Encinitas residents beware!

A deceptive brochure, “NO on A,” was circulated at the Encinitas Street Fair and is currently being disseminated throughout the city. 

The misinformation contained in this brochure is reflected in a corresponding web site, EncinitasHope.com. Both the brochure and the website are deliberate attempts to confuse and frighten you into voting against Prop A, the Right to Vote initiative, in the upcoming June 18 special election.

Who paid for the brochure and the website? — A building industry-backed organization that calls itself “Homeowners to Preserve Encinitas” (HOPE). This organization ironically claims to “protect Encinitas” when, in fact, their aim is to “hope” to protect their profits at the expense of our community character and quality of life.

Who is behind the homeowners to preserve Encinitas?

The site itself is registered to John Wainio of the “San Diego Group” (SDG), a consulting firm that counts among its clients Barratt American (campaign donor to ex-Mayor Jerome Stocks), the Building Industry Association, and two “No on Growth Control” initiatives. SDG claims to be “game changers,” and “able to help if you face real challenges with the public, community groups…” Pretty chilling words from this group hired to oppose Prop A. Apparently, Prop A’s main intent to put city self-determination in resident hands presents a “real challenge” to No on A backers; so much so that they will pull out all the stops to prevail, no matter how underhanded the tactics.

How are the brochure and website deceptive?

For starters, HOPE attempts to make it sound like Prop A was created in a secret and subversive manner, written by a small group of people “behind closed doors” and “without an environmental or legal review.”

In fact, Prop A was written under the guidance of an environmental attorney and the initiative wording was approved by our City Attorney Glenn Sabine. With representation from all five Encinitas communities and scores of volunteers, the Encinitas Right to Vote group gathered more than 8,500 resident signatures from a populace very eager to sign.

Wainio’s HOPE site claims, “An independent study identified many adverse consequences of Proposition A.” This “independent study” refers to the city-ordered Rutan report that identified a number of “mights,” and “coulds,” but, in the end, was forced to conclude:

“If passed, the voter approval requirements, extended public notice requirements and absolute height limit would accomplish the goal of voter control, and facilitate the maintenance of community character in Encinitas.” (Page 12 Rutan & Tucker Report.)

Among other false charges, HOPE claims that Prop A will:

• Restrict your ability as a homeowner to improve your home. In fact, Prop A imposes no restrictions within current zoning whatsoever.

• Allow developers to exceed our height limits. In fact city height and density limits stay the same after Prop A as before.

• Drain city financial reserves to defend lawsuits. In fact, the same Proposition in effect in Escondido for over 14 years has not resulted in a single lawsuit!

Ask yourself these questions when you read NO on A material:

Why do they only provide ballot arguments against Prop A and links to one side of the argument? The Yes on A and City of Encinitas websites link to all arguments.

• Why do they indicate that HOPE’s No on A is endorsed by our three Main Street organizations? In fact, none of these organizations authorized the use of their names. Weeks after repeated demands for the removal of their logos from the HOPE website, they still remain.

• Why do they call themselves “Homeowners to Protect Encinitas” when, in fact, their website is registered to a San Diego consultant who boasts that his company “has proven that development proponents can win approvals for controversial projects.”

Encinitas HOPE got one thing right: Their logo states, “No on A — It’s not what it seems.” Fact: NO on A is most certainly not what it seems.

Don’t be fooled.

Ask yourself: Who do I trust more to protect Encinitas? Do I trust the politicians and the building industry or do I trust myself?

For all opinions and reports, go to EncinitasRightToVote.com.

 

Share

Filed Under: Community Commentary

Tags:

RSSComments (5)

Leave a Reply | Trackback URL

  1. Xavier Watson says:

    It is unfortunate that the supporters of Prop A continue to dismiss all legitimate criticisms of their flawed initiative as exposed in an legal analysis by one of the top law firms in the State. The fact that real estate interests have joined ALL City Councilmembers and most of the community based groups responsible for the revitalization of our Highway 101 corridor is a remarkable testament to just how terribly flawed Prop A really is. Prop A proponents collected signatures using the lie that there were going to be 5-story buildings in everyones neighborhoods. The truth is there are no such proposed buildings. It was all a scare tactic to get signatures and it unfortunately worked. Now, they have dropped this lie and are simply attacking any person, group, or organization that opposes Prop A. The lie has simply shifted. We can’t trust them or their initiative. The consensus of all legitimate sources is that Prop A would be BAD for Encinitas. Voting No on Prop A is they only way to preserve the Encinitas we know and love. I’m voting No on Prop A.

  2. SusanT says:

    Real estate interests have indeed joined in the No effort and hail from as far away as Chicago with an $8,000+ donation to the No folks; that should tell voters something right there.

    Yes on A proponents continue to demonstrate the truth that the 4-5 stories are recommended by the Council’s hand-picked “ERAC” advisory committee and will most certainly be under consideration. This video and the written minutes are available on the city’s website. The first minute paints the picture:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97Qxmi3_0Ng&feature=youtu.be

    Heed the proven adage: “Follow the money.”

  3. SusanT says:

    Also: the “…legal analysis by one of the top law firms in the State…” was forced to concede that, after all:

    “If passed, the voter approval requirements, extended public notice requirements and absolute height limit would accomplish the goal of voter control, and facilitate the maintenance of community character in Encinitas.”

    (Page 12, Rutan report posted on City website.)

    This is what a YES on A will accomplish!

  4. hal gant says:

    This group called my home land line 3 times so far today and hung up when I answered twice. I am not happy with the invasion of my privacy regardless of their political agenda, view or message. I have asked that my phone number be removed via the national do not call registry; http://www.donotcall.gov. If you call again, I will report you! Be a good citizen and respect citizens rights!

  5. I have fun with, result in I discovered just what I was looking for. You have ended my 4 day long hunt! God Bless you man. Have a nice day. Bye

Leave a Reply




If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a Gravatar.