An “Intriguing Twist”

Jerome Stocks Jerome Stocks 21 Comments

Share

According to Logan Jenkins of the UT San Diego, Deputy Mayor Tony Kranz of Encinitas thinks turning the closed, dilapidated, but recently city purchased Pacific View school site in Encinitas into a federal detention center is an idea worth considering. It’s purpose would be to supposedly house a portion of the mass of homeless illegal/undocumented immigrants currently rushing the U.S. southern border. The same ones Escondido recently said “go away” to.

On the plus side, the city of Encinitas hasn’t firmed up its plan to finance the purchase, or it’s plans for future public use  of the site, and the feds seem to be seeking detention facilities in North County. And although it would need some dusting off and fixing up, the property is zoned correctly for governmental use as is… I wonder how his fellow Council Members and the general public of Encinitas will feel about his concept?

I guess time will tell!

Share

Comments 21

  1. Interesting article and comments, but lest we forget, here are 3 points to ponder –

    1 – don’t we have a duty to take care of our homeless and poor veterans FIRST before taking on the welfare of thousands of kids coming from everything?

    2 – In addition to standing up and complaining about the federal agenda at townhalls, should we not be a little more pro-active in stopping this federal gov’t agenda (which I am hearing is all about their getting ready for mass amnesty) Should we not be focused on replacing these rogue leaders (Obama, Biden,Boehner, McConnell, Reid,all members of the Progressive Caucus) with leaders who actually care about America’s future? .

    3 – Encinitas had signed an agreement with ICLEI to adhere to its global agenda. Escondido did not. So the Encinitas residents may not have much of a say as to what the city council decides to do.

  2. Stocks, were you part of a council majority that adhered to the ICLEI global agenda? If so, you can’t complain that the city doesn’t really have any decision-making power anymore! You gave it away to the Tri-lateralists, you pinko stooge!

    I can no longer sit back and allow ICLEI infiltration, ICLEI indoctrination, ICLEI subversion, and the international ICLEI conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

    That is all.

  3. “Harold”…

    We’re beginning to think you’re a troll, purposely posting racially inflammatory statements to embarrass conservatives and Rostra.

    You can do so much better. Or, maybe you can’t.

    We’ll repeat what we said another time, since we assume you’ll claim censorship. Your comment didn’t meet the standards of intelligent discussion. Again, you can do much better.

    Just like a newspaper, an editor gets to decide what letters appear and do not. That’s not censorship. “Censorship differs from editorial selection,” according to most credible descriptions of the term.

  4. in reply to:
    The Smiling Spotlight says:

    I thought ICLEI was a form of Gelato or maybe Sorbet?
    ——————–
    so cute . But please educate yourself on ICLEI (aka Agenda 21 signed into a soft law by Pres Bush in 1992, implemented by Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama

    2 really good websites for you to become fully aware of ICLEI and its ramifications for America and the entire world.

    http://DemocratsAgainstUNagenda21.com

    http://FreedomAdvocates.org

    Happy reading !

  5. Hey Lee,
    Great reading, but in all sincerity none of it means jack sh#t re local City a Council decisions. Most City Council members have no knowledge of this issue, and upon being informed respond… Huh?
    Get a life. This is black helicopter silliness.

  6. Lee,

    Let me see if I understand the Conservative Doctrine on the Environment:

    1. Title 24 is the wrong approach because California alone cannot affect the global environment.

    2. EPA regulations are the wrong approach because the United States alone cannot affect the global environment.

    3. ICLEI is the wrong approach because there should not be a world-wide plan to protect the environment. These decisions should be made locally.

    Did I get that right?

  7. Barry Jantz,
    I had 14 years of elected and appointed public service, and I know you had a long and distinguished elected career as well. I can honestly say that in all the staff reports I read and all the briefings I attended, which number in the thousands, not once wa this ICLEI thing referenced at all, much less as a reason to approve or not approve ANYTHING. Ever.
    If your experience was different, then my hat’s off to you and I look forward to learning about it.

    But can we get back to the topic at hand, which is that the Deputy Mayor of Encinitas, Tony Kranz, wants to explore placing federal detention facility to house homeless illegal/undocumented children at the Pacific View school site in Encinitas. There needs to be a community discussion about this, not some obscure UN thing!

  8. There’s another factor apparently no one is considering. Coastal CA property is gold. Thanks in large part to government (CA Coastal Commission, etc.), buildable coastal real estate costs 2-5 times more than inland properties.

    So riddle me this: IF Encinitas has buildable idle land, would not the city be better served by SELLING the land, or letting a developer rent/lease it at full market value? And IF the feds are willing to pay full market value for an Encinitas detention/refugee facility, is that not an egregious waste of taxpayer dollars?

    Regardless of how you stand on the immigration debate, this proposal seems to be a monumentally stoooopid idea.

  9. in response to –
    ‘the smiling spotlight’ and ‘Hypocrisy questioned’ who are unaware of ICLEI.

    this reminds me of that line in the movie ‘iRobot’ – where she says – ‘you are the dumbest smart person I know’.

    ICLEI does not want liberty-loving Americans to be aware of ICLEI until it is too late.
    But please read this 2 page flyer.- http://www.postsustainabilityinstitute.org/uploads/4/4/6/6/4466371/iclei.flyer.city.updated.pdf

    You can also talk to Pamela Bensoussan – City Council of Chula Vista (Pamela was honored by ICLEI for being one of their biggest advocates so I know she can answer your questions.)

