Sunday, August 03, 2014

People against Pacific View vs People for Hall Park Sports Complex

Casual Observatios:

The people against the Pacific View purchase are the same people who were for the Hall Park purchase.

They argue against Pacific View, saying that soil quality and problems with the site as reasons we shouldn't have bought it.

These same arguments used against the Hall Park were scoffed at.
 
Because political observers in North County are simple minded they must break all topics, people, places and actions into two tired groups: Liberal vs Conservative

And, because it's  an election year, right around August everyone has to start acting weird and hostile.

Look for "conservatives" to attack "liberals" regarding the $10,000,000 Pacific View purchase, even though those same "conservatives" were major cheerleaders for the nearly completed Hall Park sports complex (Construction: $19,300,000, Hall
Property Land Acquisition: $17,200,000. Total of $36,500,000

I wonder if all these new crappy free newspapers will keep showing up on our driveways after November?


17 comments:

  1. I was against both, so let's not be so black and white about this.

    ReplyDelete
  2. While there are certainly phony "conservatives" who cheered the Hall Park and jeered Pacific View, there are also many realists in Encinitas who oppose unaffordable trophy projects of both the conservative and liberal varieties.

    Bottom line: we're still underfunding road maintenance, underfunding pensions, and expanding Vina's unaffordable bureaucracy. The Pacific View purchase would have been much more feasible if the council majority had addressed these problems in the first 18 months of their term rather than burying their heads in the sand and rubber-stamping everything Vina put in front of them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Vina scares them - he'll expose their "stupidity" if they dare question him.

      Delete
  3. "public pressure should never be the primary influencer on public policy"

    TK Arnold you boggle the mind, truly.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Buried on the Hall property site is 49,000 cu yds of toxic soil that the county required to be taken off site. Unfortunately, 'Stocks and friends' paid a La Jolla law firm to allow the city to bury it on site.
    I thought the original lease revenue bond to buy the land was $23 million.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The Seaside Courier, the political paper you linked to, is delivered to mailboxes, not driveways, monthly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No matter where it's placed, it's still a rag.

      Delete
    2. No argument here. However, it's unfair to lump the Advocate in with the Seaside Courier, as this blog's post seem to do. The Advocate, a weekly to driveways, hasn't published one-sided columns like this. The Seaside Courier, however, has been doing that since its launch.

      Delete
  6. In all this yapping about the Pacific View purchase where is the anger against the Encinitas school district who bullied their way into the 10 million dollar deal? Those on the board who voted for the deal with the city should be recalled or voted out of office and the superintendent fired.
    Don't listen to doom and gloom Gaspar. I haven't heard her say one positive thing in her role as a council member. She provides no positive leadership or positive energy to the running of the city. Thanks Tony, Lisa and Teresa for your positive vision of the future.









    ReplyDelete
  7. Santa-You know why I am not angry at ESD? Because if we have a council so stupid as to offer more than was even being asked for, then they are better poker players and much better negotiators. I am very angry at our very stupid council majority for allowing TOny Kranz to do the negotiations. Not that a college degree always matters, but in this case, we would have been better off with Shaffer negotiating. And I am not a fan of hers either. Tony wants to please everybody. Anyone who knows him, knows this. And a politician cannot do that. Although I would say that he is also a pretty bad politician. I hope he loses the Mayor ship and then loses in 2016. He is embarrassing. I am not a Kristin fan either. I with someone else would have stepped up for the Mayor job, but no one did so here we are.

    ReplyDelete
  8. We only know the cost of land acquisition for Pacific View. There will be additional costs, including the cost of issuing bonds and the annual interest payments to complete the purchase. Then there will be all the costs associated with rehabilitation or new construction.

    We have a much more complete idea of the total costs for the Hall property park. Here is a list, not complete:
    1. $22.645 million for Lease Revenue Bonds to purchase property.
    2. $19.3 million for park construction, $7.8 million from existing funds, $7 million from reallocated funds, and $4.5 from bond financing.
    3. $600,000 for EIR.
    4. $100,000 Sohagi Law firm.
    5. $700,000 SDG&E Utility Relocation.
    6. $0.5 - $1 million annual maintenance cost.
    7. ?? Park design

    The original Lease Revenue Bonds will cost $44 million to pay off in 2031. Total cost of the park without maintenance will probably reach $70-$80 million. Pacific View is probably the better deal, but the city could have done a better job negotiating the price. It's a prime piece of real estate. On the other hand the Hall property is right next to the freeway and has liabilities, the most significant is the fine particle pollution from the freeway which might pose a cancer risks to children involved in sports activities when air quality is bad.

    The cartoon in the Seaside Courier should have shown a second money pit with Gaspar, Stocks, Bond, and Dalager all shoveling money into it. This would be a better portrayal of the financial reality.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excellent post. You should start a column. Educating the public about City matters.

      Delete
  9. Property as close to the ocean as PV goes for 3 times as much as was paid. The intent of PV is to educate, create jobs and revenue. Developers are still drooling over it, saying what a bad deal it was. I disagree. In fact the purchase helps diminish sprawl at the same time - not to mention preserve it's historical intent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fred-

      Always a dreamer. Never a realist. We love you anyway. The City can not afford all your dreams.

      Delete
    2. Property as close to the ocean go for as much as 3 times what the city paid?? Hardly Fred. The old Posiden Restaurant on 101 in Cardiff went for. $6.5 million, it's ocean front. And not full of lead paint nor asbestos.

      Delete
  10. One's view on the Pacific View purchase as relating to nationally defined left or right positions is quite a stretch. My reasons for opposing this purchase are specific, and I've written extensively describing them (see FocusOnEncinitas.com list to the right of frond page. ).

    The Hall Property was never fully evaluated nor were it's environmental issues. The traffic congestion during tournaments that could impact emergency vehicles at Scripts Hospital both sharing Sante Fe Drive, isn't a Conservative or Liberal problem, it's one of priorities.

    My opposition to Pacific View is that a city's function is not real estate investing, but in having zoning that facilitates enjoyment of all citizens while generating real estate taxes to fund vital services. Sure, an Arts Center is a great idea, but you don't buy the land before you decide it is the best choice, especially when the city already owns land in the Encinitas Ranch Town Center that has parking for the entire city and could add considerable tax revenue.

    Please don't simplify positions by attaching partisan labels to them . It might be better if we actually address the objections, that we had to the Hall Property, and that still exist for Pacific View.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "The Hall Property was never fully evaluated nor were it's environmental issues."
    Yes they were. The City Planning
    Commission rejected the project/EIR because, as they stated, it is not what the community wanted and the traffic issues were not resolved.
    It was completely a political decission. It was the main political issue for over a decade. Those who wanted a community park with playing fields were painted as hating kids and those who wanted a specual use park were accused of changing community character to make us 'Irvine'.
    It was totally politically motivated to reject the recommendations of the planning commission and the majority and get the votes of the massive sports league email trees.

    ReplyDelete

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