Friday, July 29, 2011

Easy to Please Simpleton Writes Editorial on Soil Contamination

There is a strong political component to what is happening now.  The Hymettus poisoning was a big scandal for the city.  It put into question whether the city will do proper cleanup of the Hall property, since it is the developer and will be overseeing itself with the county program.  Jerome Stocks will be mayor in 2012 and be up for re-election.  He wants to control the debate.  But he has to answer for the long delay, 3/4 of which was caused by the city.  Three years for the EIR and two years since approval for lack of money.  He has to answer for the lack of money to actually build the park.  And he has to answer for how the whole project went off the rails, when an honest and transparent approach to the public would have got the park built years ago.

It happened on June 22, 2011, at a City Council meeting during a discussion of the reported neighborhood poisoning on North Hymettus. Several speakers had mentioned the soil contamination on the Hall property. Planning Director Patrick Murphy suddenly leapt to his microphone to speak. He said there was no significant contamination on the property, and Councilman Jerome Stocks quickly joined in to say how important it was to state that. It all looked like a carefully planned setup. What was the city up to?

LB NOTE: Stocks and Gaspar are prone to publicly ask staff to make statements they don't want to make themselves.

On the very first page of the Hazardous Materials section of the Final EIR (page 3.6-1) it says, “The EBS Phase I identified potential features of concern related to hazardous materials ….” and “The Phase I identified several constituents of concern associated with historical site land use including pesticides, petroleum hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds, toxic metals, and hexavalent chromium.”

This certainly doesn’t sound like uncontaminated land.

What are those pesticides? DDE, DDT, Dieldrin, and Toxaphene “were found in exceedance of residential CHHSL and PRG levels,” (page 3.6-10). The report continues, “Toxaphene’s 95% upper confidence level … exceeded the published toxaphene CHHSLs and PRGs.”

It was going to be a difficult job to explain the high level of this dangerous carcinogen.

I have highlighted the word residential. This is the key to understanding how the city shaped the EIR to try to minimize the contamination. There are only two standards for measuring levels of contamination: residential and industrial.

The city created a “recreational” standard and used it “in the absence of established screening levels for a public use park,” (page 3.6-10).

The city has used statistical manipulation to dismiss the contamination. It’s like the often-told story of the man who drowned in a lake with an average depth of one foot. The game is revealed in the technical reports in the Draft EIR.

When assessing the risk to the public, the consultant says that, “we judge that patrons of the park could potentially come into direct contact with residual pesticides present in shallow soils via inhalation (of fugitive dust), ingestion, or dermal exposure,” (Volume 2, Appendix H, Page 31 EBS).

The city spent almost three years from December 2004 to October 2008 before presenting the EIR to the Planning Commission. The city, of course, got what it paid for, which was a favorable report on the insignificance of any contamination.

Yet the city agreed to a San Diego County Department of Environmental Health Voluntary Assistance Program in order to mitigate the nonexistent contamination. Why pay for an expensive onsite testing and burial of noncontaminated soil?

Because the city knew it had a serious problem with the high level of toxaphene, knew it had significant safety issues for construction workers at the “low” residential levels and serious risks for surrounding neighbors during construction.

So in the September 2009 court hearing before Superior Court Judge Earl Maas III, the city agreed to mitigate the contaminated soil, which cleared the way for park construction. The city had a court victory with an admission of contamination.

Why has the city turned on the spin machine after agreeing to mitigate the soil contamination? Patrick Murphy in an e-mail said the city can always do more mitigation, although it doesn’t have to. Does he really expect us to believe that the city is rewarding the people in Cardiff who fought the city for ten years?

If that’s the case, why didn’t the city simply do the cleanup after receiving the Dudek site assessment in March 2001? And why did the city attempt a negative declaration, then lose a lawsuit, pay $54,000 in legal fees, do the EIR anyway, and then spend 3 years writing it. The answer is simple: to avoid doing the cleanup.

