Monday, February 19, 2007

Encinitas 2006/2007

The following is from the January issue of Hoodlink

In the brief history of the City of Encinitas, 2006 is a year to remember: open and representative democracy made some headway here in our town. Congratulations to all of us!

In the past year Encinitas voters soundly defeated two ballot measures. Both were strongly supported, if not openly endorsed in violation of State law, by the majority of our City Council. The measures were promoted using large sums of money. They were spun as being fair and good for business, the City, as well as visitors and citizens alike. Supporting reasons were to the lowest common denominator: well-behaved civic-minded people will vote for them, bad people will not. Many proponents of the measures limited their efforts to making personal attacks against anyone who held a
different opinion on the issues. Our ex-mayor is one who questioned the integrity of all of the people who dared to offer a different opinion about the merits of the issues at Council meetings.

This characterization is neither a misrepresentation nor a personal attack against our former mayor: her actions should be accurately reflected in the minutes of the meetings. At issue are her tactics, as an elected representative, in support of her opinions. We were taught that people who focus their debate on attacking their opponents’ character or agenda rather than to debate the issues typically have poor reasons for supporting their position.

Perhaps our ex-mayor had good reasons to support the propositions. Perhaps her failure to garner support was due to her choice to use hoodwinking tactics and then to attempt to intimidate those who would not be hoodwinked. Regardless, the vast majority of the represented saw the empresses’ new clothes for what they were and both ballot measures were soundly defeated.

This progress here in our town will be short lived if we the represented believe that all the hoodwinking tacticians are gone from our Council. We need real progress, not just bad and/or expensive changes masqueraded in front of the public as progress. To achieve progress we need to reconfirm the civic and community goals rather than undermine them without regard for the represented. And regardless of one’s stance on an issue, or even the specifics of an issue, there is no good reason to accept the will of the represented being summarily dismissed, let alone openly or covertly thwarted, by our representatives.

But in Encinitas, that seems to be standard procedure.

We suggest that you go beyond reading their sanitized press releases of their varied accomplishments. Go further than listening to their offered public viewpoints which, when taken out of context, make it sound like these people are looking out for our best interests. Please check their voting record on projects which were opposed by
the represented but that have negatively impacted our services and infrastructure. After all that, go one step further and check the minutes of Council meetings for just how much respect our new mayor, Mr. Bond, along with Council members Dalager and Stocks have for the represented who hold differing views on issues. We believe you will find that the answer is “not much” to none at all.

According to statements made at his first Council meeting as mayor, Mr. Bond declared, in effect, that Council is only obliged to listen to the will of the people on election day. This from the man who will be leading the Council’s decisions to continue the acceleration of the overdevelopment of Encinitas. Overdevelopment which has been occurring for years without proper accounting of the impact the excess growth will have on the quality of life.

Again, we are not attacking our Council’s opinions, we are condemning their actions which are clearly intended to suspend examination of and feedback on Council’s actions except on election day. Governing is always easier for those who rule when their days are unencumbered by the trivial. No need for details such as understanding the basics of the U.S. Constitution or following State law which requires local governments to be quite forthcoming in matters of the public's rights to know and citizen interaction at times other than elections.

The five communities which make up the City of Encinitas have populations overflowing with smart, talented, creative, and busy people. Unfortunately, it doesn’t take an especially bright nor powerful political machine to take advantage of people’s busy lives in order to hoodwink them. And if the overwhelming results of the failed propositions, which were supported by our representatives, are any indication of shared goals, our City is being run by people who have hoodwinked the majority in order to get elected.

Encinitas’ short city history is filled with representatives who routinely and rudely dismiss the input of concerned citizens when said citizens offer reasoned and substantial opposing views on City staff’s negative impact declarations. In turn, Council minutes and voting records are filled with Council’s guided endorsement of overly dense development in areas already suffering from infrastructure issues. Staff’s recommendations are nearly always that, on whole, the specifics of an additional development will have no negative impact on existing services or infrastructure. Strange how all those projects, which were declared to have no negative impact by City staff and passed by our representatives, added up to a whole lot of trouble.

Some 8,500 voters in Encinitas, most who had never heard of her before the summer of 2006, elected Teresa Barth to a seat on the Council. We believe that Ms. Barth’s election was the third small step toward making Encinitas City government a more open and responsible representative democracy. She can not make the changes necessary for progress alone. She needs the help of every citizen who, regardless of viewpoint on a specific issue, wants an open and fair examination of all the issues that face our young City.

Together, let us make 2007 another year of real progress for the businesses, citizens, and visitors of our City. Tell our Council representatives their freewheeling hoodwinking days are over

30 comments:

  1. Who are the "Editors" of Hoodlink, and why do they want to stay anonymous?

    ReplyDelete
  2. And why did you post anonymous?

    ReplyDelete
  3. They are shadowy men from a shadowy planet.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anon 810,

    That is the first thing that Christy would ask and just like during council meetings that one question is going to sour this whole tread.

    So let me be the second, it is so nice that Christy's corrosive interactions are history. All the councilbuds are getting along much better in the meetings. I think the boyz can even tolerate maggie a little now, so I hope maggie doesn't push her luck.

    The editors of the hoodlink have a very nice message and I think if you read enough of their stuff you can see that it is the dialogue about the issues that matters to them. Open and considerate government! To me, that sounds good for a healthy democracy.

    I hope the editors stay anon. I think they will because I suspect the editors are actually the guilty conscience wives of several big campaign contributors/developers here in town.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Everyone is saying that the council interaction is much friendler now.

    I think the hoodlink editors got it wrong. The turning point was not the council election. The turning point was the confluence of the redevelopment district, Prop A, and the Orpheus rezone all coming down about the same time. That woke up Leucadia. The hoodlink wasn't the only newsletter to appear about that time. The Gazette was also widely circulated.

    You can link to that here:
    http://www.poefoundation.org/citycouncilmonitor/UPDT/Gazette.htm

    ReplyDelete
  6. Splice together
    http://www.poefoundation.org/
    citycouncilmonitor/UPDT/Gazette.htm

    ReplyDelete
  7. Stevo,

    I am not publishing a "newspaper". I don't tend to believe stuff written by anonymous people. They could be "hoodwinking" me!

    JP is not anonymous, so why should they be?

    Seriously, how can you credibly follow someone if you don't know who they are or what their real agenda is?

    "Anonymous"

    PS: "Stevo" is not all that revealing, unless you are in the same catagory as Madonna, Sting, or Prince!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Regardless of who the author is of the Hoodlink post, the text of the message is completly correct, we the the people of Encinitas our ultimately repsonsible for the governance of our community. City staff cares only about job security, perks and pensions. As the Council majority,Stocks, Bond and Dalager, lack insight and the critical thinking skills needed to see the coming calamity.

    We the people have shown it is possible to fight City Hall and win.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Some people have real good reasons for not coming forward. Their name can either become a distraction or it could allow a very vindictive council to come back and haunt them. Lot of people have political and economic connections to the puppetmasters in this town.

    There is at least one developer in this town that has lost a lot of their subcontractors and suppliers. The word went out that endorsing Teresa Barth would not be "tolerated." He didn't even give Teresa money. He just told people that is who he is voting for.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anon 8:54,

    I don't think you answered my question.

    The editors of hoodlink typically give their PERSPECTIVE. Perspective doesn't require you to believe anything.

    Hoodlink has different sorts of articles. The ones that are fact based are typically signed and an email provided for contact. Look throught the archives

    That group has built some credibility. They have given you a name to consider when evaluating how sturdy their work is. The name is HOODLINK.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The hoodlink people did not get it wrong, the turning point definitely was the election and the biggest single factor was that Christy is no longer here. She was always the mean, queen demanding everyone else be mean and nasty. Now that she is gone, they are all working with each other.

    ReplyDelete
  12. A great indicator of how "mean" both sides are in Encinitas Politics will be the response to this comment. I will get berated, told I'm an idiot, and called "Steve-O", in order to divert attention from my message. During the Prop A campaign, I remember watching the news and seeing a "Yes on Prop A" sign on the property of a local car dealer that had been defaced with the word "LIAR" in big letters covering the sign. The news reporter stated that someone had gone onto the private property of the car dealership to deface the sign. I read editorials and letters in the Coast News that were personal attacks on everyone involved in Proposition A. Who are any of you to stand on your high horses? None of you took the high road. In fact, it was during that time that I started reading this blog, and I gotta tell you, y'all were vicious. Vicious. I'm not judging your tactics - they worked. I'm just pointing out that Christy Guerin, while not a very nice lady, is not alone. This is not a very "nice" town anymore. We can blame it on whomever we want, but we live in the "American Idol," "Survivor," Karl Rove, post-9/11 culture. Perhaps a look in the mirror wouldn't hurt for all of us.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Most news items I read have an author, whether it is in a newspaper, a blog, in a book, or on the internet.

    Regardless of whether I believe what is said, I guess I am old school enough to require someone step forward when they are publishing a "newspaper" or some sort of organized commication.

    If you don't need that, fine, but I do.

    I think it is weird that the Hoodlink "editors" don't reveal themselves. It seems that if people don't have to acnowlege identity, they can be much meaner and less factual, as there are no repercussions.

    Sort of like on this blog, like I am doing right now!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Most of the UT's and the North County Times editorials have no one's personal name attached to it.

