can_I_get_a_witness wrote on Jul 30, 2008 5:48 PM:People, can't you see that the city has outgrown it's small town local leaders?
Kudos to Mr. Gene Chapo for saying what has needed to be said.
I don't think anyone wants Encinitas to turn into Pacific Beach but we're on track if our council members keep voting for their developers friends.
We need to VOTE for leaders that our city's best interest in mind.
Too bad the school district wasn't upfront about their intentions.

Republican for justice wrote on Jul 30, 2008 8:49 PM:Vote out the Councilmembers supported by developers and employee unions. Vote out Jerome Stocks

BOO wrote on Jul 30, 2008 9:18 PM:This has been an issue for a while. The community near the school should speak up--they didn't want to see the school go, and would most likely want to beautify that area with something other than condos and office buildings. Why should developers get first pick on this beautiful PUBLIC property with an exceptional ocean view ? Why can't the public decide what to do with public property?? Were YOU (fellow Encinitas resident) asked?

Public Hearing wrote on Jul 30, 2008 9:31 PM:So Maggie, Jerome ... when are you going to hold a public hearing on the Naylor Act, to see if it applies? It will have to be before Sept 18, right?

Naylor Act wrote on Jul 30, 2008 9:34 PM:"selling the property outright would not be in the best interests of the school district".
But it IS in the interests of the citizens of Encinitas - which is why the Naylor Act was created in the first place.

Surplus or not wrote on Jul 30, 2008 9:39 PM:How can the District possibly NOT designate this property as surplus? It's obivously surplus being as kids haven't gone to school there in over 5 years. How can these people get away with trying to circumvent (break?) the law this way?

CA Education Code wrote on Jul 30, 2008 9:44 PM:CA ED CODE 17387
This community involvement should facilitate making the best possible judgments about the use of excess school facilities in each individual situation. It is the intent of the Legislature to have the community involved before decisions are made about school closure or the use of surplus space, thus avoiding community conflict and assuring building use that is compatible with the community's needs and desires.

Doesn't this just say it all?

Good Faith wrote on Jul 30, 2008 9:46 PM:"If they (the district) were acting in good faith"
Since when did EUSD ever do anything in good faith?

year rent wrote on Jul 30, 2008 9:48 PM:So let's see if we've got this correct ... Encinitas City rented the PV site for $1/year for 3 years, but no one ever pointed out to them that perhaps they could purchase it? Something doesn't add up here.

wrote on Jul 30, 2008 9:58 PM:Doesn't EUSD have a policy that any work / consultants hired have to go out to bid? If so, then how come, all of the consultants working on this on behalf of EUSD have been hired through one company and not directly through EUSD? And how much are they all being paid?

Misleading leaders wrote on Jul 30, 2008 10:03 PM:King: "We have been communicating this all along. There's nothing secretive about it."

Jerome: "If the district were acting in good faith, it should have been disclosed. It is disappointing."

Someone's not telling the truth here? Which one of our leaders is mis-leading us?

CA ED CODE wrote on Jul 30, 2008 10:06 PM:17388. The governing board of each school district, prior to the sale, lease, or rental of any excess real property, shall appoint a district advisory committee to advise the governing board in the development of district wide policies and procedures governing the use or disposition of school buildings which is not needed for school purposes.
17390. The school district advisory committee shall:
(a) Review the projected school enrollment to determine the amount of surplus space and real property.
(b) Establish a priority list of use of surplus space and real property that will be acceptable to the community.
(c) Circulate throughout the attendance area a list of surplus space and real property and provide for hearings of community input to the committee on acceptable uses of space and real property, including for child care development purposes.
(d) Make a final determination of limits of tolerance of use of space and real property.
(e) Forward to the district governing board a report recommending uses of surplus space and real property.

To BOO wrote on Jul 30, 2008 10:20 PM:You ask "Why can't the public decide what to do with public property??"
That's the whole issue here. The public CAN and SHOULD have been the ones deciding, if our public officials had been following the law.

Fishing for the truth wrote on Jul 30, 2008 10:25 PM:Okay here is what I know and I understand from my research.

It may be SNEAKY...on the districts part... but according to Education Code 17536-17538 (condensed) The district can exchange the property with a person or private business without complying to any other provisions of the education code.

Here is the one part of the law they haven't done according to what I understand:

The Governing Board by 2/3 vote must adopt a resolution of the intent to exchange the property. THE RESOLUTION (#11-0708) MUST IDENTIFY THE PROPERTIES and the terms and conditions, not including price, upon which they will be exchanged.

They should NOT have passed the Resolution unless they had real terms and conditions regarding the exchange with the Developer.

The District has never identified the property they will receive in exchange for our 2.8 acre site. Also, not sure if they can exchange the property if it isn't deemed surplus...can anyone answer that question?

Lots of reasons to continue fishing...

To Fishing wrote on Jul 30, 2008 10:29 PM:Another questionable part of this is how much money the District has spent so far? According to public documents it's over $409,000. In addition, it gets very confusing because the Superintendent TOLD THE PUBLIC THE DEVELOPER WOULD TAKE OVER AND PAY FOR THE RE-ZONE.

See Resolution # 11-0708. The District (taxpayers and our chidrens education) is writing all the checks. I also take issue with their Consultant(s)and who's paying all of their invoices, not to mention...where are all the RFPs (request for proposals) for all those Consultants? RFP consultant issues should have all been brought before the Board for approval.

To Misleading leaders wrote on Jul 30, 2008 10:32 PM:Hands down...KING. Just ask around the community.

Questions wrote on Jul 30, 2008 10:45 PM:Which public documents reveal the $$ amounts - I'd love to see them. Do you ask EUSD or the City? Can you just ask to see invoices?
I'm don't doubt King told the public the developer would take over, but no developer is going to touch this until AFTER the re-zone goes through.
Lastly, can someone clarify the "RFP" issue - not sure I get it?

Its worth a dollar...at this point wrote on Jul 30, 2008 10:46 PM:The Superintendent/EUSD Board just got a hard lesson in "Real Estate Development 101". They got smacked last Thursday by the general public and the Planning Commission. Now,they disenfranchise our Mayor and the City Council who ultimately decide on the zone change/amendments (fate).
Lets see if I got this right. It's a NO from the Citizens of Encinitas. It's a NO from the Planning Commission. It's a NO from the City Council. It's time to put up the "FOR SALE" sign. Sell it to the City of Encinitas for $1...because that's all it's worth at this point.

EUSD/Superintendent...what were you thinking????

To to Fishing wrote on Jul 30, 2008 10:56 PM:WOW!!!$409K on a RISKY venture...
I encourage you all to attend the EUSD Board meeting on Aug 19, 2008 and start demanding some serious answers about questionable accountability/transparency and demand they stop wasting our tax dollars. Maybe this Board should step down and Superintendent King resign. This is a disgrace to all taxpayers of Encinitas.

to accented miss wrote on Jul 30, 2008 10:59 PM:Hey tipster, you're trying so hard to get attention. you know it as well as the city people that what EUSD is doing is not illegal. Don't you nothing else to do other than posting so many times under many names. ...

NO REZONE wrote on Jul 30, 2008 11:03 PM:This property doesn't require a zone change. This is EUSD's big dream to create more value so they can "exchange" for new administative offices. This has nothing to do with our kids being put first. If it ever did happen (and it won't), that money will be chewed up by administrators before it ever trickles down to the kids. This is pie in the sky dreaming.
You don't need to "re-zone" a property that is zoned Public/Semi-Public when the general public wants a Public Park. The current zoning is perfect. Are you listening City Council?

Nice Try King wrote on Jul 30, 2008 11:03 PM:King was SURPRISED the Planning Commission didn't send his re-zone to Council for approval??? Yet, he couldn't get any developer to foot the bill for the re-zone. That didn't send up any red flags to King that the re-zone was RISKY business??? He didn't get to pull a fast one on the TAXPAYERS. We all want input not just the 500 ft of neighbors they sent it out to...there is so much potential for our community! We don't have public green space downtown for public use. By the way King... it's definitely surplus...it's been closed for 5 years!

Time to Sell wrote on Jul 30, 2008 11:11 PM:Hey King...sell it to the City...it's over...give it up so that the taxpayers can actually get some benefit from the site (which is the spirit of the Naylor Act)...or will it sit there another 5 years while you come up with another brilliant scheme that the taxpayers can pay for?

EUSD its over.... wrote on Jul 31, 2008 6:41 AM:Somebody needs to take away EUSD's checkbook...give us a break...$409K on Consultants so far! This madness needs to STOP. The District would have had more luck going to Vegas and gambling than trying to get 3 zone/amendment changes through the City (and Coastal Commission).
Last Thursday the Planning Commission basically told them to throw that plan in the trash can.

EUSD come back with a plan for a Public Park because if you don't....it's over

Randy wrote on Jul 31, 2008 6:53 AM:EUSD violated the spirit and intent, if not the letter, of the law. Any EUSD board member up for re-election should be voted out of office.

The Taxpayers decide wrote on Jul 31, 2008 6:54 AM:There are many groups in the Encinitas community who are up in arms about what EUSD is trying to do. Our message will be sent out to EUSD, Planning Commission, City Council and the Media. This is the taxpayer's property and we decide collectively what happens to our public asset...not just the immediate neighbors, DEMA and the Historical Society.

I encourage all other residents of Encinitas to speak out to all of our elected and appointed officials and tell them you want Pacific View Elementary school site to be saved for the general public...

Say NO to rezoning and private development!

Russ wrote on Jul 31, 2008 6:58 AM:I agree with Nanninga, Schoolhouse Historic Park is the answer.

Beth wrote on Jul 31, 2008 7:24 AM:King- Sell the property to the City. Both EUSD and the City can not afford yet another law suite.

Chuck D. wrote on Jul 31, 2008 8:12 AM:Schoolhouse Historic Park. I like the sound of that.

Mary wrote on Jul 31, 2008 8:13 AM:I'm not surprised - the EUSD board has always lacked real leadership - rubber stamps whatever the Superintendent recommends.
Elected officials on both sides weren't paying attention.

esteban wrote on Jul 31, 2008 8:36 AM:Sounds like they are working around the law that would prevent this from happening. Sounds like the law needs to be adjusted to fix this work around.

Ann wrote on Jul 31, 2008 8:58 AM:And on top of it all, the Board gets ocean view offices for themselves. Always thinking of the children, aren't they?

Zephon wrote on Jul 31, 2008 9:35 AM:It is so good to see that Encinitas citizens are getting up on this re-zoning plan and end around on our rights to purchase this property first related to the Naylor Act.

Simple, don't rezone this school property, currently zoned as public space,to become offices and condos - make it a desperately needed park in old downtown Encinitas.

Encinitas wrote on Jul 31, 2008 9:49 AM:Shouldn't the attorneys on both sides of this have be aware of the Naylor Act? From what I've read the EUSD attorney was trying to do an end run around the city. Where was our city attorney in all of this (after all it's his job to know the law and educate the council members)? Is this individual full time on the city payroll, or is it a part timer? Isn't this the same indivdual who told the city that they didn't need to do an EIR for the Hall property park?

I'm with poster #1. We need an upgrade in the quality of our city government at many levels. This is a real disappointment, and as others have said, $$$ have been wasted that could have been used for our kids instead.

Like Slavering Dogs wrote on Jul 31, 2008 10:03 AM:You TIPsters are "fishing" alright, but not for "the truth." You're vindictiveness is palpable. You appear to be exacting revenge on the school district for taking away your charter (NOW you care about taxpayers, the law, transparency?--the very charges against TIP).

Are you about the children? Or are you about anger, egos, and ambition to get TIPsters on the school board?

fraud wrote on Jul 31, 2008 10:19 AM:What King has done is a fraud -- he is trying to get around the clear intent of the law -- if there is surplus property it has to offered to the City. So, he decides not to call it surplus and use our money to fund his cockeyed scheme to get new adminstrative office buildings. Pacific View was deeded to the City for public use -- isn't that a condition on the deed? EUSD needs to put back that $400k spent on this boondoogle -- no wonder our school district is imploding with this kind of stupid spending. And Chapo's dream of an "urban city" by the beach is NOT the same dream most of us have for a "vibrant beach town."

Wasted Money wrote on Jul 31, 2008 12:00 PM:The "consultants" fee could pay for school repairs, supplies, computers and other school related needs. Teachers are being laid off, school classroom size is being increased and the pockets of thieves in school administration are being filled. The problem, this elementary school is on million dollar ocean view property. I am sure the EUSD would not push so hard for developement at Flora Vista Elementary if it was closed because there is no ocean view.

Mr. Originality wrote on Jul 31, 2008 1:37 PM:Like Slavering Dogs[-] wrote on Jul 31, 2008 10:03 AM:You TIPsters are "fishing" alright, but not for "the truth." You're vindictiveness is palpable. You appear to be exacting revenge on the school district for taking away your charter (NOW you care about taxpayers, the law, transparency?--the very charges against TIP).

