would generate an estimated $1.1 million per year for 10 years.

For a property owner with a single water meter, that adds up to $60 a year, or $600 over 10 years.

A property owner with two meters would pay twice that much. A property owner with no meters, even though entitled a vote, would pay nothing.

NCT link

The North County Times allows readers to post comments about the stories on the website. There is a comment from "Katherine" that is pretty classic.

Katherine wrote on January 21, 2006 7:31 PM:"Despite the tripling of property values in the past five years, and the welfare that is Prop. 13, nothing has changed when it comes to asking wealthy property owners to contribute their fair share. 99% cry poverty when it comes to chipping in for infrastructure, schools, etc., yet they're first in line to sue when a city sewer line breaks and keeps them from getting their Hummer to Starbucks in a timely manner. Not surprising the "ME FIRST" generation would again fail to provide a healthy future for the generations to come. Greedy much? "

If prop C passes it will be because of mush head poser hippies like Katherine. She seems to think that every single person who owns a home in Encinitas is a high rolling yuppie lawyer tearing around town in an H3 spilling that nasty ass coffee known as Starbucks on their lame shirt from Banana Republic.
If Katherine would stop and meditate and light some homemade incense from the farmer's market she would realize that yes, there are actually old people living in Encinitas.
Old people are sometimes called senior citizens and some of these senior citizens have lived in Encinitas since like, I dunno...at least the 80's or something.
Senior citizens are on these wacky things called fixed incomes. It's because these freeloading senior citizens got too old and feeble to show up for their jobs (yeah right, lazy bums) and now eek out the rest of their pathetic lives on something called social security.
These crazy "ME FIRST" senior citizens once sacrificed a lot to fight off these jerks called the Nazis. I think it was for selfish reasons.
Anyway, Katherine says she hates the "welfare" that is Prop 13 but also hates people who don't pay their fair share. The funny thing is, in the article she commented on it clearly states that not everyone will pay if prop C passes. That sounds really FAIR Katherine!
Not everyone who owns a home in Encinitas is wealthy. Some people have owned their homes for a long time, at least before the rest of the world discovered our small town, rushed in, tripled the prices, tripled the population and tripled the runoff.
So Katherine, do you own a home with a water meter?

Why should only people with water meters pay for a program that benefits everyone?

Greedy much?

Yo, Whistler's mom! Get out of your chair and write Kerry Miller a check for $60 bucks pronto.

Saturday, January 21, 2006

Return Your Prop C Ballot by Certified Mail

If you want to be a total pain in the ass return your ballot by certified mail. That way somebody at the city has to sign for it and you get a receipt.

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.

Thursday, January 19, 2006

Who Is Going to Count the Votes? Trustworthy?

Burning questions:

Who is counting the mail in ballots? Can we trust them?

Do you trust the postal service to get your ballot to the city on time?

Can you drop the ballot off at City Hall? And if so, how do you know your NO vote won't be thrown in the trash?

Many of the NO on C signs posted around town are suddenly missing. Who tore them down?

Who is in charge of this election?

update, from Enc Taxpayers Assoc. website:

* Votes are going to be collected by the city and counted by one of the city’s paid consultants.

Who out there wants to count them for free?

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

Dirty Tricks

Council chose a water meter tax and a trash bill collection process rather than a more equitable property tax collected by the county so that it would only need 50 plus % of the votes rather than the legitimate 66.6% tax requirement.

The water meter tax is unfair because single family homeowners will be required to pay almost all the tax. Approximately 1/3 of all Encinitas residents will not pay the water meter tax and business will not pay their share.

To read more Dirty Tricks by the Encinitas City Council click here.

Tuesday, January 17, 2006


This NCT article from last March has Encinitas city manager Kerry Miller claiming the cities financies are hunky dory.

NCT link #1

Also, big-ticket items on the city's list of projects ---- a new library and 43-acre park are among them ---- can proceed uninterrupted, and over the next 10 years, the city can leave its $6.2 million in reserves untouched, Miller said.