  10. Mayor Stocks.

    I hate that I”m defending Kranz so let’s start with this; he was either stupid, negligent, or irresponsible to vote to purchase Pacific View…but he, and the three other reckless (Democratic) Council members did, encumbering Encinitas taxpayers for a generation.

    Kranz responded to Jenkins appropriately (Hmmm, let me think about it).

    If Encinitas is stuck with this wasteful purchase, because of Kranz et al, Republicans might find a way to pay for it.

    It ain’t an awful idea.

  11. Mr. Rider: I live in Encinitas and know a little about this property, as does Mr. Stocks. First, the City does not yet own the land, also known as Pacific View School. It is currently owned by the Encinitas Union School District. The school district has not used the school for many years, due to lack of enrollment. It was rented by the City of Encinitas for many years (for a dollar a year if memory serves me) to house its public works department. When the City purchased another property, public works moved into it and the school was left vacant.

    Mr. Baird, the schools district’s superintendent decided it was time to get rid of this 2.5 ocean view property and was going to auction it off to the highest bidder. It was going to be a sealed bid process. However, many developers were wary, as Prop. A passed in the City, stating that anything over 30 feet had to go to the citizens for a vote, as well as any changes in zoning must go to a vote of the citizens. The property is not zoned residential. Understandably they might not want to purchase a property and not be able to develop it. Enter the City of Encinitas and the current City Council. For reasons that I cannot explain Mr. Kranz, a current member of the Encinitas City Council, offered the district 10 million dollars for the property. The school district accepted the offer, however the City of Encinitas doesn’t have 10 million sitting in some safe, so they have to figure out a way to pay for it. That is where it stands now. I have heard the city may go for a lease revenue bond, but I cannot be sure if that information is correct. So, the city at this time does not own the land. If I have anything wrong, I expect Mr. Stocks will correct me.

  12. Tony got played by Logan. When Tony says “I’ll think about it” that means he needs time to determine what decision will benifit him politically. Tony is a major disappointment.

  13. How ironic that all those forward thinking neighbors who scared away the inevitable $12 to $14 million dollars the School District would have gotten from a bid process now may have thousands of illegal aliens sitting in their back yard instead of their Purple Unicorn delivered Arts Center!

    Can you say BACKFIRE?

  14. I can confirm that while she has left out a few nuances, Dr. Greene’s summation is not inaccurate.
    One of the nuances is that the school district by virtue of state Ed Code, has certain rights relating to rezoning a site designated as surplus (as this has been) that nobodyd else has. A lawsuit would determine what has standing, the state Ed Code, or a local Proposition. That would’ve been interesting.
    Also, the city paid 10’s of thousands of dollars for two appraisals neither of which exceeded 7.5 million dollars. The school district said for 9.5 million they would halt the auction… Kranz and his crony’s offerred 10 million, $500,000 more than the asking price. Poker player of the year award goes to Tim Baird of the EUSD.

    The City Council majority don’t have a plan of finance, don’t have a plan for future public use, and the locals that goaded them into this deal haven’t raised a dime!
    “All hat and no horse”
    Welcome to Encinitas activists in action.

  15. Hi MaryAnne:

    Many citizens thought 10 million as a bit too much, as even Mr. Baird said the starting offer was 9.5 million. However, as I mentioned above, the 2.5 acres is not zoned residential, and cannot be zoned that way unless the citizens vote for it. That was a part of Prop.A. When I asked Mr. Kranz why he offered 10 million, he said it was to stop the auction of the property, which it did. I have always wondered, as have many other citizens, if we could have gotten it for less than 10 million?

    Our City is already a bit financially extended due to a new 44 acre community park that is way over budget, and has had a lawsuit attached to it by the State because of toxic runoff into Rossini Creek that the City said would not happen. It was supposed to open by the summer, however that date has changed to November and could be changed again.

    So, I wonder how many developers would like to purchase a property, with no assurance that they could ever develop it into residential homes that would command at least million dollars, and up? I am just an ordinary citizen, but if I were a developer I would not be inclined to purchase it, knowing that I might not be able to put homes there. In fact, the City hasn’t even done a check to see if there is asbestos in the school, toxins in the dirt, etc. I would have thought they would have done that before offering the school district anything.

    There was a lot of pressure on the current council, to purchase it. It was a 3-2 vote, with Mark Muir and Kristin Kaspar voting NO, and Teresa Barth, Lisa Shaffer, and Tony Kranz voting YES on the purchase. Many residents want an art center at that location. Other want other things. So, at this time, no one knows exactly what it will look like. But before any of that happens, the City has to come up with the money. It is still owned by the School District, and the City has been given a “drop dead” date to come up with the money. If it doesn’t, it goes out to auction. At least that is my understanding. I cannot imagine how this site could house the children coming up from Central America, even if the City wanted to do it. Just my 2 cents for what it is worth.

  16. The council voted to purchase the property because the pro PV website had several hundred emails supporting that position and the three who voted for it are attempting to regain thier lost base. Although I find it discusting that the school district would sell property donated by a private citizen it is still incumbant upon the council to not get screwed on the deal. I’ll give Mr. Socks credit for standing up to the school board when he was in office.

  17. Mr. Therrio; I agree with your points. However, may I add one more point. The City Council is not going to get screwed on the deal. It is the taxpayers in this City that are going to get screwed. There was a website and a lot of people signed it for the city to purchase the property. However, most people I have spoken to did not think we would offer 10 million for a property that will probably never make us money. The City Council called it a “legacy property”. I call it something else, which I am sure would not be admissible not this blog.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *