[an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive]
![]() |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() A is for agenda of arrogant avarice.
Observations from the Edge
Robert T. Nanninga Coast News October 12, 2005
Last week I was invited by members of a United Methodist congregation to participate in a voters forum regarding the Ecke financed Proposition A. Naturally, I obliged. Known for my advocacy of populist causes such as clean air and water, growth mitigation, environmental preservation, and honest governance, I was asked to present the No on A position. I woke early Sunday morning to prepare. Joining me in the forum was Bill Berrier of the Keep Flowers in Encinitas committee. Bill, a former Superintendent of San Dieguito Union High School District, was promoting the Yes on A development scheme. A college debater, I was prepared. For all his composure Mr. Berrier was a deer in the headlights, as his Ecke talking points failed to prepare him for the questions being asked by voters. The Forum began with Mr. Berrier assuring those gathered that he had been a friend to the Ecke family for years and he was willing to trust them and take them at their word regarding their claims of financial hardships and the need to break a development agreement that netted the Ecke family untold millions. Untold because the Ecke Family, Paul Ecke Ranch, and Carltas Development Company refuse to make public the financial statements that would support their well financed cries of poverty. Of course most voters are suspect due mainly to the fact Ecke will spend close to $200,000 on the special election, aimed at overturning the Encinitas Ranch development agreement, and the promise to keep the historic Ecke property, on Saxony drive, in agriculture, in perpetuity. Perpetuity means forever. When it was my turn to respond to the Ecke spin, I spent a little time addressing the legacy question regarding Ecke kindness of generations past. I pointed out, as a matter of property rights, the Eckes had every right not to enter into a development agreement, requiring land not developed as part of the Encinitas Ranch Specific Plan, to retain an agricultural zoning status. Most of my allotted time was spent presenting a timeline that illustrated a development agenda, reaching back nearly half a century. Can you say Interstate 5? It's hard not to marvel at amount of Ecke agricultural property bisected by the construction of Interstate 5 in the early 60's. The timeline discussion went something like this.
Keep Flowers in Encinitas…Yeah…right. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |