Arrrggghhh wrote on Nov 26, 2008 6:44 PM:In the first place, it's NOT a "sports park"! It's a multi-use community park which includes sports fields, walking trals, a skate park, a dog park, and more.
In the second place, the City did an envirnmental study suitable for a smelting factory for the privilege of planting a lawn for folks to play on!

This NIMBY nonesense just sucks up more tax dollars and adds months of delay to this much needed park!

Neighbor wrote on Nov 26, 2008 7:05 PM:I insist the City spend hundreds of thousands more tax dollars on lawyers and studies before creating a green space for people to recreate!

Encinito wrote on Nov 26, 2008 10:10 PM:The article is error when it states "long divided Encinitas residents". The fact is that the overwhelming majority of Encinitas residents support the park plans, and only a handful of NIMBY's oppose it. This was reinforced with the re-election of all the incumbents, the same council voted for the project.

Hopefully the legal system will reimburse the City for all the time and effort it will be forced to spend to defend itself from this frivolous action.

Encinitas Mom of 4 wrote on Nov 27, 2008 7:58 AM:Jerome Stocks, Dan Dalager, and James Bond caused this lawsuite by trying to cram 7 huge sports fields into a dense sports complex. If they would have planned for a more balanced park that addressed Citizen issues, the park would be being built unstead of wasting our money on lawyers. Dan Dalager, Jerome Stocks and Jim Bond are bad for Encinits.

Zephon wrote on Nov 27, 2008 8:22 AM:The majority of people that live in the neighborhood surrounding this regional sports park have tried to work with the city to develop a responsible plan, one that helps mitigate the already unsafe streets and minimize the devaluation of their properties.

Reasonable changes were made to the plan by the Planning commission with input from both sides.

Stocks, Bond and Dalager did not take into consideration these changes and voted to move forward with the plan against the citizens and planning commission input.

Hence you see another lawsuit trying to protect property values and provide a safe environment for those that live here.

This is a 50-100 Million dollar regional sports park that will only help the private organization, the Encinitas Soccer League avoid paying for the soccer fields they already use in the community at schools and the YMCA.

Scale back the park!

Cardiffian wrote on Nov 27, 2008 11:38 AM:The really sad thing about thisis that the "scale the park" slogan is a sham. What the opponents want is an exclusive, passive park just for the surrounding residents. As such, a "compromise" is impossible. If this is whatthey want, they should buy the land.

glenn wrote on Nov 27, 2008 11:58 AM:The fields overlap with each other. They are not separate. If traffic was such an issue, they never should have built Cardiff Glen in the first place. It's those owners, whose traffic and impacts have been the biggest eyesore in this community, who are now the biggest whiners.

This is patently ridiculous. Here's a simple solution: Limit the time or number of days a year where lights can be used, use common sense when issuing permits for sports tournaments, etc. and save the city hundreds of thousands in wasted taxpayer dollars! BUT NO- the Cardiff Glen folks need to create phony arguments against the EIR. Give us all a a break. Encinitas is a great place to live. The park plan is a good one, and it contributes to the community.

Or maybe we want pesticide-using greehouses back??? Stop being so obviously selfish.

Best Wishes wrote on Nov 27, 2008 12:48 PM:Best wishes to this group. I grew up right around the corner and there is no way any traffic plan for such dense park development can pass muster.
Plus the lights, right next to people's homes and the noise- there is no way to mitigate that and let these people retain the value of their life's investment in their homes.

tired wrote on Nov 27, 2008 12:51 PM:Build the park! Encinitas is one of the unfriendliest cities for kids. If you want to see the results of no sports for kids, check out the gang and crime activities in Oceanside. A passive park would only attract transients and drug use and Enciniitas already has enough passive parks. Stop wasting money and let the park move forward!

Zephon wrote on Nov 27, 2008 4:10 PM:Encinitas recently received a national award for sports and recreational programs for children.

That award was for existing facilties.

North County times reported on it a few months ago but I could not find the article. Maybe somebody can post more information on it.