This NCT article from this week says we are lacking over 6 million smackers to build the library.

NCT link #2

In his report to the City Council, Richard Phillips, assistant to the city manager, recommends that the council reject the bids and authorize $150,000 to pay for a "value engineering" study to reconcile designs with cost demands.

Holy freaking moly, you mean it is going to cost 150k to find out why we can't afford to build the library?

Are these people huffing paint thinner in the back alley of the city hall or something?

Monday, January 16, 2006

Who Wants to Host a Roast?

Whenever I am out running errands people stop me and request that this blog start to focus more attention on our plastic haired city manager, Kerry Miller. To that I say, okay.

Tahoe Daily Tribune Story from 1999 about our city manager Kerry Miller departing South Lake Tahoe.

Miller was city manager in South Lake Tahoe for 12 years, which explains a lot. Miller is out of touch with Encinitas. He left South Lake with an RDA program which is now becoming a real burden and mistake for the residents of that city. Thank God we fought off the RDA proposed for Leucadia. I suppose if that went through Miller would have ejected half way through that adventure to prey upon some other poor town.

Mr. Miller preparing for a city council meeting.

Now Really, Kerry

Barbara Cobb is the President of the Cardiff Town Council. She is right on with this letter to Encinitas city manager Kerry Miller.


I read the S.D. Union-Tribune piece by Angela Lau on Saturday and I find your comments really outrageous. Threatening to turn off street lights because there is not enough money. Now really, Kerry.

When it serves your purposes (raises, increases in benefits and pensions), the city is healthy and there is plenty of money pouring in.

When it does not serve your purposes, you threaten to turn off lights because there is not enough money.

You can't have it both ways. There is plenty of money for your raises, etc. (big bucks) but not enough money for street lights (little bucks) so we must again be taxed. Not enough money for storm drain maintenance either so we must again be taxed.

There are so many examples of city waste but since you are currently concerned about the Landscape and Lighting Fund, let's look at just one small example of waste. The redo of Santa Fe Dr. is typical. This story came from a city employee. Reportedly, the small dirt areas on Santa Fe will be city landscaped, watered and maintained by the city - estimated at $48,000 for the yearly upkeep. Why doesn't the city simply put in the sidewalks and let the property owners take care of whatever dirt strip is left - like neighborhoods do all over the city ??

Instead of taxing us over and over and over again, how about a little belt tightening - like people all over this city are doing because of higher taxes.


Saturday, January 14, 2006

Friday, January 13, 2006

Don't Pay Twice


The City of Encinitas will be mailing a ballot to those of us that own a water meter, asking us to pay twice for the same service. Read what Editors and neighbors are saying about the proposed clean water fee.

“Clean ocean and lagoon water are important to all of us. It’s imperative for recreational activities and tourism in and around the beautiful North County coastline. That is why the City of Encinitas has been complying with all federal and state mandated requirements since 2001, funded by our current property taxes. Regardless of the outcome of this costly special mail ballot process to create a new tax, the city will continue its statewide standard setting clean water program.”


“Encinitas officials are not saying its clean water program will fold without new revenues. Like moving money from one pocket to the other, this new property tax will simply allow the City Council to spend an identical $1.1 million for other projects from a suddenly richer general fund”

“I think that we can be honest with the voters, our city can afford to pay for this (current Clean water Program) … we really can”

“We don’t need to pay another TAX so that city employees can have a raise in their retirement benefits. This is the same retirement enhancement that got the City of San Diego in the position they are in.”

“In March, city employees got a staggering 35% raise in the form of a lifetime boost in their retirement income as well as a 3.2% raise in salary. They want us to pay for the clean water program and they are telegraphing even more taxes and fewer services in the days ahead. What’s wrong with this picture?”
“Encinitas has a very large senior population, I just happen to be one. A good portion of us are on fixed incomes and cannot afford another tax. Medicare has risen from $50 per month to $80 per month in two short years and Social Security has just not kept up. Don’t let the City of Encinitas nickel and dime us to death … NO NEW TAXES. Vote NO on Prop C.”

