The big question is, why does CalCoast get taxpayer dollars?

From SDR Sand Never Sleeps

But while Aceti (CalCoast Director) and the San Diego Association of Governments continue to hunt down funds [ETA Note: SANDAG and CalCoast are not independent entities], many environmental groups question the wisdom of spending millions of dollars to put sand on the beach just to see it disappear in a matter of years, if not months.

Mark Massara, director of the California Coastal Program for the Sierra Club, considers large-scale sand-replenishment projects a big waste of time and taxpayer money, as effective as “spitting into the wind.”

“Beach nourishment can sometimes play a role in restoring and protecting coastal habitats, but it’s only one part of a much larger program,” says Massara. “In San Diego County, a very large percentage of sand comes from the erosion of bluffs. If they line the bluffs with seawalls, the natural result is going to be sandless beaches. So if you’re not removing seawalls, moving development back, protecting rivers and streams from dams and fortifications, then beach nourishment alone is expensive, temporary, and just flat-out won’t work.”

Serge Dedina is executive director of Wildcoast, a coastal environmental conservation group based in Imperial Beach. Dedina says that sand lobbyists like Aceti are concerned for the wrong reasons.

“Sand replenishment is public welfare for multimillionaire beachfront property owners,” Dedina says. “The majority of the benefit goes toward private-property protection. Beach replenishment or dredge-and-fill projects have little impact on preserving shorelines in the long term due to the damming up of rivers and the dramatic physical alteration of our coastline. San Diego County has a number of issues that need to be addressed immediately, and spending tens of millions of dollars on beach sand that benefits private-property owners is not one of them.”

Aceti says he doesn’t think twice about the homes; it’s the beach that he’s concerned with.

Aceti, and apparently CalCoast (if there is a difference), represent blufftop property owners. Aceti is the "Steve Aceti, government and community relations representative for the [Self Realization] fellowship." The fellowship owns the most valuable blufftop property in Encinitas; most people know the location as Swamis. Aceti also has time to be the Public Policy Advisor for Marlow & Associates, a lobbying firm. There are also public documents that show that CalCoast represents blufftop property owners who live on Neptune.

It is not credible for Aceti to state that he doesn't think about the private-property owners. The record shows that it has been his job to do just that and that is why I have repeatedly asked Aceti if he represents blufftop property owners. He has not answered the question. He hasn't answered questions about his relation to Marlow and Associates either.

The City of Encinitas funds CalCoast and it funds the Downtown Encinitas Mainstreet Association, which turns around and pays dues to CalCoast. The interests of the taxpayer are different than the interests of the blufftop property owners.

CalCoast and Aceti have been the public face in campaigns for several recent tax measures, Prop C, Prop K, and the Quality of Life Tax. Are our local politicians funding CalCoast so that CalCoast does the dirty work of raising taxes?

Is CalCoast going to play the role of the grassroots cheerleader for the upcoming fight to raise our sales tax, again, in the upcoming Quality of Life tax measure?

See Also: Aceti Lies to North County Times

Nanninga and Sheffo authored this editorial:

Election Day is approaching and for the second time in less the six months Encinitas voters are being asked to weigh in on a sand tax favored by the city council.

You may remember Propositions F and G, which were decided way back in June.

Proposition F, which passed, expanded the city’s Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) to include short-term vacation rentals.

Proposition G, which failed, would have added two percent on top of that tax and devoted it to sand replenishment.

Instead of respecting the will of the voters and acknowledging defeat, the city council majority of Jerome Stocks, Jim Bond and Dan Dalager decided they wouldn’t take “no” for an answer.

Read more »

At the June 11th City Council meeting Steve Aceti identified himself as the director of CalCoast. CalCoast receives taxpayer funds for its operations.

Mr. Aceti urged the City Council to put Prop G on the ballot again, in November. Prop G is the short-term rental sand tax. Mr. Aceti offered to organize the yes on Prop G campaign committee.

Mr. Aceti noted that the Presidential election was likely to bring out many "democrats and liberals" to the polls. He implied that conservatives and republicans were less likely to vote for Prop G and it would be a good time to pass another sand tax.

The City of Encinitas voted earlier this year to seek an expansion of the tourist tax (TOT). Last night the council chose the details of the ballot measure. I addressed the council and said something close to:

Recognizing the council is already committed to placing a TOT amendment on the ballot, we ask the council to consider the following alternative.

We ask that when you rewrite the general fund TOT ordinance to cover short-term rentals that you consider using the new revenue to offset a DECREASE in the TOT rate, FOR EVERYONE.

Please consider taking the general fund TOT down to 6% [from 8%]. This wouldn’t result in a net loss of tourism revenues, because more people will be paying the tax.

This ballot measure provides an opportunity to improve the profitability of local businesses and the desirability of Encinitas as a tourist destination.

Including a rate reduction on the ballot will make the measure more palatable to local businesses and it would stand as a testament to the council's true beliefs about the city budget.

I do see a possible reason for rejecting the option we are putting forward for consideration. If this ballot measure is proposed because you think our tourism industry can be tapped to make up for a stretched city budget then a revenue neutral approach isn’t going to work for you. If this measure is about growing the size of the city budget or making up for overspending beyond your long-term means, you should tell the public.

If the measure is about deciding if it is fair for short-term rentals to share the burden, then send that unambiguous message to the voters, make our hotels more competitive, and reduce the sting on short-term rentals by lowering the TOT rate.

This alternative may or may not be a good policy, and we think now is the right time to make that determination.

Kevin Cummins

The council did not consider a reduction and they did not justify the necessity of growing the city's budget. The measure was approved 5-0.

Neither the ETA board or the membership have taken a position on Prop F or Prop G amendment. My address to the council reflected the hope of ETA officers to see the council deliberate over a potential improvement in the measures.

The City of Encinitas voted earlier this year to seek an expansion of the tourist tax (TOT). Last night the council chose the details of the ballot measure. I addressed the council and said something close to:

Recognizing the council is already committed to placing a TOT amendment on the ballot, we ask the council to consider the following alternative.

We ask that when you rewrite the general fund TOT ordinance to cover short-term rentals that you consider using the new revenue to offset a DECREASE in the TOT rate, FOR EVERYONE.

Please consider taking the general fund TOT down to 6% [from 8%]. This wouldn’t result in a net loss of tourism revenues, because more people will be paying the tax.

This ballot measure provides an opportunity to improve the profitability of local businesses and the desirability of Encinitas as a tourist destination.

Including a rate reduction on the ballot will make the measure more palatable to local businesses and it would stand as a testament to the council's true beliefs about the city budget.

I do see a possible reason for rejecting the option we are putting forward for consideration. If this ballot measure is proposed because you think our tourism industry can be tapped to make up for a stretched city budget then a revenue neutral approach isn’t going to work for you. If this measure is about growing the size of the city budget or making up for overspending beyond your long-term means, you should tell the public.

If the measure is about deciding if it is fair for short-term rentals to share the burden, then send that unambiguous message to the voters, make our hotels more competitive, and reduce the sting on short-term rentals by lowering the TOT rate.

This alternative may or may not be a good policy, and we think now is the right time to make that determination.

Kevin Cummins

The council did not consider a reduction and they did not justify the necessity of growing the city's budget. The measure was approved 5-0.

Neither the ETA board or the membership have taken a position on the TOT amendment. My address to the council reflected the hope of ETA officers to see the council deliberate over a potential improvement in the measure.