Sunday, February 21, 2010

What are the Rules?

The people of California generally agree that government should not go into debt without approval of the voters. The Encinitas City Council (minus Barth) think otherwise. Some governments get around laws requiring voter approval by using very disingenuous schemes involving "lease-revenue" bonds. Here is a must read tutorial on lease-revenue bonds.

Lease revenue bonds cost more to the taxpayers and the reason our city has issued several lease-revenue bonds is obviously because they don't want to alert the public to what they are doing.

Many in town know that for years I have been pitching the idea of an initiative to require all large bonds be approved by the voters. But, do we already have protections on the books?

City Policy
This week's council agenda included a recommended revision to the city's policies. Here is a link to the agenda item. Please read it for yourself. Help me understand this. Here is an excerpt:
The way I read this, it looks like the city already has a weak policy requiring a vote of the people for bonding over $4 million. The city issued $20 million dollars of lease-revenue bonds in 2001 and 2006, for a park and library (firestations, park construction were also involved). There was no vote of the people for those bonds.

Are the bonds we issued "revenue anticipation notes"? If so, what is the revenue from the library? Twenty million dollars in overdue fines ;)

I can't believe it. When you read the staff report, does it look like staff recommended that this above section of the city's policies be deleted? I must have read this wrong. Did I?

However this sucker is written, Wednesday night should end with the Council adopting a policy that requires the city get voter approval for all debt over $4 million or which extends beyond 10 years.


  1. The City's misdeeds, mismanagement and corruption is adding up. Eventually we the citizens will have to step up and hold them accountable for it.

    A grand jury investigation and change in leadership will bring the city back inline. There's plenty of smoking guns in city hall at every level, you don't have to look that hard.

    Let us form a posse and get after them before next election.

    Who's up for the task?

  2. Politicians are heavily incentived to borrow from the future. It's a shame.

  3. Steve: A Grand Jury investigation into what?If you know something tell us.

  4. City Staff runs the City and only puts up with Council. Council thinks they hold power and love the prestige that comes from being elected by a bunch of progressive statists idiots.
    Staff has unlimited resources to further feather their nest. City Attorneys, outside consultants, staff with nothing else to do except find funding sources or ways to make sure there is enough money at least for their employment.
    The Federal Government is bankrupt, California is bankrupt, city after city in California is cutting back or running the risk or bankruptcy. Its only a matter of time before it catches up to Encinitas and other well off cities like Carlsbad.
    By far the biggest reason for individual cities to lack funding for everyday expenses is employee salaries and benefits. Democrat controlled Sacramento a few years ago enacted a 33% raise in retirement benefits for all State employees with only the taxpayers on the hook, not one cent from the actual employees. For retirement they get three percent per year employed calculated on the highest salary attained. That's right, after 30 years they get 90% of their pay for life with full medical benefits paid 100% for life.
    You could hit the lottery and not come out this good.
    Don't ever wonder why government is so bad, its your own fault.
    If you think Barth and her ilk is the answer, think again as she is in with staff.
    I urge all working people to stop working and producing. Let the government go bankrupt, it the best way to throw them out.
    Its kinda funny that when California was an emerging worldwide powerhouse we had the best schools, the best colleges, the best freeways, the best of everything and the lowest taxes and now with liberal statists in power we have huge areas that are as bad as Third World slums, open borders, welfare for millions who have never worked and never intend to and a population that thinks the government needs more control over our lives!
    Hope and Change,
    Ha, more like
    Rope and Chains.

  5. nothing changes if Danny stays in office.

    provide political contributions to those running against Danny. It will take money to offset the developer and union payoffs to Danny's war chest.

  6. Knowing when to play your cards is everything. I'm not ready yet and, the longer I wait the more they expose themselves. I'm sure there are many more examples of city misconduct than what I have Identified. Dozen's if not hundreds. It's a matter of everyone that is fed up, everyone that decided not to pursue action on misconduct they discovered to come together and create a large package or, BOMB to drop at the right time.

    We need to share our discoveries of mismanagement, waste, and failure to follow policies and procedures. As I mentioned they are at every level and take place on a daily basis.

  7. 852
    Is that you?

  8. 1133,

    Name calling?

    If you disagree, please explain. That would be more civil.

  9. As long as the wacko fringe that puts the welfare of dogs above human life, as in parks polluted by dog feces and urine to the point they are toxic waste sites we are left to the likes of Maggie, Tresea, Jerome, and Danny.

  10. Steve has it right.

    Get active and support kicking Danny the bank pimp out of office this fall. That would be a great thing for Encinitas.

  11. I love it. Steve says he doesn't want to put his cards on the table for a Grand Jury investigation. He had no trouble making stupid You Tube videos and accusing Dr. Lorri of all sorts of shit. I call bullshit on Steve. I am sick of him. If he knows of stuff that can help us get rid of Dan, Jerome etc. he should say so and not do one of his Smoking Gun routines. I am calling you out Steve. Give us one thing that could go before a Grand Jury that they would not laugh at.

  12. The way I read this is that the city will be deleting a policy that requires the city to have an advisory vote on any bonds over $4 million. excepting the types noted. "Tax and revenue anticipation notes?" What the heck are these? The city has never used this term.

    The Hall property project has never generated a penny of revenue. In fact, it has created a net revenue loss of around $2 million. Remember when Jerome Stocks was quoted in the newspaper that the lawsuits and delays cost the city over $1 million? The council just approved another $200,000 for demolition. And construction of Phase I of the park is around $18 million.

    Besides book fines, there is also revenue from the coffee cart at the entrance. Just running the library creates a net revenue drain on the city.

    It sure looks to me like the city violated its own policy with the Hall property bonds ($23 million) and the library construction bonds ($20 million). This is probably why the city wants to delete this page from the Debt Management Policy section. Otherwise, the city wouldn't bother to delete it. Is the city contemplating issuing more Lease Revenue Bonds to rescue themselves from fiscal mismanagement? Let's not forget that library bonds were issued because the city ran out of money to finish the project, even though Dalablabber said it was on time and on budget. I'm with Steve. The incompetence and deceit is astounding.

  13. The park and library bonds require $2.5 million per year in repayment. These are 30-year bonds for a total of $75 million to retire the debt. Technically this is not considered a "debt" by the city, but a yearly "lease payment." This is doublespeak. The money still has to come from somewhere.

    My question: FROM WHERE?

    I also agree with Steve. I don't doubt there has been malfeasance.

  14. 5:36
    Only if you deem it name-calling.
    Its all in ones interpretation.

  15. First off Anon 804, You don't have to back anything you say because you are ANONYMOUS. You don't even exist. If I put my name down I'm willing to back what I say.

    If I present two or three misconduct charges to the grand jury I may have a chance they would investigate. If I present 10 charges that include significant proof of irresponsible financial management and corruption they would take a serious look. Why expose all their blunders now so they can cover their tracks, there's plenty of time before the election to build a strong, compelling case.

    As far as Dr Lori, Let it go man. I got no beef with her, I just wanted her opinion.

  16. Steve: YOU HAVE NO BEEF WITH DR. LORRI? Then why in the hell did you and your bro's threaten her. The only way I would ever listen to you is after you make a public apology to her. On this blog would do nicely. Of course, since you Googled her, you could directly e-mail her and she could post it on the blog.What you and your buds did is cyberbullying and there are consequences for that. She may have let it go, but the Feds are not so sure. Since I think you're nuts I will keep going by anonymous.

  17. 9:47-Although I appreciate the sentiments, I also think it is time to let the issue with Steve and the dogs go. We need to move on in this City and resolve some of the more pressing issues. The Council choose to override the Parks and Rec. recommendation so end of story. Please use your efforts for the good of the City and not defending me. I appreciate your support, but please let it go for my sake, if nothing else.

  18. 9:47
    Feel better now?

  19. anon 947,

    Dr. Lorri says move on. Time to move on or back up your libel.

  20. Seriously though.....February 22, 2010 11:20 AM

    947- YOU again?
    I see you haven't taken that creative writing class you so sorely need. Same old phraseology (cyberbullying...consequences).

    Your veiled allusions to 'The Feds'
    does make me laugh though. Maybe comedy writing is your forte.

  21. Did anyone file a complaint with the FPPC about Dan voting on the Orpheus Park off-leash hours but not voting on the Hwy 101 streetscape.

    If he lives within 500 ft (the conflict of interest zone) of Hwy 101 surely he lives within 500 ft of Orpheus Park.


Thank you for posting on the Leucadia Blog.
There is nothing more powerful on this Earth than an anonymous opinion on the Internet.
Have at it!!!