Letters: Lies, conflict and dirty politics fuel Ehlers hit piece

If ever there was an election-time hit piece, Bob Ayers’ recent letter to the editor on mayoral candidate Bruce Ehlers is it. Ayers was apparently either put up to write it as a dirty politics move or has a truly profound ignorance of local and state law and a real disdain for the voters.

Ehlers’ commitment to upholding our code, which governs everything from traffic to housing, has been a thorn in many a developer’s side. When Ayers writes that Ehlers is “not suited to represent all Encinitans,” he means “not suited to represent the building industry.” If enforcing our code comes at the “expense” of unscrupulous developers, so be it. Most of us are good with that.

True, as the author and champion of our Prop A Right to Vote on zoning, Bruce mentions it often, as he should. Prop A is the only thing that stands between residents and, even worse, rampant overdevelopment. Many residents are new here and do need to know about it.

Prop A was not about protecting his own house or neighborhood. From the start, Ehlers recognized that we all used the whole city, and all of Encinitas needed protection.

Facts matter. Let’s examine them. Ayers wrote melodramatically that Prop A “snapped” in 2017 when, in fact, it was the voters who had simply exercised their right to vote to say no to the city’s overblown housing plan.  What instead “snapped” was a council in disbelief that the voters had not been taken in by their efforts to secure a Yes vote.

To say that Prop A “clashed with state law” is wrong. It was the council that clashed with residents who knew a bad plan when they saw one.

Ayers has bad intel, as lawsuits did not “come flying” at Encinitas. There was a single joint filing from the Building Industry Association and a tenants’ rights group. After promising to defend Prop A, then-Mayor Catherine Blakespear flipped on residents, and the judge set aside Prop A only for that year’s housing plan.

Not satisfied with a one-time set-aside, the following year, Blakespear sued her own residents when she took Prop A to court to eliminate it for good.

She lost, and the state (California Department of Housing and Community Development) lost, with the judge citing permanent constitutional protections. Ehlers was a key part of the testimony… Perhaps Ayers would like to reveal how many “millions” Blakespear cost taxpayers with her actions. Residents were awarded costs and attorneys’ fees.

The current housing plan, with its “unpopular developments,” was hardly “rushed into place.” It was an 18-month-old plan that Blakespear and Kranz had supported all along; this existing plan was simply enforced, and we have Blakespear and Kranz to thank for that.

When Kranz publicly fired Ehlers, it was he — not Ehlers — who “snapped.” This was proven by a parade of planning commissioners, all testifying to Bruce’s integrity and knowledge. (Then-planning chair Kevin Doyle’s testimony may be viewed here.) All made it clear that Ehlers had done nothing wrong; his only mistake was in not “interpreting” code to accommodate developers.

If his firing was contentious, it was because it was wrong. When Kranz “implored” Ehlers to “change his ways,” it was proof of Ehlers’ integrity that he would not agree to bend code.

It’s odd that Ayers complains about Ehlers being “hyper-local.” Either you are for local control or you are for state control, and this is the big difference between Ehlers and Kranz. Kranz does not, in fact, “seek solutions that benefit all of Encinitas.” His mantra has become “my hands are tied,” which benefits the building industry only.

What is interesting about Ehlers’ supporters is that they come in all stripes. Isn’t that what we want in a true leader? Someone who finds common ground and does not serve special interests? The two district candidates Ehlers endorses, Luke Shaffer (District 1) and Jim O’Hara (District 2), do not get their “energy from grievances” — they are discussing and responding to very real concerns from citizens citywide.

Finally, let’s consider the source. Ayers identified himself as an attorney but omitted the fact that he is a real estate attorney. He and his clients benefit from the kind of code “interpretations” that Ehlers refused to bend to. It’s apparent that Ayers has a conflict of interest.

Equally conflicted is Tony Kranz, demonstrated by the kind of people he surrounds himself with and from whom he takes campaign donations. The inaccuracies and outright lies Ayers told are evidence enough.  Ehlers is the obvious choice for mayor.

Denise Martin
Encinitas