They're still Terrified of Teresa Barth

They are nothing if not relentless in their goal to completely silence Councilwoman Barth and the large number of voters who she represents. The goal in repeatedly bringing back and attacks on Barth seems to aim at destroying her opportunity to come out of exile as the Encinitas preferred mayor. What the hell scares them so much?  Like clockwork every 6 weeks there is some sort of Stocks led power play, masked as a kind of populist move to legitimatize the selection of mayor as fair and civil. 

Review following 2011 mayor selection evening when people turned their backs as Stocks and Gaspar ensconced themselves in the positions of leadership.  

At February 15, 2012 these two acted in concert to introduce a 2 year mayoral scheme that would make Gaspar mayor. This Mayoral Mambo was out of the blue and thankfully didn't get enough votes from their own team. 

Here is what Teresa Barth said at that meeting.  Even now, five months and two council attempts later to get questions answered by staff go ignored.  This is also revealed in the post that follows this clip.

This post from Encinitas You Need Us Blog is a reprint.  It is one of the popular posts on the blog.

They're Terrified

It was highly entertaining in these last few days to read all of the comments following Jerome Stocks embarrassing letter in responding to Teresa Barth's letter in Encinitas Patch.   First, it was appropriate for Barth to publish her perspective as her voice on the council is so consistently ignored, dismissed or drowned out by four others of the super majority. On the other hand Jerome Stocks gets his bully pulpit on the dais, control of the agenda, a North County Times (NCT) reporter who acts practically like his publicist and other media focus and framing.

Yet the Stocks letter is a gigantic overreaction to Barth's statement of her experiences.  He and his cronies have treated this woman's minority voice on the council with irrational fear.  What kind of power toppling abilities does she have that motions, agenda item requests, counter arguments, insights from other California cities, advocacy for residents, (even a vote for the mobile home tenants for God's sake) might she bring down for them?  These mighty majority act like theirs is very fragile platform. They may be correct. There are hours of meetings which are pretty fact-free or so orchestrated for confusion it is difficult to mount rational responses. There is not a lot of 'there' there.  We know its been years since anything has been built or accomplished.  Even the General Plan Update (GPU) is being sold as a hoax by the council who brought it to life.

Undeniably there is a great deal of money behind these big boys.  Nobody needs to be told that, although it would be helpful if we could be reading in the press the names behind those who back this cabal at city hall.  It is well past time for that preliminary investigation.

Yet, these comments in the letters here and here are a wonderful sign that there are so many articulate, informed and savvy people paying close attention to these (mental and emotional) lumbering brutes who think the city is theirs and the inhabitants are all asleep or imbeciles.  Wide awake comments at NCT's, A"So Much For Democracy" Raspberry discussion thread brought another batch of insight and resistance, though the regular majority's gang were still there crying about that mean (how dare she) Barth and anyone who would attack poor Stocks and Co.

If you wrote a comment speaking out for Barth, against the Crony Club - give yourself a pat on the back.  Several comments were inexplicably deleted.  I hope they might be recovered as they belonged with the rest.  Imagine if 40 people responded rapidly to an engaging story for challengers to the monopoly or to a hit piece.  This would be a revitalized, engaged community before the election was even under way.

6 weeks later . . . 

Mayor Stocks argues again and Deputy Mayor Gaspar has full blown Poutrage

following Councilwoman's speech and the many remarkable speakers in support of democratic process, dissent and Teresa Barth personally.

Activists / Advocates Speak Out - A Sampling of the Dozen

2012 Council Candidates also speak out. 

Lisa Shaffer published her statement prior to the this March 28 meeting and EYNU captured it. And Tony Kranz spoke out at this meeting with his own unique experience and perspective on the faux populist and criteria arguments.

Wed. night - Now 16 weeks later (whoops their skipped opportunities). This winner take all crowd in the majority again can waste time - supposedly on the people's business - to distract and abuse the public on this political attempt to garner complete control of the city council process in Encinitas.

This ordinance is STILL poorly written, still without answering repeated questions for more detail and still politically driven, and not much more. Nothing is broken here, it's fixed. The personal grudges of this majority are frightening in their relentlessness and viciousness. What do they fear? And a special note to the old guy who has vowed to bow out and vowed to change the mayoral selection to an elected option. Sometimes you just don't get what you want. Please let go of your grudge from years ago. You and Muir can take the higher ground.

ATTENTION:  All hands on deck for Wednesday, July 11, 6 pm special council meeting to be held at Encinitas Community Center.  The financial bamboozlement of the Hall Property park and the Moonlight beach improvements will be item #1,  this mayoral grab action is #2 on the agenda.  Bring your cameras and enthusiasm.

Myths Encinitas

The myth of unlimited growth as fiscal strength  is directly related to the crash course, The Growth Ponzi Scheme featured these last four days at Encinitas You Need Us.  Tomorrow will be the final part 5. This guest series gives a narrative that people without financial expertise can use to be able to talk about city finances.

Part 1: The Mechanisms of Growth - Trading near-term cash for long-term obligations.
Part 2: Case studies that show how our places do not create, but destroy, our wealth.
Part 3: The Ponzi scheme revealed - How new development is used to pay for old development.
Part 4: How we've sustained the unsustainable by going "all in" on the suburban pattern of development.
Part 5: Responses that are rational and responses that are irrational.

The Growth Ponzi Scheme 

by Thomas Marhon

We often forget that the American pattern of suburban development is an experiment, one that has never been tried anywhere before. We assume it is the natural order because it is what we see all around us. But our own history — let alone a tour of other parts of the world — reveals a different reality. Across cultures, over thousands of years, people have traditionally built places scaled to the individual. It is only the last two generations that we have scaled places to the automobile.

How is our experiment working?

At Strong Towns, the nonprofit, nonpartisan organization I co-founded in 2009, we are most interested in understanding the intersection between local finance and land use. How does the design of our places impact their financial success or failure?

What we have found is that the underlying financing mechanisms of the suburban era — our post-World War II pattern of development — operates like a classic Ponzi scheme, with ever-increasing rates of growth necessary to sustain long-term liabilities.

Since the end of World War II, our cities and towns have experienced growth using three primary mechanisms:

• Transfer payments between governments: where the federal or state government makes a direct investment in growth at the local level, such as funding a water or sewer system expansion.
• Transportation spending: where transportation infrastructure is used to improve access to a site that can then be developed.
• Public and private-sector debt: where cities, developers, companies, and individuals take on debt as part of the development process, whether during construction or through the assumption of a mortgage.

In each of these mechanisms, the local unit of government benefits from the enhanced revenues associated with new growth. But it also typically assumes the long-term liability for maintaining the new infrastructure. This exchange — a near-term cash advantage for a long-term financial obligation — is one element of a Ponzi scheme.

Encinitas Illustration 

Jerome Stocks State of City, 4/18/12 clip

Returning to guest post . . .

The other is the realization that the revenue collected does not come near to covering the costs of maintaining the infrastructure. In America, we have a ticking time bomb of unfunded liability for infrastructure maintenance. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) estimates the cost at $5 trillion — but that's just for major infrastructure, not the minor streets, curbs, walks, and pipes that serve our homes.

The reason we have this gap is because the public yield from the suburban development pattern — the amount of tax revenue obtained per increment of liability assumed — is ridiculously low. Over a life cycle, a city frequently receives just a dime or two of revenue for each dollar of liability. The engineering profession will argue, as ASCE does, that we're simply not making the investments necessary to maintain this infrastructure. This is nonsense. We've simply built in a way that is not financially productive.

We've done this because, as with any Ponzi scheme, new growth provides the illusion of prosperity. In the near term, revenue grows, while the corresponding maintenance obligations — which are not counted on the public balance sheet — are a generation away.

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, we completed one life cycle of the suburban experiment, and at the same time, growth in America slowed. There were many reasons involved, but one significant factor was that our suburban cities were now starting to experience cash outflows for infrastructure maintenance. We'd reached the "long term," and the end of easy money.

It took us a while to work through what to do, but we ultimately decided to go "all in" using leverage. In the second life cycle of the suburban experiment, we financed new growth by borrowing staggering sums of money, both in the public and private sectors. By the time we crossed into the third life cycle and flamed out in the foreclosure crisis, our financing mechanisms had, out of necessity, become exotic, even predatory.

One of humanity's greatest strengths — our ability to innovate solutions to complex problems — can be a detriment when we misdiagnose the problem. Our problem was not, and is not, a lack of growth. Our problem is 60 years of unproductive growth — growth that has buried us in financial liabilities. The American pattern of development does not create real wealth. It creates the illusion of wealth. Today we are in the process of seeing that illusion destroyed, and with it the prosperity we have come to take for granted.

That is now our greatest immediate challenge. We've actually embedded this experiment of suburbanization into our collective psyche as the "American dream," a non-negotiable way of life that must be maintained at all costs. What will we throw away trying to sustain the unsustainable? How much of our dwindling wealth will be poured into propping up this experiment gone awry?

We need to end our investments in the suburban pattern of development, along with the multitude of direct and indirect subsidies that make it all possible. Further, we need to intentionally return to our traditional pattern of development, one based on creating neighborhoods of value, scaled to actual people. When we do this, we will inevitably rediscover our traditional values of prudence and thrift as well as the value of community and place.
Strong Towns   www.strongtowns.org

This Wednesday - Encinitas Financial Model as spelled out above.

The timing of this relates to the upcoming council meeting this coming Wednesday, July 11, being held at Encinitas Community Center (Senior Center) at Oakcrest & Balour. The agenda available here includes the agenda packet prepared by city staff.

The financing schemes to pay for major capital improvement projects, Hall property park and Moonlight beach is a real shuffle. There is a lot of Peter paying Paul switches and big debt commitment in these staff recommendations:

1. Reallocate General Fund Capital Improvement Project Funding - 7.0 million to projects.
2. Authorize proceeding with financing up to $8.0 million for projects.
3. Adopt Resolution amending the Capital Improvement Program Budget.
4. Award of contracts for Hall: $2,258,767.85 for the project.
5. Award of contract for Moonlight State Beach Improvement Project: $595,209.

Did we forget to mention how important it is to go to this meeting? Also, stay for item #2 - the great mayoral robbery - an ongoing fetish for Mayor Stocks.

Boundaries

Some things can really send me around the bend.  Even with yesterday's musical interlude and Mary's cartoon, this week's two posts on city council subcommittees and how Teresa Barth had to take a stand to emphatically refuse any subcommittee assignments keeps going through my mind.  It is so very difficult to say no in our social culture of white, middle class suburbanites.  It is considered rude.

It is a real nightmare for anyone trying to rely on volunteers let me tell you.  Here's something I forget over and over again. When you request someone's assistance or presence and they answer yes, you'd better not take them at their word.  You may well be disappointed.  These people who fear being considered rude if they would say no don't seem to make the connection that the false promise is far worse for the person planning on them than to have simply said no in the first place.  Crazy making stuff . . . so you polite white liars need to pay attention.  Saying no is okay.

And, on a different track closer to what Councilwoman Barth experienced,  there seem to be all kinds of rules against having boundaries in our culture.  There are all kinds of bullies out there and not just at city council. From a recent article this excerpt:

"How often do we teach people that they have the right to take care of themselves? Why don’t we teach that it’s okay to set boundaries? And why the hell don’t we teach people to respect them? 

You have the right to set boundaries. You have the right to have those boundaries respected.

• Not “You have the right to say no as long as you’re nice enough.”
• Not “You have the right to say no but I’m gonna try to change your mind.”
• Not “You have the right to say no unless I think you’re wrong.”
• Not “You have the right to say no once you can give me a satisfactory explanation as to why you’re saying no.”

When someone says no, the correct response is “Okay.” If you don’t understand, that’s fine. You don’t have to understand. Maybe the other person will be willing to explain. Maybe not. But they don’t owe you an explanation. 

You have the right to say no, period. And if someone can’t accept that, then the hell with them. The problem isn’t you."

Mirrored from Jim C. Hines.

According to Mary

History of Rock and Roll - 100 Riffs - 1 Take

Did you miss the musical weekend in Leucadia's Summer Fun on the 101 last week? Me too.

Via Mock Paper Scissors, The Chicago Music Exchange

Myths Encinitas - People's business continued . . .

This week's second major myth is that this council majority primary interest is to conduct the people's business.  This is a continuation of Monday's Myths Encinitas.  The Deputy Mayor, in her role as Gaspar the Willing Host (variant of Casper the Friendly Ghost, a favorite here at Our Mayor and Gaspar the Empty Boast) again shows she is more than willing to be the presenter or hostess on behalf of the cronies. This includes the majority team and the people they are serving - a very short list who will benefit directly from an unchallenged status quo in all things. 

A subcommittee set of constraints is just the latest in the council administration policies being reshaped and rewritten over the last few years to keep the public tightly controlled and gagged if possible. But for context, it is important to show a whole series of acts to waste the people's time, the public's money for staged antics to silence dissent, marginalize minority decisions and control outcome at council meetings. All of these things are to codify, make legal, injustice and bullying behavior of the majority. Hours and hours of council time, public backlash, council "deliberations" (read: rationalization) is used to create controversy and confusion.  People's Business my ass - that is a joke.

This subcommittee business started with the strategy to take the offensive with a big emotional topic to mine votes in the upcoming election year  - the General Plan Update.  September Stocks ranted and raved fact free for about a minute and a half. His rudeness and ugly baby image gave the trigger point for, step 2 the outraged citizenry / businessmen. The next step was to position Kristin Gaspar to present the scripted plan to introduce a new council advisory body.  What followed this elaborate attack on the General Plan process was volunteering Teresa Barth to sit on a subcommittee with Gaspar to flesh out this newly scripted plan as the video clip below shows. 

Subcommittee Ambush for Super majority Goal. 

Just 2 weeks later the majority volunteers Teresa Barth to the subcommittee appointed to decide how to fill Maggie Houlihan's seat despite Maggie's videotaped wish that Lisa Shaffer be considered her successor and many public speakers questioning why the next highest vote getter at the last election, Tony Kranz.  Barth was clearly in favor of either of these options, yet she was ambushed again into legitimatizing the majority nonsense. We are to infer (or to read in minutes) that Barth was a full and equal member of the subcommittee. What do you think? 



 Back to the General Plan Blow Up offensive plan where Councilwoman Barth was roped into being a volunteer on the ERAC subcommittee meeting.  In this tirade by Councilwoman Gaspar which was illegally allowed to be presented by Mayor Bond as an non-agendized speech, unchallenged by the city attorney, unanticipated by Barth and on top of all that . . . Bond disallowed any rebuttal from Barth.  This is an ambush, an attack clear and simple.



By this time it was clear that Barth was being set up to appear as a traitor to the Maggie Houlihan constituents, unworthy as a potential mayor (with that procedure coming up soon) and virtually silenced to present her own case or mount an effective counter balance to an all-consuming super majority.  Teresa Barth remained and continues to hold stead as a community treasure in the eyes of the public  - despite these attacks. 

Over a period of a few critical weeks at the end of 2011 the people's business was ignored in favor of blowing up General Plan Update and creating a super majority on the city council. They also were able to kick Teresa Barth to the curb when selecting a new mayor based on fabricated nonsense from Gaspar's she-said, she-said presentation of undocumented subcommittee work.

On March 21 of this year Teresa Barth was able to make it clear she would no longer serve on any subcommittee until rules and responsibilities were spelled out.



And six months since later this super committee have codified a gag rule that completely keeps the people's business in secret.

This majority gang will never be accused of serving the peoples business or being critical thinkers or creative in their governance of Encinitas for the good of the whole population.  They are relentless though in their inventive winner take all strategies via disinformation, distraction and denial - if you'll excuse the alliteration. Again, making the claim of doing the people's business is comically stretching the truth.

Myths Encinitas

The most glaring myth lately (first of several) involves the Gaspar Gag Order passed at the last city council meeting by the majority. In essence these new procedures codify "secret meetings" and require "group-think" to be considered a good team player.  This is a complete myth.  A good team player provides his or her unique flexibility,  skills, strengths and insights to strengthen a team.

Another aspect of this myth of a good team player is the completely fabricated outrage to justify unacceptable behavior in ambushing and attacking Councilwoman Barth last fall.  Siince that abusive period Barth has refused any and all appointments to a subcommittee until rules are clarified.  This was to be that meeting and instead it was a bunch of bullies ganging up on her, ganging up on the public with the blessing of the city attorney and city manager. Go team evil.
 
And this myth begets more myths, like the mythical allegiance a good team member must provide to her attackers.  Throughout the 30 minutes of this agenda item #8 discussion the crony club that is our city council majority ignores public speakers, revises history, makes things up, redefines language, creates false choices, welcomes straw men and a whole fustercluck of cruel, condescending and dismissive silencing of Teresa Barth and the thousands and thousands she represents.  It's legal, but team evil is the only game in town right now. Some clips to judge for yourself follow.

Imagine for one moment you are a lone voice attempting to be heard as an equal team player even though you have a different opinion or perspective and moreover, you have alternatives for the team to consider. Most importantly, Barth points out that it is a mistake to consider the city council as the team when the focus should be on the public with the council being part of that team.

