Thursday, June 26, 2008

Sheffo on the Sand Tax



From 2008 Encinitas city council candidate Joe Sheffo:

The North County Times has a piece on the council's attempt to put another sand tax initiative on the fall ballot.

ENCINITAS: Council to decide to put sand tax on November ballot

Prior to the June election, I made the argument that the sand tax was just another money grab and that if sand replenishment were so worthwhile the council should make it a priority and fund replenishment projects out of existing funds.

The Times article quotes Mike Andreen, who was a major proponent of the sand tax, now making that same argument:

"I think you have a 50-50 chance of passing it in November, " Andreen said. "But there is the argument that you just spent $25,000 and F passed. So why don't you collect that $160,000 a year (under Prop. F) and see if you need more money later. Besides, you can always use some of the general funds for sand replenishment."

It's becoming clear that Props F & G were never really about sand replenishment but were instead part of a calculated attempt to use sand replenishment as a campaign issue in the fall.

Putting politics before sound policy and fiscal responsibility is pretty darn cynical. I hope that taxpayers remember that this fall.

www.sheffo4council.com


SignOnSandiego.com: Vacation-rental tax to go before Encinitas voters

My idea for Moonlight Beach: Leucadia Blog: Moonlight Beach, Grassy Park instead of Sand?

Also in the newz:
ENCINITAS: Walgreens gets green light
I bring this up because it's a rare day when the usual power players on the Encinitas Chamber of Commerce and DEMA agree with city watchdog Donna Westbrook.

29 comments:

  1. Everything that Jerome Stocks has been doing since becoming mayor has been political. It's all about advancing his chances for reelection.

    Stocks is definitely rattled, as is demonstrated by his vacilation from giddiness to outright hostility. Those who watched last night saw his sing songy intonation at the opening betraying his flightiness, and then later his bitter sarcasm with eyes narrowed during the Walgreens appeal. He seems unable to keep his composure. We deserve a better mayor and councilman.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Jerome Stocks out manuvered Maggie Houlihan so he could be mayor going into the election. This might backfire on him due to the widespread frustration with the NCTD, of which Jerome Stocks is a longtime board member, and the general "vote out the incumbents" vibe this year. It's going to be a long summer.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Beacon's wonderJune 26, 2008 11:58 AM

    Dump both of their lame asses where they belong...out on the streets. Stocks has got to go, he hates Leucadia. Always has , always will. Houlihan talks the talk, but doesn't walk the walk. She has never done anything for Leucadia.

    We need another candidate for council. Having BOB elected is foolish. His comment about "Oil Pollutes" is neophytic.

    And I agree we need some sort of toilet facilities at Beacons.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Re: Joe's comments about a calculated attempt to use sand replenishment as a campaign issue.

    That certainly may be how things play out in November: Pro-Sand vs Against-Sand.
    I wouldn't go so far as to say that this was intentional though. First, Jerome made a convincing effort to get both F & G passed in June and, second, I wouldn't give him that much credit. He doesn't strike me as an intellectual giant.

    But Prop G did get 65%. A lot of people seem to think that throwing taxpayer money into the sea is a good thing.

    Five states have bans against the "same or a substantially similar measure" appearing on the ballot within a certain period of time. Unfortunately CA isn't one of them.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Joe Sheffo has said in an email that he thinks the Walgreens appeal was "meritless." Is he really so thoughtless? Or, as James Bond so proudly announced on Wednesday night, has he also not read the General Plan and never plans to read it?

    Think about it. James Bond, who is soon to complete 16 years on the council, has bragged that he has never read the General Plan. Is the man really that stupid and full of himself that he believes he can effectively govern without reading our governing document? No wonder he has been part of so many bad decisions.

    I hope Sheffo takes the time to carefully read and understand the General Plan. He's not fit to govern if he doesn't.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think replacing "natural" the lost sand from damming the rivers and armoring the coastline is a good thing. Otherwise you don't have a beach. its that simple. It would be Ocean against wall.

    I am voting for the sand tax on Short Term Rentals. I wish they would raise it to 5% to really get some money and let the pimp landlords pay for the higher City costs due to short term rentals.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Do you love sandy beaches or Ocean against seawall?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Danny has no idea about the purpose of the General Plan.

    I bet he thinks its a military plan.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I agree.


    That is the perfect question-

    Now that the entire coast line is armored-

    Do you like a sandy beach or Ocean directly against a seawall?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Beacons's Wonder,

    I am glad you discovered a thesaurus. Vocabulary is a good thing.
    To call me neophytic is completely baseless. There is nothing new about me. I have been a vocal community activist and preservationist for more than a decade.
    I write for the Coast News Group,and the The Beach Breakers. In the past I even was a regular columnist in the North County Times. I served 3 terms as a Encinitas Parks and Recreation Commissioner, 2 years as Chair. I currently serve of on the Council appointed Invasive species committee.

    For the past 5 years I have taught for Class Act within Encinitas's school system

    I am an awarding winning journalist.

    There is nothing Neophytic about me, fossil fuels, or the truth.

    Oil does pollute.

    Get over it!

    ReplyDelete
  11. OK Bob-

    How do you solve the loss of natural beach from the damming of the rivers and armoring of the coast line?

    Why should the short term rentals and landlords pay for their fair share of beach maintenance and enforcement from the rowdy shortterm tenants?

    Please explain your position on both issues.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Woops. I meant Why "shouldn't"

    ReplyDelete
  13. You solve the loss of natural beach from the damming of the rivers and armoring of the coast line By restoring the natural process with the removal jetties an groins betbtween Camp Pendelton and Encinitas and remove the earthen berms that that cross the regions laggoons.

    Short term rentals and landlords should pay their fair share of beach maintenance and enforcement from the rowdy short term tenants.

    My issue is with putting the failed initiative back on the ballot so soon after it failed.

    Those of us who opposed Prop G. would have been forced to live with the results of the June election had Prop G passed.

    Where's the fairness?

    ReplyDelete
  14. What’s fair about them not currently paying their fair share?

    What the harm if it’s revisited in November with a large voter turn out?

    If its so unfair, people will vote against it and there is nothing to worry about.

    I think it’s fair and wish they would raise it higher to make them pay their fair share. More like 4 or 6%.

    Regarding your comments regarding restoring the natural process.

    Removal of the RR earthen would be good.

    The jetty and groins hold back the equivalent of a teaspoon of sand. They also help form nice waves and keep the lagoons from closing. Will the folks who like nice waves support that?

    To really have any significant impact on restoring natural sand migration, we would have to remove dams like Lake Hodges and remove the armament along the coast.

    Hodges is where we get our water. Would that really be wise?

    Do you think the affluent and influential people along the bluff will like or allow removing all their seawalls?

    You better think about your answers more wisely. Your ignorance is showing.

    I still support you, but I suggest you reconsider if you are really against restoring natural sand migration by manmade means.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The sand tax as written is flawed. You have an 8% hotel tax with an added 2% sand tax, a whopping double digit taxation. The hotel/rental tax should be more like 6% going into the general fund. The general fund can pay for sand smart replenishment.

    The cities current sand importation does nothing for the coastal bluffs, it only brings sand to the tourist section of Moonlight Beach. It is my idea to make this section a grassy park like Del Mar's Power House park.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Bob makes a really good point, by accident.

    If the sand tax had passed by 1% we would NOT be having a DO OVER just because it was so close that we wanted the short term rental owners to have a second chance.

    AND WTF with Aceti saying he didn't know about the SAND TAX until he was in the voting booth.

    ACETI is Mr. Quality of Life SAND MAN who runs California Coastal. He should be fired if he didn't know about his hometown's sand tax.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Steve Aceti is also on the DEMA board of directors and the Encinitas Environmental committee.

    The man is without ethics.

    ReplyDelete
  18. My ignorance? How does wanting to restore natural processes make me ignorant?

    The surf culture started in Encinitas long before jetties, groins and freeways across the estuaries.

    To remedy the problem the man made structure must be removed.

    Saying so does not make me ignorant. An idealist maybe, but not ignorant.

    ReplyDelete
  19. The sand tax is just another government finger in our pockets. Will the money recovered be kept in a separate fund to ensure it only is used for sand? NOT. These taxes go into the general fund and are diverted to pay for trophy projects. The City is maintaining Moonlight -- a state beach -- on our backs because it gets money from the State -- which goes into the general fund also.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Bob- Your ignorance is shown by you focusing on addressing 1% of the problem and ignoring 99% of it. To remedy the problem (bring natural sand to the beaches), dams and seawalls would need to removed. An idealist would want to remove the dams and seawalls.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I do want the dams and seawalls removed. And I doubt they will be removed in the near future.

    It is obvious you do no read my column in the Coast News.

    I am far from ignorant. I would suggest that you are the one who can't refrain from name calling it is you that is proving to be uneducted.

    ReplyDelete
  22. bob, don't get sucked in by this.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Aceti brought up in oral communications, one week prior, that he wanted another chance to campaign for the sand tax on short term rentals under three units.

    Immediately, the following week, this is put back on the agenda, by Stocks, who falsely claimed in the minutes that staff was directed by Council to bring this back for a vote.

    The Sunshine Law, the Administrative Policy Manual and a promised review of Robert's Rules of Order, as that relates to the Policy Manual, all languish, so Jerome can continue his hypocritical political agenda.

    Re the sand tax, several things are NOT being mentioned here. We already have about $2 million in the reserve fund for sand tax. Too MUCH sand is currently being put on the beach, which affects the fishing and the surf break. Stone steps before had an additional flight of stairs, which is covered. The imported sand is scratchy, dark, and inconsistent with the natural environment. The sand from Moonlight travels, and affects all the beaches in Encinitas and beyond.

    The law is poorly written. It would cost more to hold another election and to administer the new tax, if two thirds of the people voted for it (we won't), then would be received in the actual tax.

    The short term rental owners are paying a yearly $150 fee in addition to the general fund TOT tax, now. The hotels and motels (more than three units) do not pay this yearly additional $150 fee.

    The short term rentals, under three units, law is poorly written. It makes no exceptions for "the little guy" someone who rents out his room or unit for less than half the year, while the owner lives on site. The short term rentals, less than three units, do pay their fair share in property taxes, yearly permit fees, and now an 8% TOT tax for the general fund. This tax is no longer supported by Mike Andreen, because it is essentially trying to stifle competition, making it MORE EXPENSIVE for a single homeowner to offer his or her room or unit for rent a few weeks a year, as compared to the year round hotels and motels.

    Aceti is obviously posting again. He represents BIG SAND and gets paid handsomely to do so. He wants to make this a personality squabble and call Bob names, rather than being honest. We saw what his tactics were during Prop C. Jerome and his cronnies, Stocks and Dalager, voted to put him on the Environmental Commission.

    Teresa supported term limits of two terms. Yes, Stocks and Houlihan should both "term out." Maggie Houlihan has served us well, sometimes, but we need a new perspective, and someone who won't "cave" as she seemed to do on the Walgreens issue. Yes, even the Chamber of Commerce opposed that, and Gary Tucker spoke to uphold the appeal. Maggie should have voted with Teresa, at the very least.

    ReplyDelete
  24. A 6% TOT on hotel/rentals going to the general fund would be original, conservative, and protective of one of the city's main industries, Tourism (I haven't heard of anyone starting a flower farm recently).
    It would also be met with cheers of applause across the land. However, a council that doesn't do their homework (i.e., read the General Plan), definitely doesn't know or even care about stakeholder cohesion.

    Imported sand is not going to change the situation along the bluffs.

    A grassy area at Moonlight Beach is a great idea. Sure there would be the water issue but the dollar/environmental cost would be much less than trucking sand from Orange County.
    The lawn/sand setup works great at Hanauma Beach, Hawaii (see photo).

    http://i.pbase.com/
    g4/74/681874/2/
    63555403.agvGRIf0.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  25. No on the tax.
    No on Sheffo.

    ReplyDelete
  26. original walkerJune 27, 2008 8:01 PM

    Hey "Walker", I am the real "Walker". There is not enough sidewalk for the two of us.

    ReplyDelete
  27. character counts.June 27, 2008 8:35 PM

    Who gives a crap whether walgreens gos in on el camino real. It wont make one bit of difference on that strip mall area.

    ReplyDelete
  28. ANSWER: Henery's Market and the Encinitas Chamber of Commerce care about how the development occurs and people that don't want cut through traffic on their street.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Anonymous at 6:51 am on June 27 has some of his facts wrong. Is this Steve Aceti or one of his disciples? Sand movement along the San Diego County coast is from north to south. This means the dam forming Lake Hodges doesn't have any significant impact on sand replenishment on Encinitas beaches, which are to the north of the San Dieguito River outlet at Del Mar.

    It is the San Luis Rey River to the north with outlet at Oceanside which does play a very important role in supplying sand to our beaches. The dam forming Lake Henshaw is so far upstream that it doesn't have much impact on sand movement downstream.

    It is the jetty at Oceanside harbor which is the problem. It was built during World War II. It is a barrier that causes a sandbar to form and prevents natural sand movement going south. Periodic dredging to lift the sand over the jetty is not sufficient. Removing the jetty would solve the problem nicely.

    Anyone who has lived in Encinitas for several decades knows that the sand levels rise and fall with natural weather cycles. It has only been recently that money has been spent on sand replacement. New migrants to the area, like Aceti, don't understand this. But Aceti and cohorts have created a nice money making gig for themselves.

    If the $60 million sports complex is not built on the Hall property, there will be sufficient money in the general fund to pay for any sand that might be needed for Moonlight Beach. The shoreline is our greatest recreational asset. Bob Nanninga is right. This is all about Jerome Stocks' reelection campaign. I believe it is also about Steve Aceti' political ambitions. We can do without either of the two gentlemen.

    BTW, we are not getting any water supply out of Lake Hodges right now. The level is so low from low rainfall and so contaminated from runoff from the surrounding urbanization that a plan was proposed to drain the lake and refill it with imported water.

    ReplyDelete

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