Gridlocked San Marcos wrote on Jun 12, 2008 2:00 AM:The San Marcos Creek project is going to bring over 100,000 more vehicle trips daily to San Marcos Blvd./ Discovery Rd. area. No thanks San Marcos! I'm supporting this Growth Management initiative! We have enough "traffic stagnation" in San Marcos already! San Marcos has been saying for years the traffic is not their fault, its because of drive through traffic from the entire region. So NOW they want to bring MORE traffic, 100,000 cars per day in addition to the drive through traffic! That's outrageous! Follow the General Plan and no projects will ever have to go to the vote of the citizens. No costs at all. This report is bogus!

BS Spewers wrote on Jun 12, 2008 5:08 AM:So San Marcos thinks Escondido is strugglig after Prop. S? BS. Escondido is following it's General Plan (for once). People today don't remember the "good 'ol days" when the City Council used to take land zoned for 1 acre lots and put 4 story apartments on them.

If there is any "struggling" going on today its becasue of all the apartments built in the '80s by the pro-growthers. Let's all thank them for the congestion, crimes, crappy city appearance, etc etc. that all those profitable apartments have brought to Escondido.

What the San Marcos City Council is afraid of is LOSING IT'S POWER TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN WITHOUT VOTER APPROVAL. If a proposed change makes sense, then it will be approved by the People of San Marcos, not by the developers, realtors, Chamber of Commerce or their lapdogs the City Council.

Just Great wrote on Jun 12, 2008 6:55 AM:You NIMBY's, lead by Skovgard and Wait, are finally getting your wish. The next five months will see the NCT filled with articles painting a picture of a San Marcos that will look like downtown L.A. if this initiative isn't passed. You'll convince all the old timers living in their mobile homes and other subsidized housing to vote in favor of this garbage, leaving those of us that will call this City home for the next 10,20,30 years with a stagnant economy and the same traffic issues you hang your hats on now. A majority of this City's voters choose whom we want to determine what is right or wrong for San Marcos, yet you whiners what to circumvent them for your own selfish reasons. If you don't agree with what they are doing, work towards electing individuals to the council with the same narrow minded thinking thoughts on growth that you want to impose on the rest of us.

After build-out .... wrote on Jun 12, 2008 7:09 AM:Why all of the opposition to giving the voters a chance to weigh in on future development ? The reasons are clear. That is the LAST thing the council wants. Where would all those developers go ? We are at build-out in San Marcos so that means that almost all usable land has already been taken. Now the NEW SAN MARCOS is coming, where chunks of neighborhoods will be taken out and commercial and/or industrial will built next th your home, next to my home. The Neighborhood Protection Act has my vote. No matter how the spin-doctors create their impressions. Vote ANovember 4th. Protect your home. Protect your quality of life !

No more Business as usual wrote on Jun 12, 2008 7:16 AM:What did we all expect ? The City Council wants "Business as usual" - they do NOT have enough faith in us, their voters, to even give us a chance to chose what is right for us. Our General Plan took many years to create. Many. It needs to be updated, but that takes a long time, time we don't have. This Initiative is going to get developers and the City to follow our General Plan - or bring projects to us for approval. Is that so bad ? We have the intelligence and we have the ability to chose what is safe for us - what is good and what is bad.

Yo Skovgard and Wait wrote on Jun 12, 2008 7:45 AM:You were given every legal opportunity to have the Palomar Station project rejected but were voted down by the Council. Rather than moving on, you worked towards getting enough signatures to have an initiative put on the ballot to have Palomar Station put to a public vote. Instead you found that the citizen's of San Marcos didn't find this project to be nearly the potential blight you two thought and you were unable to secure enough names to put it on a ballot. So now you get your ultimate wish of having a slow-growth initiative - might as well call it "no-growth" if it is implemented - put on a ballot. My question to both of you is: should this initiative be turned down by the voters what will you do next to burden our city with your own personal crusade since you obviously don't abide by the mantra that "majority rules"?

Love it Love it Love It wrote on Jun 12, 2008 7:55 AM:Finally the People will get to decide their own future...not a favored few developers that don't live in San Marcos and want to ride roughshod over our established General Plan. I am SO for this Initiative. San Marcos has been infiltrated by a bunch of carpet baggers who couldn't give a damn about anything but whether or not they can make a killing at the behest of City Manager that is secretly the Mayor of this town. Vote YES on this Managed Growth Initiative!