If you can sit through all of the next two clips, you might try to listen to how language is used, how sources are lacking and other critical elements citizens should expect from a deliberative governing body are completely missing.

It is really difficult to witness or listen to authoritarian language of absolute control presented with childish clichés in a tone of condescension from a neophyte like Kristin Gaspar.

• All discussions involving city staff will happen within an ad hoc committee setting. 
• The ad hoc committee will sign off on the staff report before it’s brought back to council.
• The ad hoc committee will only address topics discussed by the full council. 

Mayor Stocks wanted to slap on even tighter control with mandating the mayor alone being able to appoint subcommittees and name the chair.

The pile on doesn't end with the vote of 4:1.  Barth attempts to at least allow the guidelines to come back as an agenda item.  Not a chance.

Following this meeting Teresa Barth stated,

"I have served on a number of subcommittees during my past 6 years on council, including a committee with Jerome Stocks concerning former city manager Phil Cotton's compensation. Mr. Stocks recommended a significant raise and I recommended no raise. I have never received a complaint from any other council member nor have I complained about their comments or suggestions in the sub-committee process. Deputy Mayor Gaspar seems to believe that disagreement and independent research are somehow inappropriate.

Councilman Bond also commented about the need to "get things" done and having the public included slows things down.

Open Meeting laws (the Brown Act) do not apply to temporary sub-committees as long as there is not a quorum of elected officials on the committee. However, in light of the recent actions and comments by other council members, I believe the public should have the right to attend such meetings if they so desire. I proposed simple procedures that would have allowed the public to attend subcommittee meetings. The Council majority didn't agree."

Tomorrow there will be a second installment of this myth.  It is born out of the misuse of the phrase, people's business as a council responsibility.

Place Making and Attracting Value - Rethinking Encinitas

Let's put a face to the engineer who gave us his confession in yesterday's post, Charles Marhon of Strong Towns. 

Confessions of a Recovering Engineer

Pay Attention Rob Blough! and all the Encinitas Engineering Department.  This is also dedicated to the council majority and the people who refuse to question the status quo for any reason . . . just because.

This reprint from Strong Towns blog by Charles Marohn (in its entirety) is for you.

It is also in vindication of the hundreds of citizens who have attempted to be heard by engineers at city hall.

After graduating from college with a civil engineering degree, I found myself working in my home town for a local engineering firm doing mostly municipal engineering (roads, sewer pipe, water pipe, stormwater). A fair percentage of my time was spent convincing people that, when it came to their road, I knew more than they did. 

And of course I should know more. First, I had a technical degree from a top university. Second, I was in a path towards getting a state license (at the time I was an Engineer in Training, the four-year "apprenticeship" required to become a fully licensed Professional Engineer), which required me to pass a pretty tough test just to get started and another, more difficult, exam to conclude. Third, I was in a profession that is one of the oldest and most respected in human history, responsible for some of the greatest achievements of mankind. Fourth - and most important - I had books and books of standards to follow. 

A book of standards to an engineer is better than a bible to a priest. All you have to do is to rely on the standards. Back in college I was told a story about how, in WW II, some Jewish engineers in hiding had run thousands of tedious tests on asphalt, just to produce these graphs that we still use today. Some of our craft descends from Roman engineers who did all of this a couple of millennia ago. How could I be wrong with literally thousands of years of professional practice on my side? 

And, more to the point, what business would I -- let alone a property owner on a project I was working on - have in questioning the way things were done? Of course the people who wrote the standards knew better than we did. That is why they wrote the standard. 

When people would tell me that they did not want a wider street, I would tell them that they had to have it for safety reasons. 

When they answered that a wider street would make people drive faster and that would be seem to be less safe, especially in front of their house where their kids were playing, I would confidently tell them that the wider road was more safe, especially when combined with the other safety enhancements the standards called for. 

When people objected to those other "enhancements", like removing all of the trees near the road, I told them that for safety reasons we needed to improve the sight distances and ensure that the recovery zone was free of obstacles.
When they pointed out that the "recovery zone" was also their "yard" and that their kids played kickball and hopscotch there, I recommended that they put up a fence, so long as the fence was outside of the right-of-way. 

When they objected to the cost of the wider, faster, treeless road that would turn their peaceful, front yard into the viewing area for a drag strip unless they built a concrete barricade along their front property line, I informed them that progress was sometimes expensive, but these standards have been shown to work across the state, the country and the world and I could not compromise with their safety. 

In retrospect I understand that this was utter insanity. Wider, faster, treeless roads not only ruin our public places, they kill people. Taking highway standards and applying them to urban and suburban streets, and even county roads, costs us thousands of lives every year. There is no earthly reason why an engineer would ever design a fourteen foot lane for a city block, yet we do it continuously. Why? 

The answer is utterly shameful: Because that is the standard. 

In the engineering profession's version of defensive medicine, we can't recommend standards that are not in the manual. We can't use logic to vary from a standard that gives us 60 mph design speeds on roads with intersections every 200 feet. We can't question why two cars would need to travel at high speed in opposite directions on a city block, let alone why we would want them to. We can yield to public pressure and post a speed limit -- itself a hazard -- but we can't recommend a road section that is not in the highway manual.  

When the public and politicians tell engineers that their top priorities are safety and then cost, the engineer's brain hears something completely different. The engineer hears, "Once you set a design speed and handle the projected volume of traffic, safety is the top priority. Do what it takes to make the road safe, but do it as cheaply as you can." This is why engineers return projects with asinine "safety" features, like pedestrian bridges and tunnels that nobody will ever use, and costs that are astronomical.  

An engineer designing a street or road prioritizes the world in this way, no matter how they are instructed:

• Traffic speed
• Traffic volume
• Safety
• Cost

The rest of the world generally would prioritize things differently, as follows:
Safety

• Cost
• Traffic volume
• Traffic speed

In other words, the engineer first assumes that all traffic must travel at speed. Given that speed, all roads and streets are then designed to handle a projected volume. Once those parameters are set, only then does an engineer look at mitigating for safety and, finally, how to reduce the overall cost (which at that point is nearly always ridiculously expensive). 