The city has a policy for cleaning up greenhouse property with “low” levels of contamination for residential subdivisions. Contaminated soil must [now] be removed or buried under the private lots, not under public right-of-way. This is to avoid future exposure to the city workers. It ignores possible exposure to the new homeowners [don't add a swimming pool]. Yet on the Hall property the soil with the same or more problematic contamination will be buried on site where city workers might risk future exposure. It seems the city has disregard for both citizens and its own workers when it is convenient to do so.

Gerald Sodomka is a resident of Cardiff-by-the-Sea.

High levels of metallic ions were also found in the soil on the Hall property.  The greenhouses had been built with pressure treated lumber containing chromated copper arsenate, which had leached into the soil.  The city tried to dismiss the arsenic by saying that all soils in the Western US are naturally high in arsenic.  Well, not everywhere and not in the soils of coastal San Diego County.  The city used to do water sampling in Rossini Creek just west of the property boundary in Cardiff Glen, but stopped when very high levels of arsenic were measured, then later falsified the report to show normal levels.  The city didn't seem concerned that the high levels of these toxic metals were washing into San Elijo Lagoon and then into the ocean at Cardiff Reef.

Curious question: Why did the Director of Finance run the Hall park project? 

The long delay in park construction and rains have probably washed away most of the problem.  However, Jennifer Smith, project manager for the park property had planned to salvage the lumber.  It was chipped and piled in three high mounds to be spread over the property as a mulch.  A terrible idea with contaminated wood.  The city was forced to haul the chips always to the Sycamore Canyon dump for proper disposal, and then lied in the EIR that it had done this.  Before the chips were removed a weekend Santa Ana wind blew the toxic dust all over west Cardiff.  Hexavalent chromium is considered a carcinogen when breathed or ingested.  Fortunately there were no drinking water wells in the area that would have poisoned the users.

What is Sodomka's solution? End the spin? But, what good are providing solutions until those in charge stop denying a problem exists?

Thursday, July 28, 2011

"Mell's" New Protest

LB Note: We asked "Mell" if he'd sent this to The Coast News and if he'd rather us wait to see if they publish this submission. That was two days ago. No response from "Mell". Most papers check your identity prior to publication. Here is the is the abstract; TCN & Audet suck because they didn't publish the phone numbers of charity groups.

When I moved to Encinitas 25 years ago, I was impressed by the beauty of the place and the intelligence of the general populace. I was not born in this country, but like those who were born and raised here, I am proud to call Encinitas my hometown.
For 25 years, I have been far too busy with my work to pause here and there in order to add my voice to those in this community who would cherish the spotlight. In the country of my birth, my name is a common one, so even though I will sign this and future missives with my true name, I will reveal no other details about my education or my profession. After a long career in a field which I choose not to divulge, I will no longer be silent. While my retirement represents the end of one stage of my life, I hope this article will stand as the beginning of another stage.
First, I will share the following facts.
I adhere to no political dogma. I stand for no organized religion.  I am not obligated to anyone as a result of financial support.  I speak for myself.  I am beholden to no one.
In other words, as egotistical as it may sound, I stand on the other side of a line in the sand that separates me from The Coast News and The Rancho Santa Fe News.
The adolescent bickering between the publishers of these two throw-away excuses for news is appalling. Like a playground squabble between two insecure bullies, this bickering has included no issue of substance.  In fact, the finger-pointing by both parties seems to be an attempt to distract the public from at least one pertinent detail that would be easy to overlook.
Look at the July 22, 2011 issue of The Coast News. Think about the general tenor of its writers and the ways in which the paper caters to a relatively small number of vocal pessimists.
LB Note: Here is where Mell provides a lot of substance.
Most recently, editorials by Andrew Audet betray an obvious bias—Audet pretends to stand for the common man. Audet consistently makes the intellectual mistake of adopting a superior attitude. He would rather be “right” than to propose workable solutions. If the squeaky wheel gets the grease, Audet  should be suffocating in grease.  
As a columnist in a paper which purports itself to be the Voice of the People, Audet wants to be regarded as a champion of the downtrodden and abused. Unfortunately, because he offers no viable solution for the problems he attempts to summarize, the overall impression he communicates is nothing more than multisyllabic whining.
An editorial comment should advocate a justifiable point of view and its writer should be working to motivate readers to act. Audet’s final sentence from the July 22 article—“Please look them up”—is the weakest, most pathetic advocacy of any public action I have ever seen.
Just as there is “no crying in baseball,” there should be no simpering plea to do the absolute minimum amount of work possible.
“Please look them up.”
Audet presents no compelling reason to do anything of the sort. And because he won’t even make the effort to do a little footwork on his own and provide phone numbers or addresses for officials he wants his readers to contact, he exposes himself as someone who is willing to take a stand for a point of view that has no authentic value. After all, if he won’t bother to look up the contact information, why should we?
Mell Estiphanos
LB Note: Audet's columns have changed the future of Encinitas by spurring career ending retorts from Deputy Mayor Stocks, like this.  That is a little upsetting to a handful of people. Burning question, does Mell even vote?