Remember this wrote on Jun 12, 2008 8:19 AM:How is this different from slow growth? NC times may 2004 (check archives)

"I've not taken a seat on the bench, but I've gotten in there, rolled up my sleeves and been on the ground working to bring about change," Orlando said.

Orlando cofounded the grass-roots group, Citizens for the Right to Vote.

Backed by San Diego Gas & Electric Co., the organization pushed for an initiative on the November ballot that would require voter approval of any utility plan to serve future city residents.

City Council members have since reached an agreement with SDG&E in which the city agreed to abandon efforts to have the city's utility, Discovery Valley Utility, serve future customers. The agreement led to a new ballot measure that will go before voters this fall.

Beth-San Marcos wrote on Jun 12, 2008 8:31 AM:I watched the council Wed nite on cable. Looks like we have the same problem on all levels of govt. These people who work for us are running amok and do not want us to have any control over our city.

All we are asking is to build the city in accordance with our general plan.

Jack wrote on Jun 12, 2008 8:34 AM:Sorry, the damage has already been done.

Butler wrote on Jun 12, 2008 8:44 AM:If done right it would slow the growth of San Marcos to fit the slow solving of our water, energy, and illegal alien problems.
It would prevent developers from take over the city. Having slow, well planned growth on the ballot is good. Growth in housing should coincide with growth in commercial and industrial business.
Escondido is suffering from lame brain ideas trying to save "down town" and methods of rooking the residents of Escondido out of money to cover their blunders - blunder after blunder.

Don wrote on Jun 12, 2008 9:41 AM:I will support and promote the passing of this Initiative. The voters approved the Growth Plan and the voters should have the final say over exemptions to that Growth Plan.

I support the City Council in handling the regular enforcement of the General Plan. But, exemptions are in the public's hands.

I further question why a City Council is leery of Initiatives. Do they think they are superior thinkers, above the citizen?

The City Council should be neutral on citizen initiatives. They work for us, it's not the other way around.

Maybe we need some new laws to enforce City Council members to remain neutral in citizen initiatives.

I can wait to vote, "Yes" on the slow growth initiative and I expect it to pass.

Don

Palomar Station Not Included wrote on Jun 12, 2008 9:44 AM:I find it very telling that our hired City Attorney feels that the Palomar Station project doesn't fall under the mandate of this Initiative. This, in spite of the fact that it wasn't officially voted and approved until AFTER the Initiative was submitted. Her claim that "most" of the approvals were in place before the petition was submitted is absurd. You're either pregnant or you're not. It either was officially voted on and completly approved in time or it wasn't. To opine that it doesn't need to conform to the Initiative because "most" of the voting was done should be a real tip off to the voters of San Marcos as to the motives of these people. It is in that vain that I think this Initiative thing needs to be approved and they'll be getting my YES vote in November.

Better projects wrote on Jun 12, 2008 9:50 AM:Where would San Marcos be if we did NOT have Proposition R - requiring that develoers pay their own way ? Wasn't that initiative created by the people and voted into law by them ? Just imagine if developers had not been faced with complying with Proposition R. It would seem that exactly the same concerns were voiced by the developers/city then as it seems to be now. We are all still here. Projects get built. Just BETTER projects. That will be the NET result for us - better projects, more input from citizens, and when there is a problem project, the problems will need to be worked out before the project get to the voters. Is ANY of that so bad ?

Say San Marcos ... wrote on Jun 12, 2008 10:41 AM:Do you folks know how to vote? There wouldn't be any necessity to vote for such an initiative if you were as critical about whom you voted onto the Council.These guys are there to represent you, so maybe you are getting what you voted for?

. a gallon wrote on Jun 12, 2008 11:23 AM:Good to know that after you folks vote this into effect that ctizens of San Marcos will be forced to drive to other cities to shop since there is no way you NIMBY's would ever allow a Wal-Mart, Target, Costco or other large mechandiser to move into town. Think of that as your gas guage get's closer to "E".

