Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Krazy Man on K-uuuuUUUUU-S-iiiii embraces yellow journalism re: Hall Park


LOL. I don't even know what to say except: Turko Fail.

The Hall Park blog post the Encinitas elite and San Diego media don't want you to read, Hall Park Roundup

Update: This clip is also posted at Jerome's Red County blog.

52 comments:

  1. one turkoburger please. hold the environmental study.. i don't wanna know what's in that thing.

    ReplyDelete
  2. There sure are a lot of things that are just not true in that video , no matter how many times they are stated.
    If you combine the area identified as sports fields,(accessable to organized leagues only and for free), and the area designated as open space and subtract the sq. ft. of trails cutting through the open space and compare that number with the area of individual plots that are available and reasonably large enough to allow open public play, it appears that 83% of the area is fenced off sports fields.

    ReplyDelete
  3. At least it wasn't turned into a political ad against Barth & Hoolihan.

    Was it editing at KUSI or some remarkable restraint on the part of the boys?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Gotta blab a little more. Can't help it. Me and Jerome didn't tell nothin' to Turko no how about the lawsuit we lost in 2004. We tried to sneak the project through without an EIR. We got caught, but don't bother me with details. I'm running for reelection in 2010.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think they all did a nice job here. Clearly Dalager and Stocks are not popular with this Blog audience, but what did they distort?

    It really is too bad it has taken 8 years and a million dollars to get where we are.

    Let's build phase one now!

    ReplyDelete
  6. They indicated that those who did not agree with them wanted to not have fields for the kids.
    This was never ever true. They just wanted a COMMUNITY PARK.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Doesn't Turko tout himself as for the little guy and against government idiocy? Looks like he can be bought. This piece is totally inappropriate and shame on Stocks and Dalablabber for criticizing their own citizens who stand up for their rights and refuse to let Carlsbad dictate what is built in our backyard. Stocks and Dalablabber have no integrity, what sad sad little men.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hey Turko, how is Encinitas supposed to pay for this thing buddy? Use the power of your ponytail to find the money.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Please 7:53, what is not true in the Roundup piece?
    We would have a park now to enjoy if the city were to have listened and compromised years ago with those who want a community park. Everyone wants a park.
    The planning commission reviewed thousands of pages of the EIR, heard two nights of public testimony, read masses of letters from people from all over the city and from Carlsbad and concluded that there should be a reduction of fields and traffic issues be addressed in the surrounding neighborhoods.
    Three voted to ignore their recommdations as well as ignoring city funded surveys and the wishes of much of the public, when they were invited to design their community park.

    ReplyDelete
  10. WHO WILL SAVE THE CHILDREN???

    ReplyDelete
  11. Several distortions. There is a park design as the CQL alternative in the EIR. This design reflected the Godbe Survey and the consensus design that came out of the workshops. Dalager and Stocks manipulated the process to ignore all of this.

    Turko admits the land is contaminated. Why did the city try to do a negative declaration to bypass any environmental review? Stocks and Dalager don't say that the city will have to carefully move and bury this poisoned earth. They skirted the issue of the cleanup. What were the contracted workers exposed to? They weren't supposed to disturb the soil, but they did.

    The mess that needed to be cleaned up was created when the city gave Robert Hall permission to scavenge and sell anything from the greenhouses. He made the money, and city got stuck with the cost of cleanup. The property was a functional business up to the time of sale. It was not falling down as Turko states.

    The worst distortion is that Stocks and Dalager conflate the two lawsuits in an attempt to make the city look like the victim. In fact the public is the victim. It all could have been avoided if the city had been honest with its citizenry

    ReplyDelete
  12. Mme and da boys at the unionSeptember 16, 2009 9:00 AM

    Throw da bums OUT!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  13. It is inevitable that some defeat will enter even the most victorious life. The human spirit is never finished when it is defeated...it is finished when it surrenders.

    I believe the majority want a community park and that traffic issues should not be ignored.

    Oh, and Turko, 90ft lights ARE PLANNED.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Either build more parks or build more jails"

    Everyone knows you can keep a kid with criminal tendencies from doing crimes by occupying he or she with sports or having picnics on contaminated soil, no matter what kind of leach their abusive, single, tweak of a parent is.
    6 miles of fresh air, sand and salt water is no place for respectable recreation nor large enough for Encinitas. Prevent crimes! Build the park! Spend $1m a year for maintenance like we had it! Create more huge negative cash flows in Encinitas! Buy Encinitas Ford and make it Racketball Courts! (they say it's coming back big!) Keep our kids away from the dangerous ocean! Ah hell, build more jails anyway, we're not built out yet! Did I mention getting more red light cameras to keep good kids from going bad?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Turko and Dan: go fly a kite. I hope they get tangled up in the 90 ft. tall lights.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I lost all respect for Turko. It goes to show how bad reporting really is. I have found whenever you know something about an issue, you see lots of factual errors in reporting. Sad.....and lazy....

    If there were no lawsuits now, they park would be have been built, kids would have gotten cancer, and had other health issues, and the city would be defending itself agains all sorts of lawsuits. The citizens have really done the city a service.

