At a recent Encinitas City Council discussion, something refreshing happened.
A council member acknowledged what many residents have long believed: Encinitas is not typical. We are unique. We don’t pursue conventional economic development.
In her words, that approach may work in Carlsbad — “that’s like Carlsbad” — but it isn’t who we are. Encinitas, she said, requires nuance. We should “curate” the kind of private-sector activity that suits our character and direct how we move forward.
That clarity was welcome. But it also exposed a deeper irony.
When the conversation turns to state-mandated housing policy, that same language of nuance and local distinction often vanishes.
Last May, a San Francisco Chronicle column labeled Encinitas a “rich beach city” waging an anti-housing insurgency. Many residents objected to that caricature. It not only disrespected and mischaracterized the residents of Encinitas, but it also ignored infrastructure constraints, wildfire realities, coastal protections, water limitations, and the very character now being defended at the dais.
Yet notably, some of the same local development advocates who speak passionately about Encinitas’ uniqueness publicly praised that Chronicle narrative.
That contradiction is hard to miss.
You cannot celebrate local nuance in one context and endorse a narrative that reduces the city to a stereotype in another.
And the tension goes further.
Encinitas has long been home to environmental advocates and land-use professionals who built reputations defending CEQA, coastal oversight, and careful planning. Those tools were once viewed as essential to preserving exactly the kind of community character now described as “unique” and distinct from cities like Carlsbad.
Yet today, many state housing laws narrow environmental review, streamline approvals, limit local discretion, and override community-crafted zoning and planning standards, all in pursuit of production quotas.
Supporting that framework while simultaneously invoking environmental stewardship is not a balancing act.
It is a divided posture.
On one hand, local nuance, curated growth, and environmental care make Encinitas different.
On the other: standardized mandates, reduced review, diminished discretion, Encinitas is interchangeable.
Those two philosophies do not comfortably coexist.
Sacramento’s housing regime does not distinguish between Encinitas and Carlsbad. It applies formula-driven density targets to cities with vastly different geographies, infrastructure systems, and community forms. It presumes that centralized authority produces better outcomes than localized planning.
That philosophy treats cities as fungible.
It is the opposite of curation.
If Encinitas truly “isn’t typical,” if we are meaningfully different from Carlsbad, then we should be wary of embracing policies that assume we are not.
Housing policy is economic development policy. Zoning is an economic development policy. When allowable intensity changes, land values change. Investment flows shift. Community form evolves. These are not abstract exercises; they are decisions that permanently shape neighborhoods.
When a councilmember says we should direct how private-sector forces shape our city, that we should proactively encourage development that “suits who we are”, that principle should not stop at storefronts and commercial tenants.
It should extend to housing form, scale, placement, and pace.
You cannot curate economic development while surrendering land-use authority to Sacramento.
You cannot argue we are distinct from Carlsbad while endorsing policies that treat us as the same.
And you cannot emphasize nuance when convenient and accept uniformity when expedient.
This is not an argument against housing. California needs more housing, particularly housing that is attainable for the community’s essential workers and their families. But the method matters.
Thoughtful planning is not obstruction. Context is not exclusion. And local discretion is not defiance.
If Encinitas’ character is worthy of protection when distinguishing ourselves from neighboring cities, then it is equally worthy of protection when confronting statewide mandates.
Mike Lewis
Encinitas