To .a gallon wrote on Jun 12, 2008 12:46 PM:We already have a Costco and a Wal-Mart, as well as a Frys, Best Buy, Home Depot, Staples, Lowes, and numerous others. By the way, we also have another Wal-Mart, another Costco, Sam's Club, and a Target just 2 miles away, in Vista. And YES we DID STOP yet another Wal-Mart from being built - via the same initiative process. Scare tactics. Do you REALLY think that San Marcos has enough space available for EVERY store to move here, so you won't have to drive ? By the way, did you forget about the Sprinter and NCTD that can get you to your destination.

prof wrote on Jun 12, 2008 12:55 PM:Uhh.... San Marcos already has a Walmart, Costco, Best Buy, Fry's, Home Depot, Lowes, eating joints galore, Multiplex Theater, etc etc etc. Target Grande is ONE exit west. If YOU want a Walmart closer, work to get one built in YOUR neighborhood, and see how that goes. I'd mention that you could take the Sprinter to anything you may lack, but we all know that it is a HUGE BOONDOGGLE!

Say what wrote on Jun 12, 2008 1:15 PM:That's the response I'm looking for - don't build businesses that benefit this community. Just head East or West and dump your tax dollars in some other city's lap, while sitting in traffic to get there. With forward thinkers like you guys, it's no wonder our City Council gets fed up having to listen to you at meeting after meeting.

Name Three Projects wrote on Jun 12, 2008 1:36 PM:Here I go again. Will someone please name three projects that are considered "bad" that would have been subject to a public vote if this iniative existed when they were approved? I want specific examples of the "obsene" projects Ms. Patterson speaks of.

Why Needed wrote on Jun 12, 2008 1:45 PM:It's a terrible idea to have people wake up on election day and cast their votes on things they are uninformed about. Does the city council, various commissioners/task force members and city staff have their minds made up on things and have their own agendas? Yes, many of them do. This is the public's response to that. Not a good response, but it is the unfortunate result of arrogance shown by members of our city council in previous decision making.

Can I move there wrote on Jun 12, 2008 1:46 PM:Hypothetically speaking: If I owned a large manufacturing company currenly set up in Vista that has state permits to emit vapors for three different substances considered "toxic"(but the levels are considered not dangerous to humans), could I build a factory on the lot where the Palomar condos project is supposed to be build? I need more space and want to be closer to the freeway. What is it zoned for?

Skovgard Wait are my HEROS wrote on Jun 12, 2008 1:54 PM:Thank you and your organizations that got this on the ballot. Good for you two! Citizens are all behind you. We don't want San Marcos to turn into downtown "Gaslight District" of San Diego. We live here to stay out of that frantic pace of life. We want our neighborhoods protected from that chaos. Everyone I talk to supports this initiative, so don't worry, we know how this city council and their developer partners work against us citizens. It's time to put an end to it, and this initiative will do it! It's a shame we didn't get it sooner, but better late than never. There is so much more damage this city can do to us!

To Can I move there ... wrote on Jun 12, 2008 3:51 PM:In answer to your question, the Federal government has declared THAT specific land to be Critical Habitat for the Federally Endangered San Diego Fairy Shrimp. The Vernal pools have been set aside as well as the wetlands there, so I have no idea of the correct answer to your question, but the City of San Marcos probably does.

To ...my Hero pm wrote on Jun 12, 2008 4:10 PM:They ain't heroes to me, just a couple of obstructionists that will keep lawyers in business arguing their cases until the City goes broke from a lack of tax revenue. I wish they would share how they are able to muster so much free time to spend on the never nding search to bring government chosen by us all to a grinding halt.

TO my Hero pm... wrote on Jun 12, 2008 4:28 PM:It is called passion for the City of San Marcos.

I thought they were for it wrote on Jun 12, 2008 4:46 PM:Were'nt the Republicans that dominate San Marcos politics for democracy? Isn't that what the battles in Afghanistan and Iraq are all about?

What is so un-American about given the RESIDENTS the RIGHT TO VOTE on MAJOR CHANGES to THEIR CITY?

Hal Martin Economics wrote on Jun 12, 2008 9:24 PM:News Flash to Hal Martin... All city budgets are down due to the economy. Didn't you read the San Marcos budget you just approved? 1.8 Million down? Escondido would be far worse if it weren't for Prop S helping stop overbuilding. Carlsbad, Vista, Oceanside, all are having budget restraints as well and they DON'T have this initiative. You make as much sense as Rebecca Jones telling everyone at the meeting last night that when she doesn't understand something on a ballot she just votes "NO". Great thinkers we have on the council. Not. That's why staff controls these puppets. That's why we need this initiative, so level headed, clear thinking, citizens decide without developers buying their votes!

Citizens For The Right to Vote wrote on Jun 13, 2008 6:12 AM:Someone mentioned earlier the Citizens For The Right to Vote. It seems as if we have seen a particular councilman spearheading that campaign regarding the Discovery Valley Utility back in 2004, long before becoming a councilman. Interesting. It was OK for selected individuals to promote initiatives, but when those same people are on the council, it is just not appropriate for the citizens of today to have a vote. What's with that. I think we all deserve some clarification. Wasn't that initiative backed by SDG & E and funded by it to STOP us from having less expensive power ?

Oops.. wrote on Jun 13, 2008 6:43 AM:What ? If it was OK for that person to spearhead 2 different initiatives "to protect the people" , why isn't it OK for ANYONE else to promote an initiative. That is not common sense at all - and to make matters worse, today we have name-calling. That is just childish. In 2003 and 2004 it was OK - and it is STILL OK to give the people of San Marcos a vote in matters that concern their destiny, just as it was then. Maybe the council has forgotten, but we haven't.

Cold hard truth wrote on Jun 13, 2008 8:58 AM:The Council is "bought." Developers, realtors, land speculators, Chamber of Commerce, they all "buy" the Council with campaign donations, dinners, meetings, fawning at their feet, etc.

The truth of the truth is that THE COUNCIL comes from the ranks of the above mentioned.

They are not for the people. They are for a minority of the people. The "people" are just the worker ants that go about their daily lives not paying attention. It is up the the higher level ants to run things.

COME NOVEMBER wrote on Jun 13, 2008 9:28 AM:YES on the MANAGED GROWTH INITIATIVE!
YES on the RIDGELINE ORDINANCE!
NO on Re-electing Hal Martin!
NO on Electing Rebecca Jones!

COME NOVEMBER wrote on Jun 13, 2008 9:46 AM:It's going to be easy this year...

YES on the MANAGED GROWTH INITIATIVE!
YES on the RIDGELINE ORDINANCE!
NO on Re-electing Hal Martin!
NO on Electing Rebecca Jones!

Vote November th wrote on Jun 13, 2008 3:45 PM:It would be refreshing if the citizens of San Marcos were heeded. San Marcos is a well-planned city that is growing beyond build-out. That is the term for the maximum population that San Marcos or any other city can handle without a lot of problems. After we reach it, when there are no places left to be built, then they will start in our neighborhoods, breaking them apart and inserting unsuitable projects. Our General Plan was in process for years and was created to structure our city. It was followed, with few exeptions until recently, when all we see are exceptions. Those exceptions just don't fit in to neighborhoods. We can have a voice - and we have that voice right now - but we need to vote to get that choice.

Initiative is a response to Council destroying General Plan wrote on Jun 13, 2008 5:44 PM:Andrea Moss's assertion that "Activists Cynthia Skovgard and Susan Wait began circulating petitions to qualify the measure for the ballot in response to the council's approval last summer of a mixed-use development called Palomar Station." is completely false. How did this reporter come to this conclusion? Possibly by listening to the city's propaganda campaign against the initiative? This is the third time in six years Skovgard has drafted and campaigned for a Growth Management Ordinance in San Marcos, long before Palomar Station was even a thought in anyone's mind. Get the story straight before reporting untrue "facts".

To Initiative is a response to Council destroying General Plan wrote on Jun 13, 2008 10:13 PM:You need to get YOUR facts straight as well. This is NOT the 3rd time this has been drafted and campaigned for. It is the 2nd. The 1st attempt was stopped when it fell short 23 signatures after being verified by the Registrar of Voters. No campaign was held because it didn't qualify. Skovgard represents the San Marcos Chamber of Citizens, the authors of this ordinance. Citizens from every neighborhood and our sphere of influence organized, drafted, and are now campaigning to pass this ordinance Nov. 4th.

WE LOVE ESCONDIDO wrote on Jun 13, 2008 11:09 PM:Escondido is a great place to live. If you don't like it that's fine, but we citizens of Escondido have fought hard to guard our General Plan. We have more parks than you will ever have, including Daly preserve. We have our fantastic mall, auto park, wonderful neighborhoods, and we value and preserve our historical buildings. San Marcos burns them down! Our city is over 100 years old. Your's barely 50. Let's see San Marcos 50 years from now. Will you have a Prop S protecting it from overbuilding like we have? Ours has helped us tremendously over the past 10 years. We are forever greatful to the hard working citizens that placed it on our ballot and the voters who enacted it. Let's hope your voters are as smart as Escondidan's. Sure the council members, staff, Chamber of Commerce, and developers hate it. Isn't that great? God knows how much junk projects they would dump into our fine city if we didn't have Prop S to help us hold em back. Good luck to you in San Marcos; citizens can really make a difference. You CAN beat city hall!!!!!

VOTE NO wrote on Jun 14, 2008 12:24 AM:It is time to send a clear message to these people. SAVE SAN MARCOS FROM BECOMING ANOTHER ESCONDIDO.

VOTE NO ON THE STAGNATION INITIATIVE.

--SM RESIDENT

Developers Council Staff against the people wrote on Jun 14, 2008 8:51 AM:How about comparing the "plight" of San Marcos to the some of the other successful cities and counties with Growth Management. Why not say..."Save San Marcos from becoming another Newport Beach" Now there was a really intense fight. Developers were on both sides of that initiative, instead of in San Marcos, where they are lined up against this one. Why ? If they design a great project and MERELY stay within the General Plan, they don't have to face us DANGEOUS voters at all. But if they need to amend our General Plan, they need the approval of the citizens for their project. All of the good projects will pass, without a shadow of a doubt, but it is the BAD PROJECTS that will have to be modified to pass approval. What is wrong with all of that ? Give us the right to vote on those projects so that we can hope to continue to have San Marcos be the great City our prior councils envisioned, along with those that worked for so many years on our General Plan.

Fashionable wrote on Jun 14, 2008 8:58 AM:Since we are in a water crisis and an energy crisis, not to mention our economic crisis, it would seem that managing growth would not be such a bad idea. In fact, it obviously is a GREAT one for our times. Now Neighborhood Protection is ALWAYS a great idea, but this initiative will in fact protect our neighborhoods at a time when it seems fashionable to do anything but protect us. We do not want to see our neighborhoods chopped up with in-fill projects that just do not fit in. Do you want 30 - 60 foot high buildings next door or down the street from you ? I sure dont.

Highly Amused wrote on Jun 14, 2008 9:45 AM:I watched the amusing and revealing June 11th Council meeting on tv. In an effort to discredit the proponents of the Initiative and paint them as a tiny minority of malcontents, Hal Martin claimed he knows of only 3 people who object to the way the city is developing. What on earth was he thinking making an absurd remark like that when obviously he's aware that over 5,000 San Marcos voters signed the initiative petition and obviously think it's a good idea to give the people of San Marcos a chance to weigh in and vote on these more intense developments. Rebecca Jones (who sadly isn't the sharpest tool in the shed-good thing she knew how to "wash" Jim Desmond's campaign signs since apparently that was how she "qualified" for her appointment to the Council) made it clear that she thinks voters aren't up to understanding complicated decisions on development projects. To illustrate her point she admitted that when she doesn't understand ballot issues she just votes no on them! Too bad she hasn't been applying that methodology to her Council votes. A woman who spoke from the audience told Jones that she should refrain from casting ANY vote on ballot items she doesn't understand rather than voting yes or no. Perhaps Rebecca should try studying the issues before she shows up on election day. Then there was Jim Desmond who went on and on and on and on and on against the initiative making you wonder why he's so convinced that given the chance to vote, the San Marcos voters will reject all these big projects Desmond says he thinks are so great. He carried on with his well rehearsed speech about how bad the initiative is for the economy of the city, how the city will go broke but meanwhile Desmond also said (even while they are building big commercial developments like the Nordstrom shopping center), the city sales tax income dropped $2,000,000 this year! You have to wonder why, if Desmond's so worried about our city's economy, (say what you will about Lee Thibadeau, Corky Smith and Rick Gittings but the city's economy was in great shape under their administration reserves were always growing)Desmond wants to spend over $100 million borrowed dollars on "infrastructure" for the big Creek Project when the Creek dams and water channeling hasn't even been approved by the federal authorities yet. All he talked about was how much the city needs the money and taxes they'll get from all these big projects. Frankly he sounded a little desperate. But the piece d'resistance was Desmond looking into the camera imploring the voters to vote the council members out of office in November every two years if we don't like what they're doing. If course Desmond isn't up for election until 2010 but Hal Martin and Rebecca Jones are on the ballot this November so I'm sure they were thrilled with his generous offer to the voters.

Mayor is Anti-Voter wrote on Jun 14, 2008 10:04 AM:Let's ask our Mayor about the secret committee he organized 6 months ago that's still meeting secretly with developers and city officials to strategize how they can defeat this initiative. [Allegedly] Extracting promises of funding from developers so the mayor and his cronies can fight a citizen's initiative that's already been supported by more than 10% of the city's registered voters. Why is Desmond so afraid of the voters? This isn't the first time he's refused to give citizens free choice at the ballot box-remember the Rebecca Jones appointment? Jones who told all at the last Council meeting that she votes "no" on election items she doesn't understand, wasn't appointed to the Council for her tremendous intellect she was the mayor's answer to letting the voters decide who they wanted on their council, or is it HIS council? hmmm...

City and Developers in Cahoots wrote on Jun 14, 2008 10:58 AM:I've been called on the phone twice now to answer a survey about this initiative. Somebody is paying for these aren't they? Who is it? They always want to know if I'd listen to Jim Desmond. Las time they wanted to know if I'd listen to Corky Smith, this time they wanted to know if I'd listen to the mayor of Escondido!! They asked me if I was going to votw for the initiative and said some negative things about it that made no sense. If the city is using our taxes to pay for this kind of rubbish they have a lot of nerve. If the Council is talking developers into paying for these surveys and they're doing it they must be thinking they'll get some special treatment or favors from the mayor and council. I don't approve of a Council that joins with developers to fight against a voter initiative. It smells bad.

SanMarcosMom wrote on Jun 14, 2008 9:55 PM:Everyone I talk to thinks the City is not headed in the right direction. Add on this shopping plaza and that development! Just keep adding density, increasing traffic and decreasing quality of life. It will be interesting to see what the city majority thinks about this initiative because, obviously, the city council is only talking to those who agree with them. There's a whole different component out there, councilmembers. Take heed.

ITS GOING TO BE FUGLY wrote on Jun 17, 2008 11:22 AM:After reading the City's Initiative Report I came away thinking that you could have bet your hat that everything including the kitchen sink would be included in this "dire" financial impact forecast. This, in spite of the fact that most of the laundry list turns out to be a blatant violation of our established General Plan. But I guess as long as they're painting a dire forecast, they had to make sure to count as "money lost" even the most vague of developer pipe dreams. Right? Isn't that how to properly portray the impact in the launching of an effective smear campaign?
The Mayor and his three lemmings certainly weren't going to summarily pass the Initiative...hoping that between now and the November election that a developer-paid hired gun professional media manipulation team can do a thorough enough smear campaign to vilify anything and everyone connected with this Initiative. Any inclination of having a "one man one vote" say as to whether or not SEVEN story buildings are what the citizenry really wants in a Creek Project is abhorrent to these politically beholden Four. How else are they going to "pay back" those pre-election campaign "loans"?
Also, as honest citizens, do we really want to have people being forced to sign a health warning waiver at closing because this Group of Four chose to sellout to a favorite developer in putting the Palomar Station condos smack dab next to a chemical factory? I think not. Bring on the smear campaign. Bring on the phony billion dollar loss claims. But most of all....BRING ON THE MANAGED GROWTH INITIATIVE.
VOTE YES IN NOVEMBER!

San Marcos Parent wrote on Jun 17, 2008 6:13 PM:This city council is pushing the city in a direction that is completely different than what most of us expected and wanted when we moved here. We didn't move here for the shopping, or "night life" or "downtown" gaslight-like atmosphere or the increasing taxes the city would get from building high-rises. We moved here because it was a good, wholesome place to live and raise a family with lots of parks, spacious, not over-run with traffic, with nice neighborhoods with affordable home values. Jim Desmond and Hal Martin may think that lots of bars and drinking hot spots are what makes the world go round but they're not. This council is so out of touch. They want to completely dismantle the plan for this city that was approved by the neighborhoods and has been in place for many years and convert it into a high-rise, shopping district traffic nightmare where things are approved based on how much money they'll bring in to developers the city government not what's good for our families. Our schools are overcrowded now, we don't need thousands of apartments and condos adding to the problem.

I will vote for the initiative wrote on Jun 19, 2008 5:11 AM:I will vote for the initiative because the city council just doesn't listen to regular people and this initiative gives us a chance to make ourselves heard over the big influential voices of developers who charm (or entice) the council into approving their bad projects. We have at least two council members who have declared bankruptcy, one who is the spokesman for one of the most unethical subprime mortgage lenders that's seeking a taxpayer bailout for itself after it cheated and lied on federal loans, we have another one who is grossly inexperienced and was appointed to be a yes-man by the politicians she helped raise campaign money for and told the newspaper she thought it was asking a lot for her to actually run for office. We have a mayor who isn't above breaking the rules, making back-room deals, or twisting the facts when it suits him. They may have their good points too but I'm frankly not that comfortable with these 5 people having all the power to make drastic changes to our city's general plan especually when it means millions to influential developers without the public having a real say. If you own a home in San Marcos you should protect it and vote yes.

Im Voting Yes TOO wrote on Jun 19, 2008 7:14 PM:I live in Discovery Hills and I really am appalled by the new "Downtown" project they want to impose upon my neighborhood. When I moved here, I was never told that such a massive project was going to be adding all that traffic on the roads to my home! Over 100,000 more cars on those already gridlocked streets? I didn't plan that my "quality of life" would amount to being stuck in traffic for hours just trying to reach my expensive home! I'm glad we will haves the chance to vote this project down. It needs to be downsized to something more reasonable. This council is dead wrong to approve this mess. My neighborhood is voting Yes. All neighborhoods need to Vote Yes too!

RE I WILL VOTE... wrote on Jun 19, 2008 9:52 PM:1) Who are the two councilmembers that declared bankruptcy?!?

2) Who is the council member that is the spokesman for the most unethical mortgage lender? And who is that mortgage lender?

3)We already know the one who is grossly under experienced and her apointer "backroom Desmond."

Smitty wrote on Jun 19, 2008 10:13 PM:How ironic that this San Marcos council (and mayor) majority, road into office on the blood, sweat & tears of the San Marcos, Carlsbad and county citizens, who fought for their lives, stopping that Wal-Mart travesty at RSF road and Melrose. Now this council is doing the exact same thing, under the guise that the 'old council' had their heads up thar cabooses. They now belive that they are all knowing and know exactly what is best for you, the stupid citizens... So just go away, do something else, stop looking over their shoulders and MIND YOUR OWN BEESWAX!

Not! We've had enough backroom dealings in San Marcos, to make even a Chicagoan's head spin.

George wrote on Jun 20, 2008 8:46 AM:Hey Smitty, did you know that Jim Desmond is from the Chicago-land area...It now makes sense, it's in his blood.

Re I will vote wrote on Jun 20, 2008 3:12 PM:Just goggle "Ameriquest Spokesman" and you will get one answer. I know the one BK but not the other. ?

Eye-Opener wrote on Jun 21, 2008 10:13 AM:It's not surprising that they all have checkered histories but some apparently far more than others. Their campaign financial reports really make you think especially about the new guys who got such a huge percentage of their big campaign war chests from people who live in other cities and states. Then there's the councilman whose financial reports show thousands of dollars disappeared with no explanation of where they went despite requirements to report every expenditure and contribution. Bankruptcies are public records so it can't be too hard to figure out who's declared bankruptcy. I guess the point is that we all want to believe that these pillars of the community deserve our complete trust but I think we're better off relying on ourselves and making sure we preserve the ability to protect our own interests rather than cross our fingers and hope for the best with this somewhat ragtaggle collection of ambitious politicians.