“Levying the same dollar amount for every water meter in the city is grossly unfair to homeowners. If a water cleanup tax can be justified, it should be proportional to water consumption, to encourage and reward conservation efforts”

“Council has spent $110,000 of taxpayer’s money to hire three consulting firms to try to fool the electorate into voting for the so called Clean Water Regulatory Fee – a tax only meant to fatten the city’s general fund. Vote NO and help send a message that we demand a government that is by and for the people.”

“Politicians are essentially disguising a run-of-the-mill tax hike by assigning the additional revenue to a noble purpose. If the city leaders need more money to run their governments, then they should ask the people for a general tax hike. No spin required.”



The Encinitas Taxpayers Association
For more up to the minute information, or to join please visit our new web site at; www.encinitastaxpayers.com

Tuesday, January 10, 2006

Parking Meters Will Ruin Downtown Encinitas

I do not fear the great giant earthquake that is forecast to cast California into the ocean, or the massive tsunami that will swamp and drown us, or the killer asteroid that is right now hurtling towards Earth and will send us to the same dark fate as the dinosaurs. No, my greatest fear is parking meters in downtown Encinitas.

Coast News link

Free parking is what makes American small towns great. Unfortunately every small town is filled with goofball busy bodies who just don't know when to quit.

DEMA has been proud lately, real proud of the charming pedestrian friendly downtown Encinitas they have helped reinvent. I have applauded their efforts in the past but deep down I always knew this day would come.

Given enough time some retard will always bring up PARKING METERS.

Behead parking meters, not people.

Yes, just as our lovely downtown Encinitas is picking up some real momentum these guys just have to start filching our loose change.

What a giant can of worms this parking meter scam opens. First you absolutely MUST issue some sort of employee parking pass because you can't have hair stylist running out to feed the meter or move their car during some poor women's appointment. Nor, can you have the poor women running out to feed her meter while she getting her hair done.

A 2 hour limit? Okay you micro managing control freak neo-Nazis! God forbid I go get some breakfast and do some shopping and take 2 hours and 15 minutes.

Then ya gotta hire all the wannabee cops to be meter maids and in order for them to justify their existence and pay for their little golf cart they gotta issue enough tickets to make it worth their while.

There are few things worse than getting a parking ticket, especially when you are spending your money in the area.

If this actually happens I am going to park in Jerome Stocks's parking spot at the city hall whenever I want to get a coffee and a scone in downtown Encinitas.

Not even Playboy bunny meter maids will make parking meters acceptable in my opinion.

Sunday, January 08, 2006


The new lot buster on the corner of Third and D St. gets the first 2006 FUGLY IN ENCINITAS Award.


It has ornamentation that has no functionality.

The scale for the site is completely disproportional.

It is trying to be something it is not (you are not a Spanish conquistador dude).

Window grates over non-windows!

The ornamentation is there to break up the facade but the facade should be determined by it's function.

There is no purpose for the aesthetics of the house.

Houses like this are labor intensive and contribute to the inflated price of real estate in this area.

In other words, it's fugly!

This shit cost money yo.

Wednesday, January 04, 2006

we do not care to spend our taxpayer dollars to be manipulated by high-priced consulting firms

NCT link

Encinitas should vote no on Prop. C


If political observers are looking for the kind of controversy that Proposition A generated in the Encinitas November elections, they may be disappointed.

Either outcome in the January mail ballot election known as the clean water regulatory fee, or Proposition C, will produce the same result as far as the cleanliness of our ocean and lagoons. Both sides in this debate are demanding that the city of Encinitas continue to comply with all state and federally mandated requirements as they have since 2001. And both sides should congratulate the city for setting an example of excellence throughout the state in complying with those regulations.

