Saturday, June 19, 2010

Is there suppose to be a Park?


Rumor has it that the city has park land in Leucadia that sits as a weed field? Why does it sit empty?

39 comments:

  1. No money for parks. Blew it all on pensions.

    ReplyDelete
  2. we haven't even begun to really pay for the pension tsunami coming our way.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dalagers bad from EncinitasJune 19, 2010 9:09 PM

    No money for Hall property, Leucadia Streetscape, and Beach projects. All the money is going to the big fat pensions for our City Employees. 90% of their highest paid year at 55 forever!!!!

    Nice for them. Suck for us.

    vote out Dalager who voted for his own 40% increase in pension along with every other City Employee. Selfish bastard.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Fricken Government Slackers!June 19, 2010 9:20 PM

    Taxpayers Going Postal Over Public Employee Pensions, Perks. Unions’ miscalculation: Opting for secrecy.
    Taxpayers Going Postal Over Public Employee Pensions, Perks. Unions’ miscalculation: Opting for secrecy.

    BY PETER SCHEER—For public employee unions–those representing police, firefighters, teachers, prison guards and agency workers of all kinds at the state and local level–these are the worst of times.

    Despite record high membership and dues, and years of unparalleled clout in state capitols, public sector unions find themselves on the defensive, desperately trying to hold on to past gains in the face of a skeptical press and angry voters. So far has the zeitgeist shifted against them that, on one recent weekend, government employees were the butt of a Saturday Night Live skit, followed, the next day, by a New York Times magazine cover article proclaiming the “Teachers’ Unions’ Last Stand.”

    Public unions’ traditional strength–the ability to finance their members’ rising pay and benefits through tax increases–has become a liability. Although private sector unions always have had to worry that consumers will resist rising prices for their goods, public sector unions have benefited from the fact that taxpayers can’t choose–they are, in effect, “captive consumers.”

    At some point, however, voters turn resentful as they sense that: (1) they are underwriting, through their taxes, a level of salary and benefits for government employment that is better than what they and their families have; and (2) government services, from schools to the DMV, are not good enough—not for the citizen individually nor the public generally—to justify the high and escalating cost.

    We are at that point.

    In California, government sector unions, once among the most entrenched and powerful labor groups in the country, mainly have themselves to blame. For most of the post-war period, they were a force for progressive change, prospering by winning over public support for their agenda.

    In the 1970s and 80s they backed laws like the Public Records Act and Brown Act to make state and local government more transparent. Because unions enjoyed broad-based political support, efforts to enhance government accountability and responsiveness to voters were seen–correctly–as benefiting the unions and their members.The public interest and public employees’ interests were aligned.

    But the unions switched strategies. Although the change was gradual, by the 1990s California’s government unions had decided that, rather than cultivate voter support for their objectives, they could exert more influence in the Legislature, and in the political process generally, by lavishing campaign contributions on lawmakers. Adopting the tactics of other special interest groups, government unions paid lip service to democratic principles while excelling at the fundamentally anti-democratic strategy of writing checks to legislators, their election committees and PACs.

    While not illegal (in fact, such contributions are constitutionally protected), the unions’ aggressive spending on candidates puts them on the same moral low ground as casino-owning tribes, insurance companies and other special interests that have concluded that the best way to influence the legislative process is to, well, buy it.

    Public unions in California turned distrustful of voters and ambivalent about government transparency. In the mid-1990s unions backed improvements to the Brown Act, California’s open meeting law, but also inserted a provision assuring that the public would have no access to collective bargaining agreements negotiated by cities and counties—often representing 70% or more of their total operating budgets—until after the agreements are signed.

    ReplyDelete
  5. cont. Fricken Gov SlackersJune 19, 2010 9:21 PM

    What happens when voters and the press have no opportunity to question elected officials about how they propose to pay for a lower retirement age, healthcare for retirees’ dependents, richer pension formulas and the like? The officials make contractual promises that are unaffordable, unsustainable (and, in general, don’t come due until after those elected officials have left office). In the case of Vallejo, in northern California, this veil of secrecy, and the symbiotic relationship it fosters, has led to municipal bankruptcy.

