As a resident of Encinitas for more than 60 years, I have seen plenty of excitement, joy, anxiety, anger and shock from what comes out of City Hall.
On Feb. 12, half of Encinitas absorbed the shock of the new City Council’s vote to greenlight the largest development ever approved in our history, while the other half muttered the inevitable, “I told you so.”
After a marathon meeting that ran into Thursday, the city’s newly elected mayor and City Council voted through the development.
The meeting’s result is a relief to many, including pragmatists who may not prefer the development but understand its reasons and alternatives. But we should all be as nervous as Mayor Bruce Ehlers about the competency of the three new councilmen sitting in seats at City Hall. In his words: “I think you guys don’t know what you’re dealing with, and that worries me.”
At first, Councilmen Luke Shaffer and Jim O’Hara voted to stop the Quail Meadows development. Make no mistake, these were votes to prevent development that cannot be stopped. Whether the votes were ill-informed (Shaffer) or performative (O’Hara), they were undoubtedly reckless.
If Ehlers had accepted the first vote, the State of California would have swiftly implemented “Builders’ Remedy.” As Encinitans may know by now (and as Councilman Marco San Antonio learned at the meeting), Builders’ Remedy is a disaster no resident wants. If activated, developers could bypass city zoning laws across Encinitas.
Catastrophically, developers would be allowed to develop roughshod at Quail Meadows and beyond. It is called “remedy,” but it is not.
On the campaign trail, Ehlers and new Councilmen benefited from their bravado. Their appealing platform–that they would “stop overdevelopment” differently than their predecessors–was appealing but never possible. One even whispered to supporters that he’d announce a moratorium halting all development in the city, like a little town king.
But time’s up on campaign-friendly bravado. On Wednesday, they were forced to square with the sobering reality that laws bind cities, and breaking them yields dire consequences. Ehlers publicly gave them a tossing on the context in which city decisions are made.
And, just like that, a quorum of three voted the giant housing plan through to approval. Though O’Hara maintained his vote against it, he knew there would be no consequence to our city if one of four held out; Ehlers only needed three votes to avoid the calamity of Builder’s Remedy.
Ehlers grandstanded in the recent election alongside Shaffer and O’Hara (a “trifecta,” they said, now a foursome). He knew better than his sidekicks.
Nevertheless, he joined their rebuke of the prior council with tawdry promises that he knew a path to stop development. His resolve last week to follow housing law was responsible but a jolt to his supporters.
To be sure, I am no fan of Ehlers (See my opinion piece, “Bruce Ehlers should not be our mayor,” published Sept. 9, 2024, in The Coast News). I assert that “Mr. A’hlers’ fear of allowing elected City Council (including himself) to make hard decisions is to blame for our housing angst
Notwithstanding his flip-flop, Shaffer called on citizens to be willing to pick up rifles to defend the land against the State, “a domestic enemy.” This is a frightening idea from an elected official to stop private developers from serving a broad public need on private property.
Shaffer doubled down at the Feb. 19 meeting by blaming political operatives for misquoting him. The record, however, is clear. Watching the Feb. 12 meeting on YouTube makes it easy to see what he said.
O’Hara mostly ranted accusations toward the prior council without justifying his willingness to allow Builders’ Remedy.
To his credit, San Antonio was candid about his lack of basic housing knowledge. He might have studied up when he wiggled into the open seat and saw the upcoming vote.
Instead, he plainly stated that he’d never heard of Builders’ Remedy until that night, relying instead on his “gut.” While up for the D4 seat just a few weeks ago, he pledged loyalty to Prop A, authored by Ehlers.
For those keeping score, the Feb. 12 meeting marked the third vote supporting developers. They’re following the law, parsing unpopular options, just as they excoriated their predecessors for doing. Will voters realize that this platform was, all along, a bill of goods? Time will tell.
Supporters swoon that San Antonio and Shaffer are “nice guys” and “lifelong locals.” Next time, voters might be inspired to consider other qualifications.
“Knowledge of the law,” “basic understanding of local government,” and “fighting for reform without rifles” come to mind. One thing is certain: (Spoiler alert) We will get more shocks from this foursome.
Bob Ayers
Encinitas
4 comments
Ayers lied before, he’s back at it: https://thecoastnews.com/letters-lies-conflict-and-dirty-politics-fuel-ehlers-hit-piece/.
The author has conveniently neglected to mention how the city and this council came to the decision of this and other developments ending in approvals.
Most of the approved projects are a direct result of the previous two mayor’s efforts to set aside Prop A and push through hi-density projects. Most residents are unaware that Ehlers and our city were backed into a corner years ago by the state and former mayors’ willingness to sell out Encinitas to developer donors. Catherine Blakespear built her political career at the expense of Encinitas residents. Catherine and Tony Kranz rolled over without a fight.
The difference with the new council, is that they will a have say in future growth. In the meanwhile, they will focus on improving infrastructure, though Tony Krantz’s poor fiscal leadership, left the city in pathetic financial shape. This council will focus on needs, not wants.
It’s exciting to have a balanced council that actually discusses issues, without predetermined decisions. The mayor shouldn’t get everything he wants. Our district representatives have a voice for all of us, including Schaeffer and Lyndes.
D2 is already experiencing the difference between the disengaged Kellie Hinze, and the proactive, resident oriented Jim O’Hara. It’s remarkably refreshing to get responses from your council member, where previously there was a void.
This is a relatively new council of citizen representatives, who are taking the time from their own lives, for very little compensation, to learn and understand our complex real estate, state and local laws. There’s a lot to unfold, along with the day-to-day issues of crime, homelessness, traffic and other, no less important issues happening in our city.
Another difference between former appointed city council members and this current council, is that previous council members were told how to vote on almost every big decision our city faced. They were in lock step in agreement, and really didn’t need to know very much about the laws or even care about what the residents wanted. That was obvious from everything from the safe parking lot to the highly controversial Goodson project.
I’m willing to give them time to get up to speed, especially since I know that they are more local centric, as opposed to state centric. I look forward to seeing a cleaner, safer, better run Encinitas, compared to what we’ve all been experiencing over the last four or five years.
I knew who wrote the article without even looking. Bob Ayers, he of the Catherine Blakespear clan who couch their developer puppet antics with fake woke garbage.
There is still another appeal to The Coastal Commission whether the ridiculously oversized development was approved or not, and it shouldn’t have been. IMO.
Unless Cities fight back and there is an open revolt against the fauxgressive developer puppets like Catherine Blakespear. Toni Atkins, Newsom, etc California is done.
Their hangers on, like Bob Ayers and his wife, need to know that everyone knows their game and everyone knows what they are doing to Encinitas.
I’ll take a neophyte over a corrupted Blakespear remora any day of the week.
Let them settle in for crying out loud. No one can possibly know everything in a few months about the developer’s hold on our Cities thanks to Democrats who sold their souls for unending money and power.
Reality reminder for Ayers, this council never promised to break the law and get us into trouble over housing decisions. They did promise to push back on the state via legal means. Ayers and wife Teresa Beauchamp insist on lying on this vital point.
At least this council does not come into a meeting with prearranged votes, nor do they happily go straight to “our hands are tied!” Three meetings in let’s give them a chance. We knew what we were getting with Kranz/Blackwell/Preston: rubber stamp developer-friendly decisions and zero state pushback.
Comments are closed.