In America, it is this thinking that has designed most of our built environment, and it is nonsensical. In many ways, it is professional malpractice. If we delivered what society asked us for, we would build our local roads and streets to be safe above all else. Only then would we consider what could be done, given our budget, to handle a higher volume of cars at greater speeds. 

We go to enormous expense to save ourselves small increments of driving time. This would be delusional in and of itself if it were not also making our roads and streets much less safe. I'll again reference a 2005 article from the APA Journal showing how narrower, slower streets dramatically reduce accidents, especially fatalities. 

And it is that simple observation that all of those supposedly "ignorant" property owners were trying to explain to me, the engineer with all the standards, so many years ago. When you can't let your kids play in the yard, let alone ride their bike to the store, because you know the street is dangerous, then the engineering profession is not providing society any real value. It's time to stand up and demand a change. 

It's time we demand that engineers build us Strong Towns.

 Strong Towns blog and website have dozens of good posts and resources. And BTW, engineers, you can console yourselves that you don't suck as bad as the economists.

Today's Perfect Image

In Encinitas, in our council chambers, we know the kind of sulking child-like public 'servants' . . . yes, we do.  Last night's meeting's last half hour was filled with childish foot stamping intransigence. Gaspar's pout wasn't just tolerated, it was indulged. Gag.  Clips will come when we can find someone to suffer through the process of preparing it for submission.

Surfing Madonna: Graciousness and Not Gracious

This week Leucadia's Café Ipé next door to Surfy Surfy became the new home for Surfing Madonna - the Ocean's activist in art. Great photos and background stories at both links and here.  Be warned, Surfing Madonna online post at North County Times slimed by troll patrol as usual in the comment thread.

Here are council meeting clips from last January 2012 at City Hall when artist, Mark Patterson offered the famous art piece for free (covering all costs of installation and maintenance) as an art loan to Encinitas. 

*sigh* Stocks really did ask the artist his name after he spoke. Yes he did. Anyone who followed the blundering of the council majority broadcast nationally for months on end in 2011 knows that the mayor must have been really embarrassed at the Republican establishment praising the artist at this very council meeting. Oh, wait . . .

Stocks' lack of perception is the stuff of town legends. Kristin Gaspar seems to have a vocabulary that includes concern sounds and she uses them a lot for what is called concern troll behavior. The definition below was coined to the virtual world, but it applies to real world polit-speak as well. For Gaspar it is the go-to approach to argue against most things related to the public good.

"A person who posts on a blog thread, in the guise of "concern," to disrupt dialogue or undermine morale by pointing out that posters and/or the site may be getting themselves in trouble, usually with an authority or power. They point out problems that don't really exist. The intent is to derail, stifle, control, the dialogue. It is viewed as insincere and condescending."

Beneath the patina of praise and thanks for the gift of art, the council majority is rather insistent about hypothetical risk factors in the future and require legal assurances that the artist will carry all of the liabilities. Classy. (/snark)

Myths Encinitas

There is a false sensibility promoted over the last 30 or 40 years in the dismantling and takeover of US media - even to most every local television, radio and newspaper of false equivilencies.  Even the most progressive thinkers get trapped in this formula. Not every issue has two opposite and equal sides or perspectives.

That is nonsense on it's face that there is some sort of parity for each and every argument.  The idea that there is some sort of balanced conversation about everything is a false idea.

Have we ceded the principled conversation to the troll patrols and haters on the right who use the words principle or ethics to stick to whatever they are doing? It is as if you would see a guy driving drunk on the wrong side of the road hitting parking meters and people and not slowing down and you go, "Well you gotta' give him credit he's consistent."  Hal Sparks

Words like principle and ethics have real meanings.  If we've learned nothing, we need to recognize the futility of talking to those on the right who will refuse to acknowledge fact or reality or simply treat the dictionary as an etch a sketch. 

Sure, start a dialog with even the most obtuse teabagger sort…attempt to convince him that the views he clutches are self-defeating…try to disabuse him of his calcified bigotry -- but don't be optimistic about the outcome of your efforts. Trouble is: Depressingly large numbers of people have invested a great amount of time, energy and identity in the maintenance of their reality-defiant attitudes…There is just too much fragile self-esteem, bulwarked by brittle pride, at stake. 'Often, a journey towards self-knowledge and an attendant awakening to the nature of one's condition can be unnerving and painful.'

When conversations are only about fear and hate, we liberals lose the plot.  Making connections about potholes, speed limits, the right to speak at meetings or wanting open records are the kinds of things we can and do work towards community.  But, hate and fear don't necessarily go away allow an opening for more.  Always standing by are the grifters who revel in the sewers of human emotion and every couple years they feed on and feed into the campaign horse race atmosphere.  These are the true jackass whisperers who herd and work into a lather the completely misinformed (who sadly believe they are the only ones in the know). Real scrutiny triggers rage and ugly attacks because the myths don't . . . can't undergo questioning.  It's a toxic mix of myth, fear and intolerance.

Myth busting for progressive community activists means relentless conversations, use of analysis, facts, actual videos, truth telling at council meetings, letters to editor, blog posts and online comments.  But this isn't directed towards the audience described in the above paragraphs.

This summer will mean a great upsurge in people in neighborhoods all over town.  The people who have never been exposed or those who can and do want reality-based information or those have simply drifted or gotten discouraged outnumber the haters.  We need to tell our stories, to encourage and nurture people to question the political status quo because it won't stand up under honest scrutiny.

According to Mary: Tale of the Tree

All or Nothing

It's the ugliness of bullies taunting because they can, not because they gain anything of value from it except admiration from other bullies. How else to describe taking something simple and basic and turning it into mocking, marginalizing or silencing?