    The biggest blow to unions’ public support has come from revelations about jaw-dropping compensation and pension benefits. Police have received unwelcome attention for budget-busting overtime and the manipulation of eligibility rules for “disability pensions,” which provide higher benefits and tax advantages. Other government employees, particularly managers, have been called out for “pension-spiking:” Using vacation time, sick pay and the like to boost income in the last years of employment, which are the basis for calculating retirement benefits.

    Such gaming of the system boosts starting pensions to levels that can approach, and even exceed, employees’ salaries. Some examples from the reporting of the Contra Costa Times’ Daniel Borenstein: A retired northern California fire chief whose $185,000 salary morphed into a $241,000 annual pension; a county administrator whose $240,000 starting pension was 98 per cent of final salary; and a sanitary district manager who qualified for a $217,000 pension on a salary of $234,000. At a time when most Californians anticipate an austere retirement (if they can afford to retire at all), government pensions are a source of real voter anger.

    The harm to the credibility of public employee unions from these excesses is made far worse by the unions’ attempts to hide them. The revelations about pay and pension abuses have surfaced only as a result of lawsuits. (Disclosure: The First Amendment Coalition has been a plaintiff in several of these cases.) Public employee unions, rather than taking the lead to stop abusive compensation practices, have vigorously opposed disclosure of individual employees’ salaries and pension amounts.

    Public employee unions need to reboot. The old strategy of cynically buying political influence and excluding the public from decision-making has run its course. Unions can rebuild public support by recommitting to an agenda of open government in the public interest. If they don’t, they will be further marginalized.

    ReplyDelete
  6. There are so many unemployed people in California now that you shouldn't have to pay anybody $240k to do a job that doesn't require highly specialized skills. Managing a town is not brain surgery.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Show your postal about this Government Robbery giving your money to the Government Slackers.

    Dalager is to blame. He voted for the 40% pension increase in 2005. One Vote negatively changed the future of our City. Dalager is bad for Encinitas.

    Vote him out in November!!!

    ReplyDelete
  8. It will get fixed, but the State, County and Encinitas will have to go through bankruptcy to break the unions and their unsustainable pensions.

    Here's the problem... your kids education will suffer (more), property values will drop, unemployment won't get any better, forget the Streetscape and basic infrastructure.

    The government and unions have ruined California.

    Don't believe me? Check on the one-way U-Haul rental from California to Texas... now check it from Texas to California. You will see the rate from Texas to California is 75% less. This simple supply/demand example shows the outbound migration.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yet another hijacked thread. Commenters like W.C. or Peter Sheer might ask for the opportunity to guest post there favorite theme (pensions) and have a rousing good time.

    Meanwhile . . . "Is there supposed [sic] to be a park?" is the subject. This is just courtesy, like visiting someone's home.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Dalager is bad for our kidsJune 20, 2010 12:29 PM

    There would be a park if not for Dalager giving a 40% increase in pensions. Cut the pensions and the City could afford all the parks and the State would have tons of money to support a terrific educational system.

    The unions and Dalager are resulting in less parks and crappy education for our children.

    Dalager is bad for our kids future.

    ReplyDelete
  11. 7:58
    Same thing happened in 1995. U-Hauls exiting CA exceeded them coming in. San Dieguito HS even had a 4% drop in their enrollment for the first time in 20 years (75 less students than in 1994). But it was followed by a real estate boon. Not that that's a pattern in stone, and I hate cliche's, but history tends to repeat itself a lot. Bottom line, nobody can predict the future but we should learn from our mistakes and be smart enough to not lay snares for the future. Happy Father's Day anyway!

    ReplyDelete
  12. High Jack ThreadJune 20, 2010 3:00 PM

    OK, so we won't talk about how the unions and the self-serving government commies have sucked the future life our of our economy....

    But we don't have the money to build a park. The sad thing is that even if we had the money all the hippies would complain that it takes the Funky out of Leucadia, or the environmentalists would say it endangers some Tit-mouse, or the soccer moms would complain about the light pollution, or parking, or GOD FORBID, the drunks would complain that a roundabout might get put in and they will crash their cars.

    We are so pussified that we can't make a stand, or if we do we get our asses sued off by bottom feeder lawyers (and their clients) who operate without tort reform.

    We need help (and better schools and parks for our kids).

    Oh yeah, and to have more "medical marijuana dispensaries" so we can treat our medical condition... I feel sick.

    ReplyDelete
  13. soccer moms, hippies, and enviro's taking a stand is somehow not taking a stand?

    ReplyDelete
  14. 70 YO/hippy/enviro/bitch/LOCALJune 20, 2010 5:39 PM

    3:48
    I defy categorization.
    WRONG is WRONG

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Dalager is to blame. He voted for the 40% pension increase in 2005. One Vote negatively changed the future of our City. Dalager is bad for Encinitas."

    correct me if i am wrong...
    didn't dalager run in 2006 and sits there because of it.

    SO... wouldn't the residents of encinitas that voted for him in 2006 after said pension raise in 2005 REALLY be the ones to blame?

    ReplyDelete
  16. i have said this anonymously before for fear of being called a "whacko" environmentalist but:

    3:00pm

    since when has it been crazy to want clean air, clean water, want to see the stars and maybe see a wild animal that isn't either in a zoo or a book?

    what would you suggest i do to make myself less "pussified?"
    chewing tobacco and a shotgun?

    ReplyDelete
  17. UPDATES
    WWW.cardiffians.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete
  18. Parks and all of Encinitas was screwed.June 21, 2010 5:29 AM

    7:57-

    You are Right. Dalager and anyone who voted for Dalager are to blame for the financial collapse of our City.

    What fools and what tools. They screwed our City.

    Learn from your mistakes, never vote for a union tool like Dalager. He only listens to union bosses, developers, soccer CEOs, and his master Jerome Stocks. You will never find a vote that Danny thinks for himself. He can't. He just parrots Jerome Stocks.

    Sad but true.

    ReplyDelete
  19. This is a posting for a "neighborhood" meeting regarding the Hall Property Community Park. Probably everyone in Encinitas should consider attending since it will affect the entire City.

    Go to the following link to see the letter attached with this notice. Enjoy.

    http://www.cityofencinitas.org/NR/rdonlyres/2DDFF2EC-4880-42B0-BC81-FC6DCE26B171/0/ResidentNotification.pdf

    "Neighborhood Meeting
    Case # 10-068
    Encinitas Community Park- Athletic Field Lighting Project
    Thursday, June 24, 6-8pm
    Encinitas Community Center Banquet Hall
    1140 Oakcrest Park Drive, Encinitas CA, 92024

    We look forward to meeting you and discussing any concerns or questions you may have regarding this proposed lighting project. We value your input and look forward to meeting with you."

    ReplyDelete
  20. A very small example of the pensions in the City of Encinitas,

    Tom Tufts, Fire Dept., $115,268.04
    Darlene Hill, Finance, $101,198.52
    Bob Romero, Fire Dept, $101,111.52
    Don Heiser, Fire Dept, $144,258.12

    ReplyDelete
  21. that is yearly pension payouts? plus platinum health care?

    ReplyDelete
  22. I'd like to propose that instead of inserting entire news articles it would be better for all to just provide a link.

    I'd also like to see more people at least put their first name here.

    So, who owns the land?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Last week the notice for the CPP meeting for the 90-foot lights was not posted on the city website. A call to city hall confirmed this. With a lot of prodding, I finally got a copy to email to my neighbors. I mentioned that I live in Cardiff, but didn't receive the mailed copy. It only went out to property owners within 500 feet.

    The city changed this by expanding the notification area to within 1000 feet. I still consider this insufficient. Plus the text is wrong. The Planning Commission never approved the park design. The Parks and Recreation Department appealed the denial, and the City Council voted 3 to 2 to overrule the PC decision. So much for truth from our city.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Well, the Encinitas Public Financing Authority bought the property with Lease Revenue Bonds. The city is a member of the authority, along with SDWD, Fire Division, and Encinitas and Cardiff Sanitation Divisions. Only SDWD still has a quasi independence.

    So technically the city doesn't own the land until the bonds are paid off in 2031. Total cost is $45 million with interest. If there is a default on the bond payments, it will be the bond holders who own the land.

    Until the city makes that final payment, it doesn't "own" the land, but has full use of it. In a default any improvements made will also go to the bond holders.

    ReplyDelete
  25. And... In the 'Neighbor Meeting' invite, (CPP meeting), the city told people this was to inform people of changes to "ENCINITAS COMMUNITY PARK". There is no such park in Encinitas. The EIR AND LEGAL reference to this a SPORTS PARK or SPECIAL USE PARK. Why is the city trying to confuse people?
    The EIR never included lights. With these changes of extended hours, sound amplification, light pollution, more dangerous night time traffic and extended night time traffic on Santa Fe and the other main enterence, (MacKinnon, which was graded 'F' for day light use), this will be a result in significantly more environmental impact to the entire plan.
    The approved EIR approved NO LIGHTS.
    Www.cardiffians.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete
  26. Thanks for the heads up on the "Community Meeting" regarding the Hall light poles.

    ReplyDelete
  27. City Hall Pensions will be exploding in 2 years.June 21, 2010 12:38 PM

    Waite until you see the ones coming in the next couple of years. It will make your head spin.....

    But the residents have there heads in the sand and will let the politicians like Dalager run the City into the ground, and cut all the educational state money so the government employees can lead the fat life in retirement after 55. Its good to be a public employee!!!

    Its sucks to be a public tax payer!!!

    ReplyDelete
  28. Again Cardiffian, as WC said, There is no money for parks or lights. They blew our wad on pensions. Now their just shooting blanks.

    ReplyDelete
  29. That is the attitude that the wall of sausage wants you to have.
    'there is no money to do it so don't worry, there is no money for lights or park'
    In the mean time, the "Boys" are going to change the GENERAL PLAN,LOCAL PLAN, MAJOR USE PLAN, DESIGN REVIEW MODIFICATION, AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT CHANGE.
    They ARE NOT SHOOTING BLANKS. And while you do nothing, Bond, Stocks and Dalager are going to make it legal to install up to 340 lights up to nine stories high on 44 acres in Cardiff, forever.
    They are trying to do this quickly, before the election and before the city wide citizen's general plan is done.

    I like Cardiff and encourage you to get informed.
    WWW.CARDIFFIANS.BLOGSPOT.COM

    ReplyDelete
  30. Maybe you should get active in outing Dalager in November. Thats Cardiffs only real shot at getting any positive results. Otherwise your just shooting blanks.

    ReplyDelete
  31. you already now the game. If you want action, you need to sue. Quite beating around the bush and get your attorney on their ass. its the way our country runs now a days. Its easier than residents caring and taking ownership in their City.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I really don't get how Dalager keeps winning elections. I don't know anyone who likes him. Are slick developer-paid mailers all it takes?

    ReplyDelete
  33. No money for parks because of lawsuits, your ignorant. There are not 340 light poles , you are ignorant again. Why don't you get your facts in order. If you don't like pensions, take it up with the union or vote the council out.

    ReplyDelete
  34. You misread.
    The light plan was 34 poles in various heights with up to ten lights per pole.

    The latest count is..........

    still 34 POLES

    ReplyDelete
  35. Dalager must hate kids!June 22, 2010 9:13 PM

    I don't like how council is owned by the Employees union and developers and will contribute to any campaign to get rid of our incumbent council..... first focus is Dalager. He steels money for our childrens education, parks, and everyother project for the sake of pensions for himself and other City Employees. The worst part is he debt out our future which is bad for our future. Loser.

    vote out Dalager, he is bad for kids future!

    ReplyDelete
  36. If you want Dalager out, fight for no lights. The only reason he is pushing lights at the hall sports fields and changes in the general plan, now, is for his election coming up.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Vise Versa.... if you want no lights, yOu better kick Dalager out!

    ReplyDelete
  38. All it takes is for the city council to change the rules for pensions and it will change. They don't have the political will to do that. Change the city council and change the pension system kith it.

    Term limit a should be part of the election.

    ReplyDelete

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