The City Council claims Prop B creates very complex and unsolvable problems that will completely tie the City’s hands.
THAT IS NOT TRUE. In fact, Prop B makes things VERY simple for the City. Prop B only requires the City Council to create a policy using existing City law and therefore gives the City all the powers to protect health and safety it now has. The City Council KNOWS that, but says the opposite.
Prop B is a proposal to “max out” the use of the Community Center.
THAT IS NOT TRUE. Prop B is nothing more than current law applied to the Community Center. Prop B does nothing more than apply existing city and state law to the use of the Center. ALL specifics of use are up to the City through the permit process.
The City Council will not be able to protect the “health and safety” of Solana Beach citizens with regard to the community center if Prop B passes.
THAT IS NOT TRUE. Under Prop B the City Council has all the power it currently has to protect the health and safety of Solana Beach citizens.
The “compromise policy” is a fair way to manage the use of the Community Center.
The BEST description of the City’s so-called “compromise” policy is the “no-use” policy.
Then what is the so-called “compromise” policy?
The Council’s so-called “policy” is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to prevent use of the Community Center. There are so many burdensome restrictions that there has only been one permit applied for in the more than three months the City’s “no-use” policy has been in place.
The Community Center was closed down because of wild parties.
Since City incorporation in 1986, there has not been any recorded issue of so-called “wild parties” nor do the Council members serving at that time recall any “wild parties” that resulted in a shutdown. Prior to the renovation, FCCC was dilapidated, moldy and in great disrepair. In fact, the Council probably should have closed it down as a safety or asbestos hazard, but they did not. The Center became unused because no one wanted to use it!
OK, let’s assume wild parties didn’t close the Community Center down before but NOW, what’s to prevent wild parties from happening in this attractive new facility?
There are many safeguards to protect the neighborhood. The Center is rented under a permit process and protected by ALL the City’s police and public safety powers. All renters will be local citizens who must be present and will understand that rule violations will result in immediate closure of the event plus possible fines, adverse publicity, etc.
There will be problems with parking, noise, and alcohol from the use of the Center.
A legal analysis commissioned by the City Council studied the potential impacts of Prop B and found “no significant impacts” from adoption of the Initiative. Although these legal conclusions were available to them, the City Council DID NOT EVEN BOTHER TO READ OR DISCUSS the conclusions of its own expert outside law firm before they decided to unnecessarily throw away $200,000 of your taxpayer dollars on a Special Election.
Prop B could have been filed four days after it was and been eligible for inclusion in the Primary rather than a Special Election.
The Solana Beach City Clerk herself has repudiated that statement. The City Clerk ruled that under the Election Law, even if the proponents had waited there was NO POINT AT WHICH they could have handed in the Petition that would have made the Petition eligible for inclusion in the Primary.
The Petition proponents could have stopped gathering signatures when they had enough to get it on the Primary.
The gathering of signature served several purposes. After debating for two years, the City Council “indefinitely postponed” further consideration of a use policy for the Community Center. The large number of signatures gathered the first week (1,000) was a signal to the Council that the citizens did not approve of the Council’s failure to set a use policy.
The second round of signatures was gathered after the City Council drafted their so-called “policy”. Well over 1,000 additional signatures were gathered, and continued to be gathered, to show the City Council that their make-believe compromise was not acceptable.
The Proponents of Prop B are a small group who “want it all”.
The many citizens who gathered to first draft Prop B were joined by many dozens of additional Solana Beach volunteers who gathered signatures for Prop B from more than 2,000 voters (19% of the voting population). Later, another 1,000 or so voters sent postcards to the City saying that they did not want a Special Election and asking the Initiative be adopted as written.
The Proponents “demanded a Special Election”
THIS IS NOT TRUE. To the contrary, Prop B proponents were among the most active in trying to show the City Council that their voting for a Special Election was not only unnecessary but inexplicably wasteful of $200,000 of your taxpayer dollars.
Prop B clearly states that what was being “demanded” was that the City Council adopt the Initiative, which would follow existing law when regulating the Fletcher Cove Community Center. If the Council refused to do so, then and only then would a Special Election have been appropriate.
Even this October when the Council made what can only be their personal-motives decision to call a Special Election, they ignored the urging of many people that they adopt
Prop B and then put the matter before the voters in the June Primary election at one-twentieth the cost, about $10,000. This would have been a win-win for both sides.
The City Attorney found problems with the study the City Council ordered on the impacts of Prop B and the City Council said, in hindsight, that it was not complete.
This is yet another example of a desperate and unconvincing attempt by the City Council to recover from its own missteps. The Council’s outside experts addressed all the relevant issues – the exhaustive list of topics required under the Election Law. Naturally the outside law firm didn’t address sideline issues – they didn’t address the impact of global sea level rise on the Community Center. And why would they? Council’s own actions are additionally questionable and irresponsible because neither they nor the City Attorney had any questions of the attorney who authored the study even though that attorney was in the audience the night the City Council ordered the costly and totally unnecessary Special Election. You have to ask yourself WHY, did the Council spend our precious tax dollars while ignoring the critical facts?