Thursday, October 23, 2008

Hall Park and Election Propaganda

Did you receive this mailer asking you to SAVE THE CHILDREN?


If you are for families, if you are for kids, if you are for parks then you are for Bond, Long, and Stocks. Interesting logic. Nobody is against families, kids or parks but that does not automatically make you a sheeple one issue voter.

They stayed up all night thinking up this slogan. It's kind of a sports metaphor!

I think it's interesting that Doug Long has attached himself to the incumbents campaign like a Remora to a shark.

Last election cycle Doug Long attempted to attach himself to Dan Dalager.

Can Doug Long be his own man?

Doug Long is a nice enough guy and nobody questions his love for Encinitas, but what the city needs is a diversity of insights and opinions. Not only would Doug Long never vote against his bros Bond, Stocks and Dalager he might not even offer a slightly different opinion...on anything.

The above flyer uses fear mongering, claiming "a loss of one vote could cost us full use of our new park. Join us in the fight..."

Sheesh, what a trio of drama queens.

NCT: ENCINITAS: Council makes way for five lighted sports fields in Hall park

Doug Long has attached BUILD THE PARK to all his campaign signs.

Why is Doug Long acting like the park won't get built? We all know the park is going to get built, it's just about ironing out the details. We can assume from this mailer that Doug Long really brings nothing to the table. He is a single issue candidate on an already done deal. What else does bring Doug Long bring to the table when it comes to the entire community? Would Doug Long ever offer any kind of opinion or insight that differs from Dalager, Stocks and Bond? Is Doug Long is an empty Hawaiian shirt?

What would a Dalager, Stocks, Long and Bond council majority mean for Leucadia, Olivenhain and Cardiff? Remember, last election Doug Long said that if Leucadians wanted sidewalks on the coast highway merchant corridor then we should build them ourselves! See Must Be Nice from October 2006.

Doug Long's website is very thin on information: www.friendsofdouglong.com

Burning Question: Okay hysterical BUILD THE PARK folks, how much is the sports park going to cost and what is the plan to pay for it?

42 comments:

  1. I guess there is no reason to vote for Doug Long. Used as a tool by Stocks and Bond he can now be discarded.

    That is why Mayor Stocks scheduled the vote 13 days before the election.

    So long Long

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes, the $60,000,000 question is what are we gonna be paying for and how is the city going to do it. If you're really for the children, you won't saddle the city with a debt that it will be paying off for another generation.

    The new city council will be faced with this, so be very careful with your votes. We need a majority of members with a sense of fiscal responsibility in our new council.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Funny that the mailer was not received on Bach street, right next to the park. Ann J - agreed - Convenient that the vote was held just before the election, presumably winning the 'soccer' votes for incumbents. Can anyone shed some light on why we are not repairing existing fields that are in such poor condition (as claimed by the park supporters)? I'm wondering how many years before we're listening to the same claims about the Hall Park fields?

    ReplyDelete
  4. The vote last night was predictable. I guess they now will face legal challenges and Coastal Commission appeals from the neighbors as a huge waste of money on both sides. Compromise just isn't a part of the the 3 bros vision. I guess they figure they don't have the money to build it anyway, so why not deal with the legal issues for a few years until you do.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Encinitas Tax PayerOctober 23, 2008 9:54 AM

    Great Post JP- The big question is cost. When has the City been close to an accurate cost estimate?

    Answer- Never. Try doubling their cost estimate if you want to get close.

    The real costs would be over $100,000,000 to build, plus another $1,000,000 to maintain. Think of all those City Employees with fat pensions that will need to be hired to maintain the park.

    The candidates for council should demand a financial plan for building and maintaining the park. Its irresponsible actions otherwise which has become all to common. Jerome Stocks and James Bond are the typical Borrow and Spend fake Republicans, that got this country into the world of hurt we are experiencing.

    Vote to save the City, vote for someone besides Jerome Stocks and James Bond.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The soccerheads want the public to subsidize their business. They could have entered into a joint use agreement with the school district to improve existing fields and have use of those fields. But, that would mean the soccerheads would still have to pay money. Anyone who thinks this is "for the children" has their head in the sand. It was interesting to hear that the EIR had used the wrong standard to sell this idea -- 15 acres of park per 1,000, when the true standard was the 5-8 acres of special use park per 1,000. The disparity was one tenth what the EIR had claimed -- Patrick Murphy looked just a little sheepish switching out those pages in the EIR. Vote out the bums!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Did you pick up that the planning staff's recommendation to the council was to ignore the Planning Commissions conclusion regarding the Hall Property? Patrick Murphy knows where his raises come from. Why bother.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Encinitas Tax payerOctober 23, 2008 10:59 AM

    Check out the headline on NCTimes. The Government Ticks Union Pension program lost 20% in the last year, and is now saying the tax payers need to make up the difference.