If there is an unfriendly aspect of this community it is that our roads are not safe.

In this community there are no sidewalks and children have to walk on the roads.

There have been six traffic fatalities in the vicinity of the Hall regional sports facility proposed.

Including one San Dieguito Academy student run over on Santa Fe right next to these fields.

Six people dead because of irresponsible growth, cut through traffic and badly designed roads that cannot handle the traffic loads we have.

pappagrande wrote on Nov 28, 2008 10:32 AM:Citizen: an inhabitant of a city or town, especially one entitled to its privileges or franchises.

By definition, a citizen is a member of a municipal community. It is unfortunate that Cardiff California has a small, minority of residents that are preoccupied with selfish interests over those of the greater community of which they claim to be concerned citizens.

The Citizens For Quality Of Life (CFGL) group that is opposing the long-awaited and much needed Hall Property development into a public park makes gross misuse of the word “citizen”. These are individuals who, for the most part, purchased homes near the Hall Property during one of two periods of time: 1) While it was an operational flower farm, or 2) While it was a piece of property that had been purchased, zoned, and approved for a community park.

So CFGL, you are telling us that neglected, broken down green houses and decades of fertilizer and ground pollutants are preferred over a well-designed park. It is ironic that you use environmental impact as an argument in your case. Up until three years ago the property looked like a nuclear bomb had hit it. You are nothing more than hypocrites trying to delay what the larger community has all ready stated that it wants by using a bureaucratic system that is a broken as one of Hall’s old greenhouses. Those of you that moved into the area at a time when the park was all ready planned, just shut up! That is as nicely as can be put. You made a decision to purchase a home. All information on future plans for the property was fully disclosed at the time of your decision.

So small minority of selfish, hypocritical NIMBY’s calling yourselves Citizens For Quality Of Life, after you are done looking in the mirror take a look out past the view from your window. There is more to a community than just you!

Grump wrote on Nov 28, 2008 12:16 PM:Build it and they will come, or in this case, build it and they will whine.

Zephon wrote on Nov 28, 2008 4:59 PM:It is not just the Hall property.

It is the development going on all around Encinitas. Citizens get involved in the planning process... only to have their input ignored. Councilman like Stocks, Bonds and Dalager ignore the Planning commission well thought out suggestions.

This not only happened at the Hall property, but the development planned for the old greenhouses on Saxony:
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2008/11/12/news/coastal/encinitas/z25036a43c3a5e47e882575000020ee0a.txt

We can include the Cardiff specific plan, Brown greenhouses almost got through if it were not for a citywide vote. And we are looking at the school district property, Pacific View, being redeveloped in such a way as that State Laws are being overlooked.

Bottom line the community needs to get together and work as one to stop irresponsible development in Encinitas.

The Hall property is just one good example.

John E wrote on Nov 30, 2008 5:51 PM:I do not live near the Hall property, but I know a few folks who do. The Planning Commission got it right when it advocated a reasonable compromise plan.

At this point, I wish the park's neighbors and the City Council would work together to limit hours of operation, lighting design, use of sound equipment, etc., instead of simply enriching a few lawyers.

Cheryl wrote on Dec 2, 2008 11:24 AM:Not everyone has kids that need all these sports parks. A LOT of people chose not to have kids and deserve just as much respect for their wants and needs. Everywhere we go, you see every park catering to the needs of kids, not the adults.
We young and old childless people deserve to also have some quite space and that is why we choose to live where we do. Not next to a sports park.
I am sure if someone looked, they can find some open space for such parks that do not infringe on anyone's right to enjoy peace and quite. Something very very hard to find anymore.

Resident wrote on Dec 2, 2008 12:00 PM:Use the time that this suit is going to consume to upgrade the road/sidewalk/bike lane infrastructure along Santa Fe Dr.. It's clear to everyone who uses the road that improvements are needed to accommodate the park (regardless of its final form), the medical/industial complex (Scripps) and the ultimate suburbanization of the Lake Drive green houses. The city needs to stop burying its head in the sand on this, and create a plan for the road to meet all of these changes safely.