Saturday, July 23, 2011

Le Papagayo Patio

I like the new big flamey outdoor heaters!

Department Head Cuts through the Red Tape

The Encinitas Fire and Marine Safety Department head appears to have slashed his department's red tape and taken no bureaucratic prisoners.

Trying to intercede on the rumors that our city's lifeguards have been short-changed and verify that the department has stopped wasting tax dollars on the silly documentation of training incidents, the following the email was sent to the city one week ago. There has been zero response or acknowledgment. We all know what that means!

Chief Muir
Chief Muir,

Steve Meiche gave me the attached reports about a recent lifeguard dive training accident. Several sources confirm that one of your lifeguards was involved in a training incident, which resulted in the lifeguard being transported to the UCSD hyperbaric unit. This seems to conflict with the relaxed effort to document the incident as demonstrated in the attachment.

Given the potential serious nature of this event, I am very concerned that the stories are correct and that the attachments represent the entirety of the records related to this incident. I hope my concerns are needless.

Shallow Documentation
Are there more records? If there are more records, were those given to Meiche (and thus either Meiche [or the city] is holding out)?

General Management Questions
Are public safety dive instructors present when Encinitas Lifeguards are dive training? If not, why not?
Have the lifeguards requested more resources for training?

Questions About the Attached Forms
When did you first review these reports?
Do you consider the responses in these reports adequate? If not, what action did you take to have them improved? [a follow up will be, why haven't they been improved?]

The Lifeguard's Report
The lifeguard does not explain why the incident occurred. The section on how the incident could be prevented is left blank. Why is that acceptable?

The lifeguard does not indicate if the incident was preventable because that section is left completely blank, as is the department head's signature line. Why are these left blank?

The type of injury was noted as N/A, but the other report indicates that medical treatment was provided. Is this inconsistent?

The report is dated 4/20. Under what conditions was this report filled out by the lifeguard?. Was it after the lifeguard had been evaluated, treated, and discharged, or before?

The Supervisor's Report
The date the employee returned to work was left blank. Why is it blank and is this acceptable?

When was the lifeguard discharged from UCSD and when did the lifeguard return to work?

The supervisor indicates that this incident was preventable, thus there must have been a cause that could be avoided in the future. The supervisor does not indicate the cause of the incident, where it says to include the cause of the incident. Is this acceptable?

The supervisor does not give any lessons learned by saying how the incident could be avoided in the future. Is that acceptable?

There are zero witnesses noted on the form. Was this lifeguard training solo?

Misc Questions
Who cuts the check to pay UCSD for treatment? Does the lifeguard have to use his insurance or does the city pay? What was the cost of treatment/evaluation?

How was the lifeguard transported to UCSD? [One source in the city says it was by helicopter and another denies that.]

Read the reports yourself:

The Lifegaurd's Report

The Supervisor's Report
We all read the comments on this blog that the Los Angeles Fire Department was lame, but they look super cool and can look busy writing reports.