The differences of opinion will become more apparent when the discussion leads to the funding for the program. The city has been funding the program from current property taxes via the general fund, and it can easily continue with that method. Despite the fact that the Encinitas City Council in recent months chose to grant substantial employee pay raises and a 35 percent increase in city pension benefits, Councilwoman Christy Guerin admitted that the city could afford to continue the clean water program. Then why the new tax?

If there is controversy in this election, it will revolve around the city's plan to deceive the voters. They have spent at least $110,000 with three consulting firms (Tramutola LLC, Godbe Research and MuniFinancial) whose Web sites and proposals promise to assist the city in passing a new tax.

They also promise to assist in the wording of opinion surveys and the actual ballot language to achieve the desired result. If this new tax was so good for the voters, it would not have cost a penny to spread the word.

It is clearly time for the citizens of Encinitas to send a message to their elected officials that we do not care to spend our taxpayer dollars to be manipulated by high-priced consulting firms. We need to tell them that we certainly do not want to pay twice for the same service. We need to tell them that they have to practice fiscal conservation as well as environmental conservation. A no vote on Prop. C will communicate the concept that they either work for us or find another line of work.

Cardiff-by-the-Sea resident Bill Rodewald is president of the Encinitas Taxpayers Association.

Bill is a nice guy so I will say what everyone is thinking, if you vote yes on C you are gay.

Monday, January 02, 2006

Do We Have Money or Not?

The city wants to raise our taxes as you all know.

Jerome Stocks wrote a letter to the North County Times back in March declaring that city finances are hunky dory.


Also, unlike the city of San Diego's retirement system, ours is actuarially sound and fully funded at recommended rates. We participate in the California Public Employees Retirement System, the largest pension system in the nation, and each year our portfolio is evaluated and actuarially rated to ensure proper funding.

Mark Twain popularized the saying: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics." Your editorial ignores some basic facts about Encinitas' proposed compensation agreement and the city's fiscal health:

# Encinitas has nearly 20 percent cash reserves, and we've increased them since the year 2000.

# Encinitas has no pension-related debt or bonds.

# The employees will receive raises of 3.2 percent, roughly the rate of inflation.

# The employees, not the city, will assume the lion's share of the increased cost of the pension plan enhancement.

# Changes were made to the employee medical benefit that will help offset the city's small portion of the pension enhancement costs in future years.

If the city has so much money why do our taxes need to be raised? Here is an e-mail I received, maybe you got one as well:

Dear Friends:

As many of you know, the City of Encinitas will be conducting a mail ballot in January through March to determine the city's right to collect the $5 monthly "clean water fee".

The Encinitas Taxpayers Association is hoping to send out flyers opposing this tax increase, but cannot do so until it has sufficient funds.

There are many reasons to support the Taxpayers Association. Many of us don't like taxes. Also, it goes without mentioning that the Taxpayers Association was a huge factor in the defeat of proposition A. In my view, the best reason is the fact that our City Council seems entirely out of touch with our needs and the needs of our city. The City Manager, City Attorney and all city employees got big salary and benefit increases earlier this year. At the time, Jerome Stocks wrote a commentary in the North County Times saying how well the city was doing financially. But now we need a tax increase (supposedly). I think defeating this tax will help send a message to the Council and empower the Taxpayers Association, which appears more dedicated to protecting our interests than the city council.

I will be sending the Taxpayers Association $100 to assist its efforts to oppose this tax. I hope you can help too.

The address for donations is Encinitas Taxpayers Association, P.O. Box 46, Cardiff CA 92007

Please ask your friends and acquaintances to help.

Sunday, January 01, 2006

Keep It Funky in 2006

Good Americans like Jordan help keep Leucadia authentic.

The establishment will be horrified to know that Jordan is a registered voter, ha-ha!