Encinitas super majority council headed by Mayor Stocks and Deputy Mayor Gaspar continually show their unwillingness to act on behalf of the entire community.  They don't just speak, vote and act on behalf of their backers in the community and outside the community, they silence other opinions and attack dissenting views.

During the Norby contract deliberations Councilman Bond was determined to play his assigned role of distraction and confusion as he trotted out baloney like this gem, "If you happen to be someone who supports the direction of the council you are special interests." This was part of a 7.5 minutes of reductive muddled opinions from a man who claimed his old bladder needed to be emptied.  After the break for Bond to pee, Stocks allowed the public speaker, Tony Kranz his 3 minutes at the very end of the meeting. Again, bully behavior defended at the last meeting with Stocks self-righteous speechifying about the distraction from the "people's business" of agenda items in favor of oral communications minutes.

Earlier it had been Deputy Mayor Gaspar's turn. Not new for her (see BARF and Poutrage)

And by the way, none of the super majority will tolerate any criticism from the public. This meeting had several speakers who confronted the council (Stocks in particular) and Norby. This was not handled with any grace or tolerance from the majority (Stocks in particular). All or nothing.

ERAC = The Big Lie

What makes ERAC, Element Review Advisory Committee, the big lie is the premise that this is a citizen participation group.  This is a hand picked group to bring the council majority the alternatives to housing and land use preferred by the financial backers they represent.

This is business under the guise of public participation. And the formation of this group has nothing to do with the legislative directives to update the General Plan to reflect the sustainability criteria for economic, resource, climate and other future stresses on our community.

This is politics.  Everything Jerome Stocks does is about politics of winning.  And governing?  You must spend many hours reviewing city council minutes and archived videos to find actions in support of the public good versus someone's profits or personal property rights. The entire offensive move of blowing up the General Plan Update is fairly obvious if you track the history. From the consultant interview committee, to the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) selection and presence at the many public workshops, there are layers of half-truths and flip-flopping declarations.

From the very beginning Stocks has maintained his position of plausible deniability by staying far away from involvement at the local level and uttering next to nothing of his deeply embedded position within the SANDAG plans as a member, then as chair, when at the end of each city council meeting he'd give glib, condescending or unsubstantial reports if he reported at all.

"Plausible Deniability - A condition in which a subject can safely and believably deny knowledge of any particular truth that may exist because the subject is deliberately made unaware of said truth so as to benefit or shield the subject from any responsibility associated through the knowledge of such truth."

Three months ago Mayor Stocks made it clear he is looking at ERAC for the alternatives that best serve his interests.  Despite any previous language of just another arm or citizen outreach, the group was designed to serve the council majority.

As with the original inflammatory rhetoric Stocks used last September to blow up the General Plan Update, his arguments are specious.  There is no logic.  Any complaints could have, should have been handled within the contracted process.  Citizens were given false choices when there were solutions at hand.  The need for ERAC was and is a lie.  Everything about it is a lie.  Citizens who have dutifully attended every meeting and schooled themselves know it is a lie.  ERAC is Encinitas newest, biggest lie created for political capital.

This week the ERAC facilitator Peder Norby's contract is on the agenda.  Norby is a vitally important scapegoat for Stocks et al.  Whether Peder Norby is your best friend or he eats kittens for breakfast, he is clearly serving the agenda laid out by those in charge.  He should go. 

We all still have our facts, our research, our issues and our feelings for our community.  We need to find the real answers and solutions, but to trust the mayor or the council majority to provide this is a big mistake.  They made the problem, they can't fix it.  And, they don't intend to fix it anyway.  Do we have a park yet on the Hall property?

Note: The big lie does not mean that there are no citizens sitting in earnest on this committee.  This is by no means mean as personal attack on individuals.  Even Stocks best friends my believe they are right in their opinions.  What is critical is the silencing of any dissent outside of the majority favored views and goals.  That isn't citizen participation, it's manufactured consent and it's a big lie. 

According to Mary: Second Oldest Profession in the World

Instead of Jerome Stocks, Good Governance Principles

This piece from candidate for city council, Lisa Shaffer, was published in both the Patch online and The Coast News June 14, 2012.

"As I look forward to the November Encinitas City Council election, I think about the meaning of good governance, which I see as a nonpartisan goal that serves our community. The following are some principles that reflect what I want in an elected official."

1. You Work for Us: Expenditure of public funds, provision of public works and city services that derive from our taxes and other fees should be carried out on behalf of the residents of Encinitas for the primary purpose of protecting and enhancing our quality of life.
2. Open the Books and Use 21st Century Technology: Taxpayers are entitled to full and open accounting of expenditures, commitments and activities by the City Council, public employees and contractors. Citizens are also entitled to easy electronic access to city documents, including permit applications, appeals, the latest applicable general and specific plans, budgets, and assessment reports. The City should use current information technology to increase transparency and access.
3. Speak with Us Before You Speak for Us: Elected officials who represent the citizens of Encinitas in local and regional bodies like SANDAG, NCTD and the water districts should inform the public of significant issues before making commitments on our behalf and should seek public input whenever possible.
4. Run Meetings Properly: Public meetings should adhere to standard parliamentary procedure and conform to the Brown Act so citizens who have an interest can be well-informed about when such issues might be discussed in a public forum. Last minute changes to the agenda without explanation or consent should be avoided. A list of issues that the Council has agreed to put on the agenda should be publicly available with periodic reports on when such items will be addressed.
5. Tell the Truth: If we have more obligations than we have money, be honest about it. If we can’t deliver on services we promised, let us know so we don’t expect more than is possible. We’re on the same team — all working for the good of Encinitas.
6. Look at Options: Staff reports should include relevant background, data and evaluation of alternatives so we all can understand more fully what options might be available and can make informed decisions. Any presentations made by staff must be on the agenda and provided in advance.
7. Listen to Many Voices: Appointees to ad hoc and standing committees should be residents of Encinitas unless there is a compelling reason why a non-resident individual is needed. Criteria for appointment to ad hoc and standing committees and commissions should be spelled out and Council members voting on such appointments should be required to evaluate candidates against such criteria and justify their votes. This will ensure the city benefits from a diversity of qualified opinions, not just representatives of a particular segment of the community.
8. Protect Nature: Priority should be given to preservation of existing open space and protected habitat. Public land should not be sold to finance capital-improvement projects elsewhere.

Myths Encinitas

This Monday's edition is from the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, with thirty-five years of community strengthening research behind them. Fact sheet presented in full. This refutes the myths our mayor and the council majority and all city planning has bought and promoted as fiscal strength. It can't undo the reality of a Wal-Mart opening this week, but it can change some thinking for our fiscal planning with a new council after November.

Five Myths About Big-Box Retail

MYTH: Big-Box Stores Create Jobs

FACT: Studies by independent economists show that big-box stores eliminate more retail jobs than they create.

A recent study examined 3,094 counties across the U.S., tracking the arrival of new Wal-Mart stores between 1977 and 2002. The study, conducted by Univ. of California economist David Neumark, found that opening a Wal-Mart store led to a net loss of 150 retail jobs on average, suggesting that a new Wal-Mart job replaces approximately 1.4 workers at other stores. (The Effects of Wal-Mart on Local Labor Markets, January 2007).

The reason for the overall decline is that a new Wal-Mart store does not increase the amount of money that residents have to spend. Sales gains at these stores are invariably mirrored by a drop in revenue at existing businesses, which then must down-size or close. The job losses are larger than the gains because Wal-Mart accomplishes the same volume of sales with fewer employees.

Although similar studies have not been done of other big-box retailers, it's likely that they also have either a negative or no impact on employment because the underlying dynamics (i.e., no increases in consumer spending) are the same.

MYTH: Big-Box Stores Boost Tax Revenue

FACT: The tax benefits of big-box stores are negated by the cost of providing public services to these developments and declining tax revenue from existing commercial districts.

Big-box development creates substantial public costs. These sprawling stores are not efficient users of public infrastructure. Compared to traditional, compact business districts, they require longer roads, more road maintenance, additional miles of utilities, and more fire and police time.

One case study in Barnstable, Mass., found that the annual cost of providing city services to traditional downtown and neighborhood business districts was $786 per 1,000 square feet. Big-box stores were 30% more costly, requiring $1,023 in services per 1,000 sq. ft. (Tischler & Associates, Fiscal Impact Analysis of Residential and Nonresidential Land Use Prototypes, prepared for the Town of Barnstable, Jul. 1, 2002.)

In addition to incurring new costs, cities that approve big-box development often experience a decline in property and sales A project of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance tax revenue from existing neighborhood and downtown business districts, as well as older shopping centers. As these areas lose sales and experience vacancies, the value of property declines and with it, the property tax revenue. Sales tax revenue also falls. One study of 116 cities in California found that, in all but two cases, the presence of a big-box store did not correspond to increased sales tax revenue. (Bay Area Economic Forum, Supercenters and the Transformation of the Bay Area Grocery Industry: Issues,Trends, and Impacts, 2004, 74-81)

MYTH: Big-Box Stores Grow the Economy

FACT: Trading independent retailers for big-box chains shrinks the volume of activity in the local economy.

For every $100 they receive in revenue, locally owned businesses hire more local workers, purchase more goods and services from other local businesses, and contribute more to local charities than their big-box counterparts. When chains displace local businesses, it results in an overall loss of economic activity, not a gain.

A 2004 study conducted in Chicago analyzed ten locally owned restaurants, retail stores, and service providers and compared them with chains competing in the same categories. The study concluded that every $100 spent at one of the independent businesses created $68 in additional economic activity in the city, while spending the same amount at a chain only generated $43 worth of local impact. (Civic Economics, The Andersonville Study of Retail Economics, 2004.)

One of the main reasons for the difference was that the local retailers bought more goods and services from other local businesses. They did their banking at a local bank. They hired local accountants, web designers, and other professionals. They turned to a local print shop for their printing, and they advertised in local publications. The chains had almost no need for these local services and spent relatively little in the city.

A consequence of this is that even modest shifts in the mix of local and non-local businesses in a community can have significant economic ramifications. A case study in Kent County, Michigan, estimates that the region would gain 1,600 new jobs, $140 million in new economic activity, and $53 million in additional payroll if residents shifted 10% of their spending from chains to local businesses. A shift in the opposite direction — more spending at chains — would cause equivalent economic losses. (Civic Economics, Local Works: Examining the Impact of Local Business on the Western Michigan Economy, 2008.)

MYTH: Big-Box Stores Bring Competition and Consumer Choice

FACT: Big-box stores often displace numerous small and mid-sized stores, leaving fewer shopping options and less competition. 

An average Wal-Mart or Target supercenter is nearly four football fields in size (190,000 square feet) and captures about $80 million a year in spending. To understand how large that is, consider that it would take 35,000 people making 25% of all of their retail purchases, from groceries to appliances, at that one Wal-Mart store. To take another example, the average 120,000-square-foot Lowe's captures $35 million a year in sales. That's equal to the total hardware/building materials spending power of 37,000 people.

Most communities, even fast-growing ones, cannot absorb a store of this scale without sizable revenue losses to existing businesses, including both locally owned stores and competing supermarkets and shopping centers. Part of the reason these companies build such large stores is that they leave little room in the market for other businesses. As competing stores close, residents are left with fewer choices. Many towns and neighborhoods now depend on a single big-box store for many types of goods, virtually eliminating competition. Once they attain a dominant share of the market, these retailers may raise prices. One study compared the cost of 54 grocery items at 11 Wal-Mart supercenters in Nebraska and found that the total varied by more than 13 percent. Some of the stores with the highest prices were in areas that lacked competing grocery stores.
(Hometown Merchants Association, Impact of Supercenters on Nebraska Economy, April 2004.)