    The soccor moms from Carlsbad and Carmel valley are getting a nice gift from Danny and Jerome. I can only assume they are getting serviced in return.

    ReplyDelete
  17. there is one more option, put this park to a vote, anybody out there willing to help?

    ReplyDelete
  18. The vote issue has been brought up many times.
    The majority, (now), has not let this happen.
    If there was a vote, it would have to be very organized.
    The pro-special use folks have all their email trees and newsletters very organized. All they have to do press a button and tell their group how to vote.
    It can be done, though.
    Voting on to council, in the next election, an prospect that is more receptive to their community's wishes would work and may be easier and quicker.

    ReplyDelete
  19. 12:05 - Well said. The people who think as most of us do, and want a council that truely represents the people and not special interests, need to stick with two candidates, not split our vote. We need to be willing to walk the neighborhoods, host tea parties for candidates, and most important provide the needed funding.

    ReplyDelete
  20. The rumors of contamination are greatly exaggerated, in my opinion. What exactly do people think was done there? This was not a heavy metals manufacturing facility or a nuclear waste dump - it was a greenhouse. Are there some residual chemicals still around? Yes, but guess what, you probably have some in your yard as well.

    This chemical contamination issue is just a red herring by neighbors who don’t want to have any “outsiders” around. The folks that live next to the park don’t want anything to happen there – how is that so hard to understand?

    This land is the City’s land, and as a citizen, I want a park to be built, not a fenced off weed infested lot that I look at every time I drive on I5!

    ReplyDelete
  21. the sports leagues may be organized but half of the members can't vote in Encinitas because they live in Carlsbox, Solana Beach, Rancho Santa Fe, Vista, Oceanside, etc. I think a vote would be timely given the recession and excessive government spending issues on everyone's minds -- building the park as is is going to cost money that should be going to infrastructure and safety...areas that have been sorely neglected by the council. At least a vote would put the issue to rest.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Build it! Lets now turn our focus to how much, and can it be done cheaper?

    ReplyDelete
  23. 1:33 - It's surely understandable that residents want to have a park that does not affect their lives too adversely. After all, they purchased homes near R-3 zoned land (3 homes per acre - super low density) - not a Sports Park. Drive on Crest on a busy weekend after the time changes - you can hear the Sports Park 1/2 - 1 mile away and see the lights - it's like daytime in many yards.

    Surely, you would not want something like that next to you if you purchased a home next to R-3 land.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Let the sports leagues maintain the park if they don't want to pay nearly 3000 bucks a day to professionals. You people have lost touch with reality. The park is way too big for our britches. Encinitas, land of diminshing returns.

    ReplyDelete
  25. To Anonymous at 1:33 pm:

    You obviously haven't read the EIR. There is dangerous contamination that exceeds federal standards. Simply saying it isn't there doesn't make the contamination go away. The land was a greenhouse operation. Toxic chemicals were used to control insect pests - pesticides so toxic they are labelled "Danger" and "Extremely toxic." Full protective gear must be worn to apply them. This includes a face mask with NIOSH filters.

    Most are illegal now, but unfortunately they are slow to break down and persist in the soil.

    This is not a trivial matter. The city's attorney, Philip Seymour, said at the court hearing that Toxaphene exceeds all standards and the city will mix and bury the contaminated soil.

    Why do this if there is no contamination? Because the Nimbys were right and Dalablabber was wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  26. fashion cop will taze youSeptember 16, 2009 8:56 PM

    What is up with aloha shirt guy and bad suit & tie man? It's the odd couple. Wacky fun adventures they must have together.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Does anyone have specifics on the EIR which references the contaminants?

    It seems that the sports families might need this put directly to them in a clear manner along with the effectiveness of the proposed remediation.

    The legal fight is over but there is a moral issue here that needs to be presented and disclosed without politics.

    ReplyDelete
  28. 11:44
    That's too sensible.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Put the project to the vote of the people.... the public needs to vote out all incumbants. what losers.

    ReplyDelete
  30. In 20 years a fat and haggard Turko will do his pro wrestler act about how a park in Encinitas bankrupted the city and exposed kids to containiments.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Turko is fat and haggard now. The EIR states that the contaminant level in the soils is acceptable for the reacreational type exposure predicted for a sports park of a few hours a few times a week --- but if you wanted to build houses on the land then it would have to be cleaned up. Sounds like a risk to me.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I tell you what. I don;t like the size and scope of the park. I live close enough to be affected significantly and likely pay more in property taxes than most of the posters here cars are worth. Whooopee I know big fcking shiet. In the end the park will do good and I will be affected much to my detriment but Turko is spot on and Leucadia Blog failed this one grasshopper.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Yeah, and an auto production plant in the same location will also do good. Good at what expense is the question.

    The park as planned only benefits a very small group, it's an opportunity lost to build a real community park, as envisioned at countless workshops.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Sell most of the land to Costco and keep some for a park. Buy the Ecke land that he wanted to develop but was denied and put the sports park there.
    Make sure those using the sports park but not paying Encinitas property taxes pay their fair share. Somehow.
    How about letting some of the dead weight at City Hall go to fund yearly maintenance for the park? O yeah, there wouldn't be anybody left. How about reducing their benefits to what most of the rest of us working stiffs get? My retirement is exactly what I paid into it and not 90% of my last years pay irregardless. Must be nice to be ripping off those of us working AND paying taxes.
    I can't see Encinitas having the money to buy and build the park, maintenance and employ hoards of useless dorks, mostly transplants.

