Herb wrote on Aug 19, 2008 11:37 PM:sounds like a ploy to outdo the "slow growth" plan on the up coming ballot. To keep form wasting their time they should make any updates according to the slow growth plan.

I AGREE wrote on Aug 20, 2008 8:11 AM:This new Council majority is really something. Once they have been painted into a corner by the brilliant Managed Growth Initiative trump card; they are scampering all over the place to create the illusion to the citizenry that they are now "born again." General Plan supporters. In truth...what they REALLY want is to create confusion around the Nov. 4th Managed Growth Initiative (Prop. O).

In fact, they wanted absolutely nothing to do with any General Plan update responsibility when their Plan for the City Workshops were held last summer. In fact, Desmond and Martin held back nothing in their vocal matter of fact certainty that the General Plan doesn't need and will not be updated under any part of their administrative tenure. This, at a time when the public was clamoring for the Update in session after session of City Council meetings....all to an annoyed expression deaf ear and a polite "thank you, and the next speaker is..." following.

This developer infested Council is looking for more ways to funnel OUR tax money for friendly "Consultants" when a much less sophisticated group of City Council people did it on their own for when it was last updated. $1.8 Million? SAY WHAT!
Citizens of San Marcos....please join me and nip this continued effort at public deception and calculated obfuscation right in the bud...VOTE "YES" ON N+O!

logjam wrote on Aug 20, 2008 8:55 AM:They should just copy some other cities general plan. You can probably pull one off the web. It just seems like that is a lot of money.

Why now wrote on Aug 20, 2008 9:14 AM:Why is the city council of San Marcos FINALLY deciding to look into updating the General Plan. Council members and staff were very open in their complete opposition to the updating of the general plan, even though the comments and requests for updating the general plan were repeatedly made by the citizenry. The council felt the general plan was just fine the way it was - that way they could pass projects with the many general plan amendments, with the excuse that the general plan was outdated. Now, after all of the telephone surveys have been done and the initiative is on the ballot, they decide to regain some PR by talking about updating the general plan. Why now. Why not before this. The answer is - public opinion and Proposition O

Whats with I Agree wrote on Aug 20, 2008 9:21 AM:The Slow Growth initiative creators need to find some new backers than the bitter people they have writing into the NC Times. C'mon, the fastest way to get us all to blow off your initiative is to resort to negative stereotyping of Council members. We could care less about that, what we want is to know exactly what your initiative is going to do for this city....how much is it going to cost us and is it going to mean that I, as a citizen, have to waste my time reviewing every dumb construction project in the city. Cause right now, that's the message your getting out there among the citizenry and most of us are saying who has the time to do that when we are all struggling to hold onto our jobs and just pay the bills. Get a real campaign going without the mud slinging and maybe we might listen to you.

Rick wrote on Aug 20, 2008 10:18 AM:I always though the City Manager ran the show ???

To Slow Growthers wrote on Aug 20, 2008 10:54 AM:Do you want the city to follow the older general plan or update it?

TO Whats with wrote on Aug 20, 2008 11:13 AM:Seems like what I AGREE had to say struck a nerve. And in reading their information I got a heck of a lot more factual information than from your transparent, self serving, say nothing blather.

Beth wrote on Aug 20, 2008 12:57 PM:Same stuff different year.

Karl wrote on Aug 20, 2008 2:14 PM:To the person who wrote "To slow Growthers."
The idea of a good city plan is to build a place that allows pleasant living, a place for some work, and places for some shopping. San Marcos is that now, and it was done under the present plan. The people who want to change the plan are looking to make a killing here. They are developer, real estate brokers and their employees, many of whom do not live in San Marcos and are looking to rape the area. A slow growth plan is thorns in their sides. They could care less about San Marcos. If someone opens their mouth against slow growth you can bet they are one of them or are being paid to write what they do. They have a choke hold control of the City Council, the Chamber of Commerice, etc and will not let go until we rap them across the mouth with a rolled up dollar bill.

Slow Growthers..... wrote on Aug 20, 2008 2:30 PM:Seems that the self serving blather is proving a point that many Slow Growth backers don't know how to deal in a civil tone with folks. You call people names and you accuse people of trying to ruin this city because your opinions differ yet you offer not one comment about what your initiative is going to do to change the lives of people in this town. Why should we give a hoot what you think. Talk about self serving blather.

SanMarcosMom wrote on Aug 20, 2008 2:39 PM:I moved to San Marcos for the quality of life. I knew growth was going to happen. However, the type of growth that is currently happening is out of control and jeopardizes the quality of life that many of us moved here for. The majority of our councilmembers did not want to see the General Plan updated. I guess what was ok for us in the 1970's continues to be ok. Besides, when they don't agree with something, they just slip in a General Plan Amendment. I think this sudden decision to re-look at the General Plan is motivated by Council's fear that residents will approve what is termed the "Slow-Growth Initiative". In my eyes, it's more a quality of life initiative. Let us vote on projects that deviate from the GP. SM residents are not stupid. I'll take the time to look something over on-line even if I can't attend the Council meeting. But don't tell me that developing the Creek project and adding approximately 120,000 average daily trips isn't going to affect us. It's such a "pleasure" to access San Marcos Boulevard now that I can't even comprehend what it will be like with an extra 120,000 daily trips. No road upgrades or shuttles will be able to handle it. And I don't even live around the Discovery area. Poway already has passed an initiative like this as has Del Mar and other cities. They seem like pretty nice places to live. Our council has not been following our GP and has decided that Smart Growth and reliance on public transportation is the way to go. Until our public transportation rivals New York or Europe, smart growth's time is not here and our quality of life should come first.

tommy wrote on Aug 20, 2008 8:19 PM:on another nytimes article/blog, i wrote that i'd heard of a 'rumor' that the palomar station is going to make the condo buyers sign a waiver to not sue the developer and city if the residence get sick or die from the industrial park the condos will be built in...? and someone replied that actually it wasn't a rumor, but fact...

why do i bring this up again? well, for one, i'm rather shocked that here in the "peoples republik of kalifornia" a waiver like that could get pass all of environmental lawyers & judges whom live here?

also, if the project ever gets built, it's going to be a pr nightmare for the city & developer. can you imagine when the turko, or marty emerald type reporters gets their hands on a copy of the 'infamous waiver?' they will have a heyday and probably nickname the project something like "chernobyl station" or "three mile towers."

like i said in my previous post, i'm not all that in favor of managed growth type initiatives, but when a city council loses the trust of the citizens by approving such a very questionable project like palomar station, then the council shouldn't be surprised when the people take control of the situation.

Reply to tommys post wrote on Aug 20, 2008 9:47 PM:I must first state that I don't really care if Palomar, er, 'Chernobyl Station' :) ever gets built, or not? Because me, my husband and children will never live there. But, I've got to say that we are absolutely fascinated by this 'waiver' thing and how it will play out... This just might set some kind of president in California?

Has the waiver been written yet? If so, can someone post it here? How close is Palomar Station to breaking ground? When is the estimated finish date?

Sorry if some of this has been gone over before, but we're just catching wind of all this. Election year I suppose?