Can't see the forest for the trees eh? Get clue already. You sound like Lean himself. There are many many more non-TIP parents concerned about Mr. King's actions than there are TIP parents. Your attempts to deflect from the real issue are lame and very transparent.

It matters not who the messenger is, but it can be interesting when the shoe is placed on the other foot.

To The Slavering Dog wrote on Jul 31, 2008 2:12 PM:TIPsters on the School Board - is one of them standing? Who?

Preserve Public Education wrote on Jul 31, 2008 3:53 PM:First, a simple reading of the Naylor Act (Education Code Section 17485) makes it clear it does not apply to the proposed exchange. Per the Act, it applies only if the subject property "has been used for school playground, playing field, or other outdoor recreation purposes" for at least eight years. The site has been used for the last several years exclusively for storage purposes. Also, the Act applies only to a lease or sale by the district, not an exchange as proposed. I suggest that those of you who claim the Act applies (like our ignorant mayor Stocks) simply read the Act. Even Stocks could comprehend it if he were to read it.

Second, and more important, the proposed exchange is for the purpose of generating more funding for our schools, and thus for the education of our children. Unlike commercial projects approved by the planning commission and city council throughout Encinitas, the district is not out to just to make a buck. In light of the substantial cutback of funds by Sacramento, our schools are desperately in need of funding to fill the gap.

Third, Commissioner Chapo asserts that "Downtown is getting more and more dense" as his reason for presumably opposing the exchange. This is the same guy who a few weeks ago approved, along with the rest of the Planning Commission, and the City Council, the construction of a new 24 hour Walgreens at the most congested and gridlocked intersection of the city (El Camino Real and Encinitas Blvd.)resulting in a net increase of almost 1000 automobile trips per day to the intersection. What hypocrisy.

Folks, this project directly affects the future of public education in Encinitas. Don't be fooled by empty-headed and ignorant rhetoric from the officials of the City of Encinitas.

To Preserve Public Education wrote on Jul 31, 2008 6:11 PM:You might want to dig a little deeper into the self serving and mismanagement of your "Public Educators" regarding Pacific View Commons. Read into the law (Education Code) about what the District is to disclose in this "exchange". In case you don't have it handy, here's what it says:

"The Resolution intent to exchange must identify the properties and the terms and conditions, not including price, upon which they will be exchanged"

Resolution 11-0708 adopted by EUSD Board on 12/11/2007 does not identify the property they will get, nor any term and conditions of the exchange.
WOW...what's going on???? Sounds suspect....
Maybe you should call King and the Board and ask them why they didn't follow the mandate of the law.

Common Good wrote on Jul 31, 2008 7:37 PM:Business wise,I would be sorely disappointed in EUSD if they sold a significant asset for 25% of its worth unless they absolutely had to. Since it appears they aren't subject to the Naylor Act, as Preserve pointed out, why should they? To appease a few disgruntled TIP people and a handful of neighbors? No way.

All this for a park that a very small % of Encinitas residents might use?? Most of Encinitas is east of I-5 last time I checked! Lets see how the neighbors like it when the skateboarders and duggies gather at the park.

To Preserve Public Education wrote on Jul 31, 2008 7:53 PM:You have been fooled by the empty-headed, ignorant rhetoric of the officials at EUSD.

Tell us all how and when the District will actually give money back to the kids. I'd love to have some answers. At this point they have spent a lot of our money and don't have squat to show for it. Do you know what piece of property we are getting in exchange for the 2.8 acres next to the ocean? And what kind of revenues this property will generate? Why did they enter into this "potential, potential, potential" Resolution?

Maybe you can find out the answers! In the meantime we are going to focus on NO MORE SPENDING until something concrete demonstrated...something that proves to the taxpayers the property will benefit the community or specifically the children, financially or otherwise, instead of this mindless spending.

To Common Good wrote on Jul 31, 2008 8:42 PM:I guess you don't get out much. You can stay East of the 5 while the rest of us responsible citizens enjoy life. Wonderful beach cities have spots for ALL (for the young to the wise) people to hang out. Try getting out a bit like Manhattan Beach, Newport Beach, Laguna Beach, etc.

Tony Hawk is a skateboarder, does that make him a druggie? There are plenty of contributing citizens around our community who happen like skateboarding.

Does Kings "exchange" guarantee more than a 25% return? Show me the money! I bet some "real" thinkers could come up with a way to generate revenue for EUSD or the City by just keeping the same zoning in addition to giving back to our community at the same time.

What are you talking about, TIP people? That has nothing to do with this. My kids are all grown up. They happen to like skateboarding and all three graduated from college without doings drugs. I guess that just blew your narrow minded theory!

To Common Good wrote on Jul 31, 2008 11:51 PM:I skateboard.
I don't do drugs, never have.
I have Elementary school kids.
Whenever we go to the Moonlight Beach Park, it is always FULL of kids - way busier than any other Encinitas Park we go to - doesn't look like a small % to me.
I do not live in the PV neighbourhood.
I feel bad for the TIP people to see a school they clearly love close down, but they got what they deserve for not keeping their crooked administartion under controll.
All to say, I have no agenda - I just think kids don't need half a PE lesson extra once a month (or whatevr the $$ will go to) ... kids need open spaces in this city. Lots of them.

ATTEND THE MEETING wrote on Aug 1, 2008 9:31 AM:Speak out--this would be a terrible abuse by elected officials (King unfortunately isn't voted in by Encinitas residents). ATTEND THE MEETING ON AUGUST 19th. It's all about making money, not the good of the community.

To ATTEND THE MEETING wrote on Aug 1, 2008 10:45 AM:Pacific View isn't about making money unless you mean funding music and PE programs that our community's school children would receive with the profits.

You're confusing this with TIP's administration, THAT was about pocketing profits by setting up their own education company paid for by taxpayers, and hiring their own family members at salaries they set.

Tippy Tipsters wrote on Aug 1, 2008 2:55 PM:Yes, how dare the district try and raise money thru a property for the district and the children. It is much better to just give it away to charter school administrators. Who is going to bring the free pudding and Kool Aid for the Tipsters at the PV meeting?

PS Why don't you just home school your children if you are so unhappy?

Why so Silent wrote on Aug 1, 2008 11:12 PM:Why has the Encinitas School Board been so silent on the issue. Not a peep from any of them. If there was no wrong doing they would be making quotes in all the newspapers. Makes me wonder. How about you?

If the King is smart wrote on Aug 2, 2008 12:24 AM:If King is smart, he will withdraw his project and start over by working with the community instead of telling the community what we want. If I were him, and I'm glad I'm not in his situation, I would try to keep the EUSD board out of this mess until after the November elections. Don't want this to become an election issue. Oh wait, wih an 18 month severance package just approved, who cares what they think.

To Why So Silent wrote on Aug 2, 2008 1:13 AM:What are you talking about? Dr. King is quoted extensively in the very article above.

Why are you trying to twist this issue to look identical to the TIP debacle, complete with making the same arguments (such as this) despite the fact that they don't fit or even closely apply?

Alma Matter wrote on Aug 2, 2008 4:09 AM:They say there are not as may kids around as there used to be, and that's why they're willing to close Pacific View School. How convenient. I say EUSD as a golden egg of ocean view property downtown and will sacrifice the education and recreation benifits PV has supplied to this commmunity for over 50 years for the millions they will squander eventually.

To To Why So Silent wrote on Aug 2, 2008 8:47 AM:It's easy to find flaws in others when your own flaws are even worse. It takes one to know one...

To Alma Matter wrote on Aug 2, 2008 8:52 AM:It is well-documented that elementary school enrollment has been dropping continuously for numerous years. The pattern is reflected in similar declining numbers in middle school and now the same thing is showing up in high school enrollment. A lot has to do with Baby Boomers kids aging and moving out of the school system.

You speak of the "golden egg of ocean view property" as if EUSD was profiting personally. Their actions are to do what's best for the schools and children of Encinitas, not their own pockets.

You're confusing this situation (purposefully? vengefully?) with TIP, where EUSD moved to close down the charter school because it's leaders personally profited--i.e. the funds went directly into their pockets. This is entirely a different situation, despite your repeated attempts to confuse the public and make them equitable. They are not.

To To why so silent wrote on Aug 2, 2008 9:34 AM:Can you read?
"Why so silent" asked why has the Encinitas School Board been so silent, NOT Dr. King. Last time I checked Dr. King is NOT on the school Board.

YOU are the one twisting the question?