Those LA guys waste truckloads of taxpayer time writing professionalistic jumbo like this diving incident report just to look cool. Dude, over-da-top, they document lessons learned even when nobody got hurt.

On the positive side, we are happy to report that the City of Encinitas doesn't waste time on writing reports nobody is going to read anyways or waste their time answering questions from the public.

Thursday, July 21, 2011

Encinitas Open Government Update

by Gerald Sodomka

Last night I was the only one to speak on the council discussion on the city's appeal of the Cummins ruling. I asked to put a discussion of a Sunshine Ordinance on the agenda.  Council agreed to revisit email retention and to get a clearer definition of a "draft."

Each council member spoke in turn about why they supported an appeal:

Bond: the city has one full time staff member to chase requests;  law has had unintended consequences; can lead to wild speculation and rumors.

LB translation: Sharing information with the public is a burden and we should do all we can to limit access to public information. Why not put all the documents on line? The city wouldn't need one full time person for records requests if they just changed policy. Silly me, that would mean giving up control and monitoring of information flow. Scratch that idea.

Stocks:  clouds and confuses the issue;  wanted to invite a full panel of judges to decide this issue;  not precedent setting;  may get sued again.

LB translation: We are going to continue withholding public records and we are going to continue to do so without adequately explaining why. A sunshine ordinance and sunshine commission could dramatically reduce the chance of a lawsuit but that would mean becoming more transparent (Stocks proudly fought against a Sunshine Ordinance).

The panel of judges thought the case was so weak they didn't even want to waste time hearing it.

Houlihan:  wanted a bright line;  seven months delay, must manage work flow better in future;  only minor changes in draft.

LB translation: I want want an activist judge to create a sunshine ordinance for me because I don't want to do it. I also want to have better project oversight but I don't want the public to have access to documents that can allow them to monitor project progression.

Barth: wanted a judge to decide on first challenge;  clear decision of judge made second appeal unnecessary.

LB note: Expensive way to make a point. She appears to be the only one who reads and understands the law, the ruling and the court filing. Don't think so? Can anyone say what the city's argument was for not releasing these reports?  (That is, the March 2010 report and the December 2009 document.  Both of those were refused by the city, and a general argument doesn't hold water, it has to be something specific to these documents. Why couldn't THESE particular documents be released?).  

Gaspar: wanted the judge to create a bright line like Maggie.

LB translation: Just like Maggie she doesn't seem to understand the city's (thus, her own) position in court. Contrary  to what city staff wanted everyone to think, the city did not claim the draft document exemption (because that was hogwash).

Read, "I don't yet realize that a bright line means giving up some of the discretion the state law gives me and once I do I'm going to have to flip-flop on this position."
We could be wrong, but have we seen Gaspar promote and act to foster an open government? All we've seen from her so far is a invintation to sue the city over her games with public policy related emails. Dear Maggie and Gaspar, do you have any suggestions for a policy change?

Did Maggie and Gaspar really want the Judge to tell them that a document that was reproduced, bound, delivered, titled FINAL and followed with an invoice for a final report should be considered a draft. I can't wait to see what they suggest for a policy!!! Because people keep forgetting, the city attorney did not claim the draft document exclusion in court (because it was B.S. to call it a draft).

If my summary sounds confusing, it's because the discussion was rambling and confusing.  Except for Teresa, each council member was clearly on the defensive.  None made a good argument for what they did.

I have to count it as a success for open government.

Tuesday, July 19, 2011

Steve Meiche Reports on L101 Road Repair

From the in box:

Steve Meiche
I observed this today on my bike ride.

I talked to the guy.
Steve Meiche (SM):Are you guys going to overlay? 

City worker (CW)-  No, I mean yes, kinda. An overlay patch. Well there's no reason to overlay the entire stretch because you know, we would have to tear it up when we do street scape.

SM: When is that gonna be?

CW- in 5 years

SM: when are you going to start patching? 

CW- soon, very soon

SM: Is this because of the lawsuit over the road report? 

CW- NO! Absoultely NOT! It has nothing to do with the road report. (indignant turned and walked away)

SM: So this is this part of the road maintainence plan? Yes? 

CW- no answer

LB NOTE: Does the city really have it budgeted to do that much of the streetscape in 5 years?

Saturday, July 16, 2011



It was pointed out to us that a recent post by Anna was incorrect.

W. Bush is not a white collar criminal.
Obama is not a white collar criminal.
J. Stocks is not a criminal of any type.

The Leucadia Blog is sensitive to elected officials who may be hurt by blog comments that include figures of speech used loosely.

We have no idea who Anna is. We hope she will clarify or defend her statements without using unsubstantiated accusations, freaking hilarious humor, sarcasm, or figures of speech that might cause any elected officials heartburn.


Notice: Interim Login Requirement Change

We are temporarily going back to commenting without logging in. The primary reason is reduce the barriers of communication for one of the council members to make a request of commenter Anna.

Friday, July 15, 2011

Thursday, July 14, 2011

Dr. Laura Secretly Consults with City

"Don't spend time beating on a wall, hoping to transform it into a door." "Buck up little campers, the Magic Carpet Ride is who you are with. Accept that the statue reflects what Encinitas has actually become, not what you wish it was."

Translation: stop making lemonade out of lemons.

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

Cummins vs City Update

City council by a 5-0 vote stops dragging their feet and ends their legal games.

According to inbound text messages, the council said they will "explain" everything and "correct" all the "misinformation" next week in open session. 

The draft report has been released.

No word on the written communication between the city and the contractor.

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

Encinitas Undercover Cross Post

Appeals court to Encinitas city lawyer Glen Sabine: You have absolutely no case!

It was bad enough when Glen Sabine used public money to fight public access to public records. He claimed that oversight from public/media/bloggers would make it impossible for staff to conduct city business in secret (which is the entire point of public records acts -- you're not supposed to be doing secret deals and hiding financial problems from the public!!!).

But when a judge told Sabine that yes, the Public Records Act did indeed apply to Encinitas no matter how much they wanted to hide their dirty laundry from public scrutiny, Sabine persuaded the city council to appeal! In a blatant display of reckless disregard for both the spirit of public records acts and limited city financial resources, Maggie Houlihan, Jerome Stocks, Jim Bond, and Kristen Gaspar voted to waste more money filing a meritless appeal trying to keep an old road report secret from the public. What are they so desperate to hide?

Well, on the same day the Virgin of Guadalupe appeared in Cardiff with a message of hope and change for Encinitas voters, the 4th District California Court of Appeal has told Glen Sabine to pound sand and turn over the public records!

The arrogance and paranoia of this council knows no bounds. They are already threatening to waste more money taking this completely frivolous appeal to the California Supreme Court. All so Encinitas residents can't see some public road report that might be politically embarrassing to the council majority.

LB NOTE: City Attorney Glen Sabine is exactly who the council majority wants running the show. He will back up the council when they frequently violate the law.  He will act to bully citizens into submission in defiance of the US Constitution's first amendment (big life moral mistake that was matched here in Encinitas). Our city attorney does not serve the public interest, he serves the council who happily feeds him very well. 

The solution is obvious.

City Still Belongs to Citizens

This just in from Cummins' attorney:

We just received the order from the court of appeal denying the City's petition for an extraordinary writ and lifting the stay.

A few events to remember
  • Staff gets bound reports that say "FINAL" on their cover. They are dated March, 2010.
  • Encinitas City Engineer Kipp Hefner writes Calaware on June 16th, 2010:
I received your request to view the Pavement Management Report.  Right now it is in only draft form and is not available to the public.  It will become available to the public when the report is finalized.   

  • City Manager says the document is just a draft and the public is too stupid to look at "draft" documents.
  • Calaware asks for legal clarification, because their initial justification sounded good but was actually really flaky.
  • Staff continue to speak about the draft exemption clause as the justification; city attorney quietly waffles the justification to, the "It benefits the public for us to keep the document secret" justification.
  • Cummins asks the Mayor to explain why it benefits the public's interest to keep such documents a secret. Mayor refuses to answer.
  • Cummins writes a published editorial warning that a lawsuit might follow if a solid explanation is not presented.
  • Tony Kranz calls the city out on its attempted B.S. spin job. He tells the council publicly that the document was done long ago and should be released.
  • Council doesn't budge.
  • Cummins files suit, knowing that nobody likes someone who sues their hometown.
  • The effort forces the city's hand and the released "Final" road report shows why the city wanted to keep the document from ever coming out.
  • Final Road Report was dated March 2010. It was due by September 2009
  • Judge Casslerly tells city to release the draft report and correspondence with the consultant. 
  • City files an appeal
  • After it files, THEN the council officially votes to file an appeal.
  • Appeals court tells the city to release the report and the communications with the consultant.

Sunday, July 10, 2011

Don't park to go talk art

From the in box: 


Thought you'd be interested in this: my neighbor got a $43 parking ticket yesterday in a residential neighborhood in "new" Encinitas for parking in the wrong direction.  He spoke with the parking enforcement officer who said they're increasing the parking enforcement.  Thought this was timely because of this article in the UT:


Also from the in box:

I thought you might dig this art hunt I am "planting" in Encinitas.

For my newest project, I have teamed up with the E Street Cafe with the
organization of an art hunt titled 'Hide and Go Seek Doodle: Encinitas'.

8 hand painted Doodle paintings will be hidden in the downtown Encinitas
streets. 100+ clues will be available at the E Street Cafe Sunday July
10th. Click the below link for all the project info:

I will be in the E Street Cafe for the majority of Sunday to answer any
questions. Hope to see you there!

Bryan Snyder

Saturday, July 09, 2011

Formerly a dark corner...

For decades the 1926 art deco building on the corner of Hwy 101 and Jasper St was dark at night.

Hometown heroes The Mattson 2 rocking Leucadia

Festivus for the rest of us

Live Music in the Roadside Park

Happening now. Cruise on down.

Thursday, July 07, 2011

Encinitas Solar Program

Received this message via Facebook.

Dear Encinitas Residents,

Encinitas' Solar Program comes to a close in just 2 weeks.

So far, the City of Encinitas has committed to install 40,789 Watts of clean renewable solar power through this Program. There are currently 184,932 Watts in proposals that are being reviewed by community residents. Encinitas has the profound privilege of doubling the State rebate through participation.

Do not miss out on this opportunity, SDG&E rates are continuing to rise and you will not find a better deal on a quality solar power system. All program participants must sign up no later than 11:59PM on Monday July 25, 2011 in order to be eligible for the substantial incentives.

Sullivan Solar Power has run this same program in Coronado, Poway, Escondido and Vista, saving the combined community residents over $150,000 collectively on their solar projects. It is important to note that in all of these previous programs, over 65% of the participants signed up in the last week. We encourage you to sign up earlier so that the community is inspired to hit the 2nd and 3rd milestones, translating to more savings for everyone.

Please support the vision of building a strong Encinitas solar community by spreading the word within the community to all your neighbors, friends and networks. Residential, commercial and municipal projects are able to participate.

If you have any questions or are interested in receiving a free proposal to see how you can go solar for less than your current electric bill, please call 1-800-SULLIVAN or visit to sign up before it is too late.

*There are several solar companies based in Encinitas and the Leucadia Blog does not endorse one over the other

Wednesday, July 06, 2011

Countdown Starts

Subject: Reminder - Summer Fun on the 101

Reminder -  Summer Fun on the 101
Duck Waddle's Emporium
414 N. Coast Hwy. 101, Encinitas, (Leucadia)
One block south of the Pannikin
23' south of Lou's Records
Friday, July 8th 7:30 pm

Summer Fun on the 101, A Festival of Surfy Music, will stop at The DUCK this Friday, 7:30 PM, with  performances by Aloha Radio, Todd Day Wait, Trouble in the Wind, and Glen and the Boys.  The first aim of this event is to showcase and encourage support for the many fine businesses along Leucadia's Highway 101 Main  Street. The second is to raise money and awareness for Paul Ecke Central's "School as a Garden"  program. There is no admission fees for any of these shows but we suggest a $10.00 donation to Support the Paul Ecke School as a Garden program and the Leucadia Main Street Association.

Further information at

Tuesday, July 05, 2011

Monday, July 04, 2011

Conflict of Interest Disclosed

A number of local watchdogs started howling over the fact that the Encinitas Golf Authority/Ecke/city renegotiation of the financial agreement was being proposed and reviewed by the same staff member. Feeling the heat he made it abundantly clear that he had a conflict of interest, by literally wearing different hats at the March 23 council meeting.

That should have been a giant

None of our elected representatives who are charged with watching out for the citizens on the council spoke out about this arrangement. But when conflict of interest is an everyday occurrence you get accustomed to it. Too bad, if there had been an independent assessment it would have been very hard to pull off the deal without raising questions about who was really benefiting.

Watch the disclosure below and the clear announcement by Mayor Bond about the conflict:

Get Microsoft Silverlight

It is a monthly occurrence that the city sneaks something through without notifying the stakeholders and neighbors. Is anyone surprised that the city did not give a heads up to all the HOAs of the residents who will be taking on the direct burdens of the new ERGA/Ecke/City financial deal? This is standard practice and goes along with the city's policy of "Father knows best, so the citizens need not concern themselves with our activities."

Saturday, July 02, 2011

Time for Triple-Ds

When the city leaders get caught with their pants down they run for one of the D's from their playbook.

Last week Jerome Stocks wrote a jaw dropping response to one of Audet's Coast News columns. For days afterward, the city was buzzing over the incredible positions that Jerome had taken. More than a few people figured Jerome's comments would seal the end to his personal political aspirations.

Audet responded in this week's Coast News, which has been out for a couple days now. So far, it is not on line and we will post that link as it comes up. Pick up a Coast News, but until then you can check out excerpts of Audet's column here:  

[Stocks] failed to explain why the city only has $9M to build the park they said would cost $36M in 2008, or why the park that could have been built 2 years ago hasn’t. 

Stocks wants us to believe the Hall Park can be used when it can’t.  He wants us to believe the park costs $21 million dollars when he knows Encinitas will spend $46 million.   

As he often does during council meetings Mr. Stocks ignored the facts, pointed fingers, cried foul, rewrote history  and used ‘red herrings’ to cover up for failed leadership...The public can judge Mr. Stocks comments for themselves.

On the issue of Encinitas having a $46 million park we can’t use, Mr. Stocks ignored the facts saying that,"The Encinitas Commuity Park can and will be used, and the cost $21 million, not $46 million." He said the payments on the loan are not added to our property tax bill, but are a line time expense out of the general fund.

Financially, Mr. Stocks is ignoring the interest on the bonds used to pay for the park [as part of complicated scheme]. The city is obligated to pay about $1.4M in interest each year. He hopes we won’t notice. What he calls “a line item expense” is money no longer available to improve our roads, schools or parks. It is spent. 
When the issue was his vote to increase pensions Mr. Stocks cried foul, pointed fingers and attempted to rewrite history saying, "Houlihan and Bond voted the same way on pension increases, why are they not credited?"
Ms. Houlihan is part of the council that was mentioned.  Mr. Bond voted not to increase pensions.  If Mr. Stocks is unhappy with the criticism of his voting record he should stop voting to increase pensions.

Jerome can not credibly claim to have had a memory lapse. This was a written editorial sent to a newspaper to be published. Sure, most people will believe Bond also voted for the pension tsunami, but is it not true. Bond had the honor to do the right thing, even if that meant voting a lone vote.  Jerome does not want people to know that Bond warned him not to do it. That is why Jerome doesn't care about the size of his nose.

How can we expect to find solutions when leaders are clouding the dialogue over the problem with bullshit?

Friday, July 01, 2011