The Turko Files Reports!!
By Jerome Stocks | 09/16/09 | 12:27 PM EDT | 19 Comments
A project has been trying to get off the ground since the City purchased the property in 2001.
It has caused two seperate CEQA lawsuits and cost over a million dollars to get through the environmental impact report and legal fees. What was the City proposing? A cement plant? A power plant? A smelting plant? Nope, nope, nope. The City of Encinitas had the temerity to propose a park… And now many years and many dollars later the Court has given us the green light to go forward. Turko has followed this from about the beginning (when the neighbor called him to complain about the messy property) and he does a very good wrap-up.
| 
|
19 Comments | Related Topics »
RECOMMENDED SITES
Comments
Interesting Site. Lots of good information thank you. Finally in effect??
- reply
|Depends on the definiton of Finally, I guess...
- reply
|i can not belive My eyes people actually doing things they say they will do?? Say it is not so.
- reply
|Build the Park!!!!!!!
- reply
|Jerome:
How much will the park cost to build? Land alone cost $20 mil. Add to that interest payments on the bond, infrastructure upgrades, etc. What are we looking at? $40 mill, 60? 80?
For some reason, park proponents haven't wanted to talk about this so much.
Being the strong fiscal conservative that you are, I'd think this would be your primary concern.
Encinitas resident
- reply
|You seem to have arrived at some answers, though likely innacurate, to your own questions. Why should I speculate when you seem to do that all by yourself. I would rather wait for legitimate enginieer's estimates and actual bids for proposals.
- reply
|So you approved a park w/o even the vaguest idea of how much it may cost to build and maintain? With all of your experience in local govt and with transportation and other infrastructure projects, I just can't imagine that you have no notion how much the park could potentially cost.
And I find it odd that anytime anyone asks how much the park will cost, you or some other city official responds by telling us how much it won't cost.
I'm in favor of the same version of the park that you are, but I'd also like to know, up front, how much we're putting the city on the hook for. I find your incuriosity disturbing, especially since you've billed yourself as a fiscal conservative for years.
I guess this is the same type of logic that led to your support of the half-billion dollar Sprinter: We won't know how many people will use it until we build it and if it underperforms (which it has) then, oh well, it's too late and we're stuck with it.
- reply
|I never said I didn't have "the vaguest idea" about costs, those are your words.
I'm saying that project costs are subject to economic condition, scale and scope of the project as well as other factors and until the City Council finally says:
A) Go get construction drawings so we can go out to bid, B) confirms what will and won't llikely be included in "phase one, etc, and C) Receives actual responsive bids from qualified bidders, speculation is a childish game I would rather not play on a blog with anonymous bloggers. Call my office, make an appointment, and we can go over it if you like.
Thanks!
- reply
|I never intimated "w/o even the vaguest idea of how much it may cost to build and maintain". Those are your words. Random speculation prior to final decisions regarding the content of the various phases of construction is a useless game because costs can change based on what's going on in the economy. If you really want to have a meeting to learn more about the issue be a real person rather than an anonymous blogger, call my office, and make an appointment. I look forward to it!
- reply
|The city has had plenty of time to save up for building phase I. Is it true that the city doesn't have the money to construct the park today?
- reply
|Did you have the money to buy your entire house and furnishings for cash the day you bought it? Me neither. The City can and will Phase the project.
- reply
|This is more like buying open land and not having the money to build a house to live in. Councilman, you've had 8 years to get the money together to build the park. You've been politically fortunate up until now to have the lawsuit to hide behind. Your attitude about further delays to openning the park because you don't have the money will not fly with those people who voted for you, because they thought you would "build the park now".
- reply
|Your assumtion that there's no money to build a park proves you've never bothered to look at the City adopted budget. I have no "attitude about further delays". I want to build it now. A project of this scope in the public arena requires a public process. Create construction doc's, set parameters, make sure plans comply with applicable laws, RFQ,RFP, bid evaluation, bid award, stage, and go. And it all requires at least 3 out of 5 Council Members to vote for it. Stay tuned, there will not be any City created delays that can otherwise be avoided.
- reply
|The budget that was approved by Stocks just a few months ago states that Phase I of the park is underfunded. He does not have enough money in the budget for the park.
- reply
|Watching the clip confussed me. Was the first law suit valid and ruled against the city's actions? Aren't 90 foot lights actually planned? And didn't the city Planning Commission advise reducing the amount of fields, too, and recommend traffic mitagation The report made it sound like a couple of neighbors in Cardiff were the only ones who prefered to have more of a community park. I did not get that impression from events, facts and commentaries. True, the Quality of Life members were standard bearers, legally.
- reply
|I don't think the writer meant they did understand what was said in the interview. The questions seem valid. Can you comment on the issues rather than suggesting reviewing the tape?
- reply
|Stocks answered the question his way, why don't you answer it your way if you don't like his answer?
- reply
|I was very disappointed in Turko's "take." The Citizens for Quality of Life were not malicious. The Court initially ruled in their favor. The video clip shows the Hall Property after the City began demolition, prematurely, without including the demolition as part of the project to be investigated for the required Environmental Impact Report. Encinitas Planning Commission had determined that one field could be eliminated, and that the hours of lighting could be restricted. These are football sized fields. Most youth soccer plays on half fields. So eight games could have been played on four fields. Council, acting as "judge, jury, and executioner," had City Staff appeal it's own Planning Commission's well considered determinations. 90 foot light standards (poles) are planned. There is a problem with excessive traffic also impacted by the Scripps Expansion. I am not in the neighborhood, but I do know that with "500 parking spaces" (according to Dalager)" the playing fields take up far more than 22% of the land not dedicated to parking and access/egress. The results of the workshops were not listened to by Council. The majority of people wanted more passive use, and did not want a specialty sports park, designed as a regional sports complex. I found Turko's piece to be divisive and meanspirited. I am very grateful that this citizens group brought our attention to the contamination which was unaddressed during demolition, when kids were jumping in the wreckage, as seen in the video. All of our fees have been raised in Encinitas, including fees for remodels, or taking surf lessons, or taking a class at the Community Center. Only sports leagues, many whose members are from out of area, are exempt from having to pay for using public facilities. Even a yoga instructor teaching in a city park must charge five dollars per student per session extra, now, to cover new taxes/fees imposed by the City.
- reply
|If the video confused you, watch it over and over againuntil you get it, or call Turko directly. I don't work for Turko. But I am willing to accept that all are not of one mind on many aspect of most any project, including this one.
- reply
|Post new comment