A growing number of communities are deciding that a better way to ensure competition is to have numerous small and mid-sized stores, rather than one giant superstore. One way to achieve this is to place a cap on the size of stores (for more on this see our Store Size Cap Policy Kit at bigboxtoolkit.com).

MYTH: Big-Box Stores are the Only Option

FACT: More cities and towns are saying no to additional big-box development and finding better ways to grow by creating and expanding local businesses.

Nearly 300 communities have rejected big-box proposals in the last few years, and many have adopted policies that restrict or prohibit this type of development altogether.

Far from impeding growth, these policies often attract new small businesses investment as entrepreneurs seek out viable locations. Communities can spur more small business development by revitalizing their neighborhood and downtown commercial districts, launching programs to train and finance new entrepreneurs, and developing a strong Buy Local campaign to encourage more public support for locally owned businesses.

(For more information on these strategies, see the Building Alternatives to Big Boxes section at bigboxtoolkit.com.) This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution- Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License

According to Mary: Legless Lizard

Great reminder for Environmental Day, Sunday at Cottonwood Creek Park, and you don't have to tell bloggers or blog readers that there is critically important work going on underground for those who can stomach the creepy things of politics.

Knowing the Price of Everything and the Value of Nothing

Encinitas Walmart slipped in through the back door.  The official date is June 13th.  Local citizens, budding activists all, kept up their pursuit of information and were given false or partial information from city planning staff over and over.  Speakers at city council meetings would voice concerns and ask about rumors at oral communications.   Patrick Murphy would repeat his usual denials that nothing was going on with Walmart. Don't you believe it.

The Walmartization of America Redux: How the Relentless Drive for Cheap Stuff Undermines Our Economy, Bankrupts Our Soul, and Pillages the Planet by John Atcheson states,

"In his excellent documentary, Walmart: The High Cost of Low Price, Robert Greenwald carefully documents how Walmart’s giant box stores lower wages across the entire retail sector, impose high social and economic costs on the states and communities in which they operate, and destroy local businesses."

When it was altogether clear last September that Walmart officials and city planners had done an end run around public opinion and open government precepts, Teresa Barth spoke openly about the weaknesses within the General Plan that would allow for this kind of action being considered legal because it is re-use not new construction.

Teresa Barth's words and the critics of Walmart don't argue the increasing economic insecurity. The point is to be truthful about what we are really paying for cheap things. There are similarities it seems between this Oscar Wilde quote of people "knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing" and "just because it's legal doesn't make it right." Both entail loss of humanity, the loss of soul.

I'm Dizzy!

Sometimes thinking about our mayor and the council super majority just gets a person down. Need to laugh - hard. A couple of us have watched it a half a dozen times and still laugh every time. Bless his little heart.

Watch on YouTube

Myths Encinitas

May we please, my dear neighbors, finally once and for all bury the trope that the council majority is fiscally conservative? And as this whole clip and many more demonstrate we have a pretty clear indication the council majority is not now and maybe never was fiscally responsive.

The opening of this February 17, 2010 video clip includes Councilwoman Barth's actual example of fiscally conservative governance with her motion to freeze all pay raises for the council members at the onset of this nation's economic recession that began the previous year. In a rare win, this motion carried despite Houlihan's puzzling vote switch.

Beginning at 1:18 is the discussion of then City Manager Phil Cotton's more than 10% raise. Remember, Phil Cotton is retired military drawing a pension and is over retirement age.

Judge for yourselves. Is Jerome Stocks' argument one of a fiscal conservative or even a fiscally responsive leader?

Fighting Big

Update below
Even billions in profit don't stop giant US employers from demanding workers give up pay or benefits. We are familiar with the wage slaves in the retail industry, restaurant, agriculture and food distribution.  But, industries that traditionally paid workers respectable wages, thanks to labor unions, are now trying to destroy these unions.  Councilman Jim Bond made his wealth in the telecommunications field working his way up the ladder.  No doubt he was a part of unions on that ascent.

Fast forward to the present. Millions of jobs have been taken from the workers of the US for corporations to pay less abroad. And, those that remain are under constant duress to remove securities, benefits and advancement.  Our community is filled with households struggling with these very issues in their own workplaces. At minimum, our city council should be cognizant of how many are struggling, where they live and how our community government can assist.  This is happening in city councils all over the country, with this Encinitas city council majority?  Not so much . . .

It's a culture more about pillage the village than support the people. Our Council majority believe in trickle down economics despite the evidence of its failure.  Even for the "I've got mine, the hell with you" crowd must realize that neighborhoods filled with foreclosed, neglected or abandoned properties, closing businesses, high unemployment, increased drug / booze or other self-medicating behaviors are all antithetical to a thriving community.  Punishing, fining or stigmatizing victims of a recession that the people aren't responsible for isn't just reprehensible, it's bad business.

Here's a challenge to all the candidates - even before sitting council members or their friends have declared - Is your first responsibility to the people of this community or to tax revenues they represent?

Think Progress Update on Verizon 6/4/12:

America’s largest wireless service provider plans to cut 1,700 jobs by offering its technicians and call center employees buyouts. Verizon Communications announced last week that it would reduce its nationwide workforce by 1 percent, and if enough workers don’t accept the buyouts, it will resort to involuntary layoffs. 

Verizon paid chief executive Lowell C. McAdam more than $22.5 million in 2011, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of executive compensation. The company has paid its top five executives more than $350 million in the last five years, according to the Communications Workers of America, the union that deals most directly with Verizon.

According to Mary: The Housing Element Mapping Exercise