    ReplyDelete
  35. 753- Thats the first smart comment I have ever heard you make.

    ReplyDelete
  36. The contaminants in the park soil include DDT, DDE, Dieldrin, and Toxaphene. All exceed the federal standards for residential use, but are below the much more lenient standards for business and industrial use. But the city created a lower non-existent "recreational" standard between the two recognized standards to justify ignoring the contamination.

    However it is Toxaphene that is the big problem for the city. This was only discovered after the city did more sampling because of its loss of the lawsuit brought by CQL. The original sampling had bee very incomplete. Toxaphene could not be so easily dismissed because of the high level in the soil. It's easy to google Toxaphene and read about it.

    For this reason at the August 28th court hearing the city said it would mix and bury this toxic dirt. So it turns out the alert citizens were right. Mission accomplished. The city's attitude was that the public be damned.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Dalager, Stocks and Turko have ZERO idea how they are going to come up with the money for this thing. Lawsuit or no lawsuit the city doesn't have $50 million to build a soccer park.
    I see a FAT tax increase on the horizon.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Think about all the kids running around on soccer fields breathing these old hazardous poisons evaporating up to the surface. When they fall and scrape a knee or elbow the poison will be right there also. Maybe they will have allergies for life like my son from living his first two years downwind from a greenhouse. Is it worth the risk of your children getting cancer anytime in their lives, let alone in their 20's or 30's.
    Sell the toxic waste dump to Costco, buy the Ecke land and let comsumers pay for it.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I'm glad encinita is building a huge public park on top of the worlds largest toxic waste dump

    ReplyDelete
  40. It's not so bad for the children or adults who plan on staying sterile. But DDT plays hell with the unborn, so I would recommend pregnant mothers have their picnic at Cottonwood Creek park instead of the Hall Property.

    ReplyDelete
  41. If they city had vision, they would work with the owners of the Von's center on Santa Fe to exchange some land and allow for good ingress and egress from the park. The park would be down sized, and there would be higher end shopping options at Santa Fe. With the hospital expansion, they need to have more food options and and shops will do well.

    ReplyDelete
  42. 11:00

    You're absolutely right. Even Robert Hall told me that after he sold the place. But was it ever considered? No.

    ReplyDelete
  43. 9:41 - Cottonwood Creek Park is built on the former SEWER pond for all of Encinitas. If you are worried about residual pollution, maybe you should not send pregant women there!

    ReplyDelete
  44. I thought only Encinitas Sports groups were pushing for the park. Didn't know about the big Carlsbad leagues and Carmel Valley. Nothing would stop a bunch of enthusiastic, gun-ho soccer and baseball parents more than being told about the deadly pesticides lurking in the soil below their angelic children's feet at the park.

    I've been following the Hall Property debacle for years and had no idea there were such dangerous, heavy-duty poisons present and which will be there forever.

    No parent would risk their kid being exposed. Falling in the fields, having snacks after the games sitting under a tree on the field, goofing around with friends in the field.

    There should be an all out PR push to make the pesticides known, to publish them and their effects. May make people take note.

    ReplyDelete
  45. I'll recommend a public park for pregnant women built over long gone human poop over eternal DDT anyday.

    http://www.bangitout.com/articles/viewarticle.php?a=742

    http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/NewScience/oncompounds/ddt/2003/2003-0808chenandrogan.htm

    http://www.prn2.usm.my/mainsite/bulletin/nst/1998/nst4.html

    ReplyDelete
  46. A) Please show ANY valid studey that proves DDT harmful to humans. You cannot because it isn't.
    B)The EIR studies dismiss the claims of "toxics" as BS.
    C) We're getting our park because the NIMBY's LOST in court!
    D) If you're posting here about the dangers, I'd better not see you at the beautifl park after it's built. Let's start a petition of those who claim it's poisonous, post thise names, and check against future park users. O.K???

    ReplyDelete
  47. You can use the park without substantial risk to your health if you limit it to a few hours a week, that is what the EIR says. I will limit my use to having my dog poop in the dog park so as to avoid any threat of exposure to myself and at the same time deposting a sincere expression of thanks for the grand regional sports complex built on my dime.

    ReplyDelete
  48. So all the pesticides in the Hall park soil are safe for humans and animals? The soil can be toiled and grass planted with no harm to our children or pets? The City hasn't created a "recreational use" caveat that we'll find out down the road was a cover up to get the park built? Besides the money issue and NIMBY issue, that should be the big question.

    ReplyDelete
  49. The city won't allow contaminated soil to be buried under the streets. Sometime about protecting city workers if they ever have to dig up the streets. Butt, they will allow contaminated soil to be buried in the backyards of residential properties.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Jerome is now blogging for the replacement to Red County:

    http://sdrostra.com/

    ReplyDelete

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