Monday, February 02, 2009

What other verbal agreements does the city of Encinitas have?


The spectacle of Drew the hippy kid camping out in the little Orpheus Park tree is distracting from the real issue, the drama at the park isn't about little kids and trees or even views. The real issue is that the city of Encinitas is making and acting on verbal agreements.

Read Kevin's Burning Questions on the Trees vs Views post.

Ask yourself, how many other verbal agreements does the city have around town?

Obviously the city is okay with this sort of protocol. As a resident and taxpayer do you feel comfortable knowing that your city has off the record verbal agreements and handshake deals floating around out there?

26 comments:

  1. Backroom deals with no public review. Nice. Danny likes it that way so he can do favors for his friends. It gives him power.

    If you don't write down the agreement you can always change it later and pretend it never changed.

    ReplyDelete
  2. What kind of back room deal was cut with the city between a coffee shop on 2nd street and the TOTAL lack of off street parking??

    ReplyDelete
  3. coffee is good foodFebruary 02, 2009 12:07 PM

    I've never had a problem finding a parking spot on Second Street.

    ReplyDelete
  4. coffee is not a food it is a beverage.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Chocolate covered espresso beans from Trader Joes!

    And, there is more parking at E St and Second than there is at the Pannikin.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dalagar tried to cut a secret deal when the lot on Sanford (where the Leucadia Oaks Park is), was still empty. This got him kicked off the Park and Rec. Gail Hano was very verbal in her criticism of his actions. It was even front page news. Have you all forgotten this so easily?

    Hmmm 1990,,,who could it be? Head of the Park and Rec, maybe? Dave Wiggington comes to mind.

    ReplyDelete
  7. CUT THE TREE DOWN and let the ignorant punk fall out on his head.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Pannikin is grandfather in, they were there long before we were a city and they have off street parking. The coffee shop has ZERO off street parking!!

    ReplyDelete
  9. The "secret deal" you are referring to may be the one where the lady who owned the property was going to sell the entire parcel to the city for a huge, fantastic park at a really good price, but the neighbors complained about lights and gangs and parking, so we got 60+ houses and a mini-park instead.

    ReplyDelete
  10. a mini park is better than no park at all. it's a pity that the only way to get the city to build a park is by letting a developer pay for it. at least the city takes care of the garbage that is always dumped in leucadia oaks park and the grafitti that occasionally shows up there as well.

    ReplyDelete
  11. My nephew wants to know "where does Drew goes potty?" I told him I would ask you who seems to know alot about the caa caa-doddy in Leucadia.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Thank -you JP for bringing up the real issue! The issue is that city staff and or certain male council members apparently make verbal agreements with individual persons and or special interest groups that may or may not be allowed by code and then the staff is acting on these alleged agreements (without a written follow-up the agreements are hearsay or rumor).
    Mr. Bond has on more than one occasion at city council meetings said that when you get old like he is you can't always remember everything yet in the interoffice email that this event triggered he said he kinda of remembered hearing about that oral agreement. (With his memory lapses I don't feel reassured.) How many other verbal agreements are out there?? Have they made ones telling landowners that they can have a commercial development on a residential street??????? Have they already made verbal agreements with green house owners on la Costa Ave. that they will upzone their property for them????? Do they already have a verbal with Carltas Dev. regarding a new bigger Greatlands Target at the Target Shopping Center. This is what it's about. Also, if they had this agreement why did they plant the trees to begin with?? Was it so that they could give a friend the contract to cut them down at tax payer expense???????

    ReplyDelete
  13. You should all move back to the OC

    ReplyDelete
  14. The Leucadia park was going to be 10x the size it is, but the neighbors complained the park would generate too much traffic, possible gang activity and lights, got a petition going against it and we got houses and a mini-park instead.

    ReplyDelete
  15. In a recent survey of gang members,

    4 out of 5 preferred community parks over miniparks.

    ReplyDelete
  16. So, by your astute logic, Walker O, we'd be better off with a Costco at the Hall property site?

    ReplyDelete
  17. it was a joke about the absurdity of that objection to a large park.

    ReplyDelete
  18. A Costco at the Hall property would be better than a tax draining expensive regional sports complex that we have to maintain. Look around, other City’s are closing their sports complexes because they cost so dang much to maintain. The City should sell some land at hall, and buy more park land in other parts of the City. The days of mega-thing is coming to an end in the USA, and its about time.
    Its better to have the playing field spread throughout the City, so people don't have to drive to the park.

    Put it on the next ballot, I bet it passes.

    To really address the future success of the City, the City needs to cost staff with their outrageously lucrative pensions. It’s criminal what Council has approved for themselves and all of Staff.

    ReplyDelete
  19. The issue is not parks. The issue is that the city is making and acting on verbal agreements. How many other verbals are out there now?? I can think of at least one that was made with Barret America (remember the guy who use to give Jerome big campaign contributions) where they brought in dirt from a landslide on La Costa to use as fill on their now partially built Nantucket project. No written anything on that one. Governments of any size should not run on verbal agreements.

    ReplyDelete
  20. the real issue is:

    1. parks and

    2. the huge cost of useless employees that are draining our taxes that could be used to fix problems throughout the City.

    ReplyDelete
  21. whatever the "secret deal" was, the fact remains that Dan Dalager WAS tossed off the Park and Rec Comm, and now he's on the city council. Unbelievable!!

    ReplyDelete
  22. M.A.'s secret boyfriendFebruary 03, 2009 9:49 AM

    Jeez what is it with people and their obsession with Costco taking over the Hall property? It's not going to happen people. Costco has no plans for new stores in this economy.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I pray to God we can get Dalager out. His snide remarks to Teresa, and on this blog, show that he is manipulative and a control freak.

    I hope the fact that he got kicked off the Park and Rec Committee really is focused upon two years from now.

    If Council were elected every two years, then perhaps they would be more responsive to public image. All the "special presentations" at the beginning of Council Meeting are free publicity for them, right before every election, of course. There should not be a 15 minute limit for oral communications. The public should get "equal time," to Council, posturing and posing before the cameras on our dime.

    Anyone here who is trying to change the focus to putting down the guy in the tree, or putting down "hippies," simply can't see the "urban forest" for the tree sitter.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Liar? Why on earth would Danny get kicked of the Parks commission? He loves sports, kids and parks. That is why he is on the council!

    ReplyDelete
  25. There will never be a Costco on the Hall Property unless the city sells the land and pays off the Lease Revenue Bonds. The property was bought under a Friendly Condemnation. This can give a federal tax benefit to the seller. The same thing was done with the purchase of Mossy Chevrolet.

    In the case of the Hall property the city agreed to use the property only for recreational purposes. As long as the city owns the property, putting a Costco there would violate the agreement, and it is a written agreement, not a verbal agreement. The three councilmen can not lie about it. Yet it didn't stop them, especially Dalager, from using surrogates to make the threat. Nor do we have to trust Bond's failing memory.

    ReplyDelete

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