    ReplyDelete
  15. anon 1240,

    I know you aren't going to think about this or respond, but lots of people on the No on Prop A campaign were very above board and would have figurative lynched and hung out to dry the person who vandalized that sign. That act did not help the No on Prop A campaign.

    Do you think that Rodewald, Walker, or Gil did that? Give me a break. They ran a clean campaign. A model that you should look up to so don't try to cover your tracks by making up stuff about the no on prop a campaign leaders.

    What did Rodewald do wrong?
    What did Walker do wrong?
    What did Gil do wrong?

    ReplyDelete
  16. I really like the Hoodlink piece, and link.

    Freedom of the Press is great. And every word of that article is true. The issue is not WHO wrote it, but WHAT it says.

    We are all relieved that Guerin is gone, long live the Queen. May she rest in Bilbray peace in Solana Beach. She is a piece.

    You anonymous hypocrites who like to call out people and while hiding behind your own shadow selves, we don't care what crap you post, and I skip over your BS, every single time. Won't waste another minute on your lies and spin, trying to pull our community apart for your selfish reasons of profit and ego.

    Thank God for people for brains and heart enough to tell it like it is around here. The City has been vindictive, and anyone who's spoken before them, opposed their narrow-minded decisions, knows this to be true.

    I'm hopeful that Teresa and Maggie will have so many citizens behind them, that the other guys will snap out of their daze and WAKE UP.

    The voters have spoken. We were hoodwinked, and it is going to stop.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Steve Aceti is definitely back, here. Where is your web site link, Steve?

    We can learn from our mistakes, in trusting schmucks like you.

    This is not a "campaign" now, Steve. This is just people talking about the facts shown in Council Minutes; the overdevelopment of Encinitas, as a whole, beyond what our infrastructure can support.

    Too much traffic; not enough water. Stick to the issues. People are going to read JP's posts, and skip over your distractions.

    ReplyDelete
  18. anon 1240,

    Are you going to respond? What do you think Walker, Gil, or Rodewald are going to see when they look in the mirror? I think they are going to see good citizens.

    How did they comapare to the Yes on A campaign? Lets remember how shady that campaign was. Anyone care to remind anon 1240?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Some real open minds here!

    ReplyDelete
  20. That's right, Ms. Guerin. They are open, and glad you are gone.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I would like to hear what the no on A guys did wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  22. My info was that the dirty politics re signs was by Dan Dalager, before, and this time, Doug Long.

    Of course, nobody saw anybody do anything. Also, people kept ripping out the No on A and No on C signs, that's a fact.

    Teresa Barth's signs got taken too.

    I think Bill Rodewald, Matt Walker and Gil Foerster are good guys. Smear campaigns against them, or anyone posting here are not going to work. The person attempting to deceive and distract, by targeting and attacking, ends up looking foolish and mean.

    ReplyDelete
  23. paronaid folks calling out goast they still seek to haunt.

    Elenor Roosevelt said:

    Great minds talk of ideas,
    Good minds talk of events
    low minds talk of people.

    Please, Please, Please, heed the great lady's words and quit imagining that your nemisis of old is lurking around every corner.

    ReplyDelete
  24. That's fine, but we can talk and talk of ideas. However, if Council, the majority bloc, does not appoint good PEOPLE to the various commissions, if they do not listen to the will of the people by respecting our vote, then we are just spinning our wheels.

    ReplyDelete
  25. We don't have great minds on the council now.

    When we vote we vote for a person not an idea. There is a name on the ballot not a position or philosophy.

    ReplyDelete
  26. anon 857,

    Did you read, "I read editorials and letters in the Coast News that were personal attacks on everyone involved in Proposition A. Who are any of you to stand on your high horses? None of you took the high road"?

    That is a direct personal attack on everyone anyone supporting no on A. If it is true it is relevant, you are silly and unrealistic if you think otherwise. The problem here is that anon 1240 made a personal attack here and then couldn't back it up.

    ReplyDelete
  27. During Prop A the Eckes and their close associates spent a heck of a lot of time and effort talking about people. Mostly they were out telling people how great their ancestors were. They made it about people as much as about issues. Does that make them of low minds?

    ReplyDelete
  28. I know the editors of Hoodlink. I remember one saying they loved the great minds quote of Elenor Roosevelt. That is one reason they decided to focus on their audience of great minds. Without names it cannot be about people and the ideas have come first.

    Someone who is unwilling to discuss ideas without having a name attached to it is of low mind.

    ReplyDelete
  29. What is really going on here?February 24, 2007 8:16 AM

    Jerome Stocks, one of the City's largest landowner families (Stocks, Bonds, and Dalager supporters), Barratt, and the Chamber of Commerce are closely associated with a paid personal political assassin. Who is of lower mind, the assassin (who is just making a living) or those who support him?

    ReplyDelete
  30. anon 1240,

    What did prop A opponents do?

    ReplyDelete

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