    I say make up the difference by firing 20% of those complacent do nothing blood sucking government ticks.

    Who is going to pay for your 20% of your retirement that went up in smoke? What do say? Do you want to pay more taxes to make up for the Government benefits?

    Stocks and Bond voted in favor of the ridiculously lucrative pensions for all City Employees. Make them accountable.

    Vote them out and replace them with people who care about Encinitas.

    ReplyDelete
  9. by the way....

    James Bond and Jerome Stocks are milking the system and benefited from voting for the increase.

    Both will be receiving lucrative City Pensions for life.

    No integrity. Pure Scum….Scum I tell you. Scum!

    ReplyDelete
  10. fed up with stupidityOctober 23, 2008 11:12 AM

    when did "loving your children" become spending outrageous sums of money that you don't have on them?

    we played ball on emplty lots - without lights - without sprinkler systems - without stupid adults!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Yeah, Long, a little arrogant for someone so small-town, and none-to-sharp, he just got outfoxed by Mayor Stocks who agendized the park vote BEFORE the election and hasn't figured it out yet!

    City staff wondered aloud if Long, who is a stalker at City Council meetings would recognize the fact that the Mayor was taking away long's only chance of being elected by agendizing the vote before Nov. 4th; and when he didn't balk, they shut the door on all the presumed families that were going to walk door-to-door for him this weekend and the next.

    He hasn't recognize he has been had, just like he has never acknowledged that his childhood pal, Dalager was the one who brought Tom Brown into the last election to make sure Long didn't get elected last time.

    Not the kind of creative-problem-solving skills you want in a candidate.

    He is going to be one lonely man on Wednesday, November 5th picking up his 700 campaign signs.

    Long is going to regret putting so many out...

    ReplyDelete
  12. I recently moved from the Bay Area and faced a similar issue, though on a far lower scale. In a very woodsy, quiet area of Piedmont, one of the last remaining open spaces, the neighborhood agreed to let a park be built, as long as use was kept to reasonable hours and no lights were installed.

    Years later the neighborhood allowed a skate park to be built.

    And years later again, the city came back proposing artificial turf and lights. We faced off against the legions of consultants and sports organizations from all over the region bemoaning the lack of fields. Those of us that fought the lights were called NIMBYs and ridiculed for "not thinking of the children," blah, blah, blah.

    Like the good folk living around the Hall property, we were not NIMBYs. We supported the park! But we also wanted our issues respected.

    I have 2 soccer playing daughters and I know it's not "all about the children." It's about all community members. It's about the diversity of interests.

    There's limited space and increasing populations, ergo sports playing folk will have to deal with the issue of supply and demand at some point.

    Now's as good time as any.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Vote for Rachelle. If every one votes for her and anyone else, we have a chance of the council being for the people.
    Cardiff is getting screwed and the guys on the council do not care at all.

    ReplyDelete
  14. In their most recent elections (2004) Stocks received only 45% and Bond 50% from Encinitas residents. Even more alarming, more than half of those percentages were from local development-oriented contributors.

    The process of updating the city's General Plan begins soon and will set the tone and direction for future development. We must have a council that is focused on the needs of Encinitas residents.

    I encourage you to support Rachelle Collier and re-elect Maggie Houlihan so we can keep Encinitas a community we are proud to call home.

    ReplyDelete
  15. fiscal conservativeOctober 23, 2008 6:21 PM

    Here are some costs the city doesn't like to discuss in public. The city likes to say the Hall property cost $17 million. However, the bonds to buy the property were for $23 million to cover associated costs. Bond repayment is $1.5 million a year for 30 years. That's $45 million just to get where we are today.


    In 2006 Jennifer said that the expenses to date were $1.7 million for park design, EIR, and other things. That has grown. Do you think that all those consultants and CEQA attorney Margaret Sohagi are appearing for free at the Planning Commission and Council meetings? City Attorney Glenn Sabine is not trusted to handle the case. So we are up to $47 million and haven't even started to build the park.

    The complete park was estimated in 2005 to cost $35 million. The "bare bones" alternative, now called Phase I, was estimated in 2006 to cost $19 million and the full park to cost $40 million. These figures include the cost to date.

    Where do we stand in 2008? The city is mum. The city claims $6-$8 million in the building fund, but I suspect that some of this money has been shifted to cover gaps in the unfunded pension obligations and the $2 million shortfall in this year's budget. That "borrowed" money will have to be paid back, which won't be easy in this economic climate.

    The city doesn't talk about inflation, now running at a pretty good clip. Any borrowed money will double the cost of the amount borrowed. What about user fees? Not a word was mentioned. The sport people believe they will use the field for free. They complained about spending $60,000 a year for field use and rented lights. Do they really expect the huge subsidy? Yes.

    Summary:
    Minimum cost is $65+ million for the bare bones version. Minimum cost is $85 million for the full version. Bonds will push these cost much higher.

    It seems that Stocks, Bond, and Daloger don't have the foggiest ideas about how this park is going to be paid for. Nor do they seem to care about their fiscal irresponsibility. Vote the bums out.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Vote for STOCKS are Jerome risk!!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Fiscal conservative- You are close, but you ignore the fact that the City has never and will never accurately estimate a project. Examples: Library $9 million- Sorry try $23 million cotton wood creek Park 5 million- Sorry try $15,000,000... the list goes on and on.

    Just as a place holder the park will cost with land included at least $100,000,000. that doesn't even include the over $1,000,000 needed to operate and maintain the park.

    Can you think of all the mowing, weeding, City Supervisors with huge pensions to sit and watch the contractors and provide bad advise. Plus all those big costs for maintaining playing fields and buildings facilities?

    this park is going to put a major hurt on Encinitas all for the good of Bond, Stocks, and Dalager to put their name on a plaque.

    Carlsbad residents will love it. Encinitas residents will never get another smaller park, or street improvement project, or beach facility rehabilitation, or traffic calming project, or able to buy any additional openspace or trails..... because the SoCA Regional Sports park will own our wallets.

    Stop the big borrowers and spenders. Cut Jerome Stocks and James Bond

    ReplyDelete
  18. Oh sorry... that $1,000,000 per year.....

    As Ross Perot so accurately predicted, can you hear that sucking sound?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Shame on the boys! Poor old Dalager couldn't even vocalize the motion without a typed prompter..which Maggie asked, where did that come from...then Dalager was further confused by the City Snake's recommendation that number 3 be removed to a separate vote, now that took a good 30 minutes for both Dalager, the motion maker, and Bond, the seconder, to comprehend the change in the game plan. Stocks kept saying, lets let the city attorney answer that question.......Last night was a debacle. The Brown Act requires public discussion between elected officials, not back room deals. This deal was not just made in the back room, it was scripted, orchestrated and directed by the City attorney. Jeez, then he brought in his newest flame, Margaret Somethingorother...looking real close-like to the Palinoscopy, had the same suit and colorist. EUUUUGGHHHack ack ack. Is there anyone on this blog who is supporting Stocks, Bond and Long? If so, please tell me why? I can acknowledge my own biases, prejudices and stupidity in the face of rational logical facts. Is there something, anything, redeaming about these candidates?

    ReplyDelete
  20. The morons still are out of it, if you had been "short" on the market, then you would have made a couple bills. Even the sports metaphor falls "short" obviously they are referring to a "Hail Mary" which is not quite a slam dunk. The slogan "Go Long on Stocks and Bond" is a really disgusting image. Why hasn't the oral majority weighed in on this one? Gross.

    ReplyDelete
  21. bonddi-you are intelligent enough to know this is a no brainer. Of course it was a "back room deal". Again, follow the money. How did the soccer people pay for that glossy piece? Out of the kids socceer funds? Maybe, but I don't think so. If there are tournaments here, think of all the people who benefit? The City charges money for the tournament, the restaurants and businessness make money from the out of towners, perhaps a fee is charged to even get into the Park, etc. The only ones who DO NOT benefit are the local citizens, and not just Cardiffians.The poor people who cannot enroll their kids into soceer programs because they cost too much money. If you were at the public hearing on Monday you heard it from a bratty teenage girl, who feels entitled to the soccer fields. After I heard her, I knew it was done.

    So much for a community park. I am beginning to think we would have been better off under the County. So far, I am not impressed with what has been called leadership around here, except for perhaps Teresa. Remember these are the Planning Commissioners that they just gave stipends to that they overturned. I guess they are not worth as much as they originally thought or Council would have let it alone. The other thing is that to keep all of the employees at the City, and not lay off people, they HAD to build it. What would all of those planners, and parks and rec. people do without a project of this size. Especially in a down housing market. Lots of ins and outs? As the saying goes, it is not over until the Coastal Commission weighs in. Perhaps we might prevail there.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Hey Dude, thanks for the clarification...you are so right about the jobs at stake should the park be voted down now. And, how did Margaret Palinwanntabe get on the public payroll? I thought we had a City attorney who knew the law? And, if this park is so controversial, why can't the public vote on it? We need to change the General Plan and give power to the people, not the bobble-heads.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Awe Fuck- Old Lynn B. is doing it again.

    Hey Lynn, Bonddii, whatever you choose to call yourself.

    Just don't try and call yourself a Leucadian.....

    Why?

    Because Leucadians love free speach.

    Because Leucadians let people live as they may.

    Because Leucadians don't expect people to take care of THEM!

    When you understand those few small point, you will understand a Leucadian. Do you understand?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Awe Fuck- Old Lynn B. is doing it again.

    Hey Lynn, Bonddii, whatever you choose to call yourself.

    Just don't try and call yourself a Leucadian.....

    Why?

    Because Leucadians love free speach.

    Because Leucadians let people live as they may.

    Because Leucadians don't expect people to take care of THEM!

    When you understand those few small point, you will understand a Leucadian. Do you understand?

    ReplyDelete
  25. wow... Nctimes pulls articles when they get too hot.

    Bull shit NCtimes. Its time for you to repent.


    I bet some interns will get some nice Whilsle blower credits for exposing the fraud of the owners of NCtimes.

    ReplyDelete
  26. 26 comments later- Should we be letting five council members-lawnmower guy, telephone guy,insurance man?, maggie and teresa spend upwards of 80 million dollars. This is nuts! We need a council with fiscal responsibility. It is time to cut back on frivolous spending and save for a rainy day. Property values are going down and so is tax income for the city. I don't live beyond what my budget allows and the city shouldnt be spending like they have a credit card with a 100 million limit. Vote them out!

    ReplyDelete
  27. On November 4th, vote "No Incumbent Left Behind."

    ReplyDelete
  28. On November 4th a vote for Bob Nanninga is a vote for open and honest government.

    ReplyDelete
  29. The DUDE does not go by the name of Lynn. The DUDE goes by another name that does not want to find out what unemployment looks like. Can't you all see a carrot when it is given to you? Don't be stupid. Look at who wins here. The Planning Dept. and the Parks and Rec. Dept. The Council just gave raises to who? They overturned the Planning Commission and didn't even get Parks and Rec. Commission involved. This is a no brainer if you FOCUS! If you citizens were smart, and cared enough, why not get enough signatures and put it on the ballot and let people vote on it?

    ReplyDelete
  30. I agree with Dude.

    Hey JP- Can you put a vote on the blog for whether people think the Hall Property plan should go to the vote. Like you did with Beacons bathroom.?

    It could be something like

    A. Do you support the current plan with 5 soccer fields?

    B. Do you support a plan with 3 or less soccer fields that more reflects the conceptual plan initially developed by the community?

    I bet I know the outcome.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Damn, why didn't I think of the employees at City Hall who would be out of work if the Park was not built with the five fields? Pretty smart Dude, whoever you are. Thanks. Also, notice the time when Jerome posted it was Lynn stirring up the crap. Who else stays up that late to post? Mabe we should revisit term limits. It seems to be the only way to get these bums out.

    ReplyDelete
  32. City Staff wins. People lose. WOW. So simple, yet so elegant yo have to give these soccer folks some credit. It went over our heads. We need to FOCUS like the DUDE says. What next?

    ReplyDelete
  33. It gets worse. Developers win too. DOug Long, a plumer, wins a contract. The list goes on. This is payback time for the 3 unwise men. They had no choce if they want to keep their Council seat. We have to have term limits. It's the only way out of this mess.

    ReplyDelete
  34. 9:47

    I know how they can save money on the Hall park. Get rid of the bathrooms. We obviously don't need them at the beaches either. And there are plenty of restaurants near Hall Park who'd love extra people coming in.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I was at the Cardiff Starbuck's this morning ( don't boo me yet) and I was talking to one of the guys who works there. We got to talking about the Park and he said "I want sports fields for my kids." I said "so do I", but not for the kids in Carlsbad, Oceanside, Escondido etc." He said he had recieved the glossy brochure and that is what sold him on Stocks, Bond and Long. So, I guess that brochure really worked. I suggested he look at it a little furter and told him some things to perhaps change his mind. When I was thru, he said "what a bunch of crap", meaning the brochure. I thought it was for the kids of Encinitas. I had pointed out just how many kids there actually are in Encinitas We NEED to educate these young people folks. Let's DO IT!

    ReplyDelete
  36. For the record. I'm in favor of term limits and an elected mayor.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Term limits give everyone an equal opportunity to participate in community government, as incumbants usually have the advantage. I would add that the Commissions should also have term limits. Too long of a time on one Commission is not fair to others that may want to serve, because again, the incumbant has the advantage. The State of California has them, so it might be worth a try. Perhaps we could get a referendum on the ballot for both term limits and the Hall Property?

    ReplyDelete
  38. fiscal conservativeOctober 24, 2008 2:12 PM

    I confess that my estimates were low. I did this intentionally to make my figures unchallengeable. Notice that no one has posted that they are too high, not even Jerome posting under one of his various pseudonyms.

    I know perfectly well that the estimated cost of every city capital project has been low. The prime examples are the library and the new Public Works yard. These were underestimated by at least $3-$4 million each. That means that the Hall project could be easily off by $10-$12 million.

    Margaret Sohagi, the CEQA lawyer from Los Angeles and Sarah Palin wannabee, was hired by the city as a consultant to "help" Glenn Sabine and staff after the very effective citizens' comments to the Draft EIR. The city appropriated another $100,000, on top of the $400,000 already paid to EDAW for the preparation of the EIR. There seems to be no end to the money this city can spend.

    Heaven help us if Stocks, Bond, and Dalager are in charge of the money. Bond confessed on Wednesday night that when he worked in the field for the phone company, he chewed on the lead-sheathed cables, and then swallowed. Does he have lead poisoning? He was dismissing the heavy metal contamination on the Hall property. He said he was unaffected. The community can be the judge of that. I won't be voting for him or Jerome.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Also, the industrial waste that contaminates the soils on the Hall property is not dangerous to humans because we will just be "recreating" in it, getting it all over our bodies and clothes and inhaling the dust of it. According to Patrick Murphy, this contamination would only constitute "hazardous waste" if we tried to dig it up and dump it on another City. Therefore, no homes could be approved to be built on the contaminated Hall property as is, but there is no danger to health or safety for kids to roll around in the dirt on the soccer fields. Just a little moronic city logic.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I would hazard a guess that staff is fully aware that the Hall site is contaminated from weekly applications of pesticides for the last 40 or 50 years. This includes DDT and who knows what else. When you grade the site it will release the toxins into the air and also for the next 100 years or so. Maybe we need Erin Brockovich to look into this. This council has their heads in the sand when it comes to logical decisions benefiting us all. VOTE THEM ALL OUT from out city to the president.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Perhaps many of you don't remember the Council telling me, when I was appealing the Tattoo Parlor in Cardiff, due to a public health concerns, ( Hep. C to be exact), that the City of Encinitas DOES NOT regulate public health-that is the County of San Diego's job. Therefore, the Council could not use that particular argument as an appeal item At that time the Council members were Jerome, Jim, Dan, Christy and Maggie. Both Christy and Maggie agreed with turning down the proposal to have a tattoo parlor in Cardiff, because it is very close to Glen Park where kids play and the General Plan states that a tattoo parlor cannot be within so many feet of a playground, school, etc. However the 3 men voted to let it go thru. So, forget using a public health issue on the Hall Property, IMHO.

    ReplyDelete
  42. How about bankrupting the City.

    the crappy glossy claims "$15 million in reserves."

    That’s only an estimate until the Jennifer decides to report that revenues are down and that reserve no longer exists.

    Secondly, Council focusing on more money to support a park that will require massive expenditures to maintain is pure asinine.

    the City Manager Phil Cotton has no clue and just kissing Jerome Stocks ass.

    There is no way in Hell that Encinitas can afford to keep paying 100% full pay for retirement and build a huge sports park.

    We are in trouble. WAKE UP ENCINITAS, This is YOUR TOWN!

    ReplyDelete

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