So, why haven't we heard ANYTHING from Cathy, Bill, Shannon, Marla or Carol? Let's hear what they have to say. Perhaps they could even go to one of these meetings and listen to the community input before pushing this through.

Simple Question wrote on Aug 2, 2008 9:53 AM:This all seems to boil down to one question. Regardless of the law (though I'd like to know if any have been broken), EUSD is sitting on property potentially worth a lot of money. So, what is in the best interests of the children of Encinitas in terms of how they now dispose of this property? Either, they can work with the City/community to create a site that will be of value to everyone (park, auditorium, art center, etc), or just take as much money as they can and spend it on building improvements at their existing schools (the only thing, by law, that they can spend the money on). Personally, I'd rather the kids had an extra community asset (there are way too few in Encinitas as it is) than having upgrades to their classrooms. In 20 years they won't remember that their 4th grade classroom was a trailer rather than a permanent structure, but they will remember the fun times spent at the park? Or am I missing something? Anyone else?

TO TO Alma Mater wrote on Aug 2, 2008 10:49 AM:King is acting like EUSD's money belongs to him...if you would get off this TIP thing and do some research you might understand what the rest of us...non Tippers by the way... are talking about! If you can explain to me how and when EUSD will actually get money back to our schools then I'll listen to you.

This re-zone ain't gonna happen based on where they are right now. EUSD has spent somewhere between $400-500 thousand dollars, it's a FACT(ask for the public documents from EUSD) over the past two years on consultants and to the city for the zoning changes. From what we can tell there were never even RFP's (request for proposals) sent out. This means that they "cherry picked" their consultants...no competitive bidding so the tax payers potentially paid the highest dollars for the many, many consultants. No RFP's means they broke the bylaws/codes. Do you realize that the $400-500 hundred thousand that was spent could be a total waste. Talk to a developer who does this for a living and have them explain this whole process.

Then when your done with that... see if you can prove to the rest of us when and how King planned to get the money back to the facilities. Right now he's negative $400+ and counting. The "potential" exchange is going to have to be one heck of a piece of property to bring our district back to the black on this one...not to mention the possible violations that may occurred on this venture. I'd do your own reading/research and see if you still think the same way.

EUSD schools need money and there has to be a way to keep the zoning the same, not turn it into "private" development, keep green area for our community and still find a way that the district profits. If King had really to put this out to the entire community and asked for suggestions...I'm sure we have some incredibly creative people who could have come up with something more concrete and beneficial to the students and everyone else too.

Felix wrote on Aug 2, 2008 3:03 PM:Beware of projections forwarded by EUSD. In 1993, EUSD produced an 'expert' who told the city council that the new homes proposed by the Ecke family would generate so many new school-age children that a new school would have to be built and they forced the Ecke's politically into forking over a giant piece of property on Quail Garden's Drive.

The expert predictions were completely backwards and the school district and the census of school-age children has plummeted, yet EUSD has kept the property as an asset worth several million dollars.

As the 'expert' projections were completely unfounded; arent the trustees of EUSD morally and ethically required to return the expensive acreage?

simple math wrote on Aug 2, 2008 4:20 PM:Between the accented miss and Dan, I counted 26 posts. What's your guess? Tippies, start packing!

Dear Lean King wrote on Aug 7, 2008 11:57 PM:Hey Lean,

Start deleting emails now, Bob is on your tail. Good luck he is very persistent and puts up a good fight just like yourself. Might want to just withdraw your project until things settle down a bit. If you just sit on it like the Quail Gardens School Site for maybe 10 or 20 years people may let you eventually build on it.

rebecca wrote on Aug 13, 2008 3:49 PM:Did anyone read the letter from the encinitas resident Taylor. I agree with everything she said. One thing I did not see mentioned in these comments that the letter writer mentioned, is a possible violation of the Brown Act by both the City Council and the School Board. The School Board is also obligated to disclose all of this information. What needs to happen:
Turn Pacific View into a park. Fired the City Attorney(for incompetence,) if he did not inform the City Council of the Naylor Act or impeach this city council and charge them with viloating the Brown Act.

Dear Lean King wrote on Aug 22, 2008 12:37 PM:I see you took my advice and are withdrawing your project. You are a wise man despite what I hear to the contrary. One other word of advise, don't upset city council members with quotes about their incompetence. Not a good idea to bite the hand that will be feeding you and your board.