The Growth Imperative

The growth imperative is the drive to constantly increase and expand, often with little regard for the potential negative consequences. This relentless pursuit of growth can have devastating effects on both the environment and society.

One of the most obvious ways in which the growth imperative causes destruction is through its impact on the natural world. As humans strive to meet the demand for more and more resources, we often do so at the expense of the environment. This can mean clearcutting forests, polluting waterways, and destroying habitats. As a result, countless plant and animal species are at risk of extinction, and the Earth’s delicate ecosystem is thrown out of balance.

The growth imperative also has harmful effects on human society. In our pursuit of economic growth, we often prioritize profit over people, leading to income inequality and the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few. This can create a society where only the wealthy have access to quality education, healthcare, and other essential services, while the majority struggle to make ends meet.

Additionally, the constant pressure to grow can lead to a culture of overconsumption, where people are encouraged to buy more and more, even if they don’t need it. This not only creates waste and pollution, but it can also contribute to a lack of fulfillment and happiness. Instead of focusing on the things that truly matter, such as relationships and personal growth, people are encouraged to measure their success by the size of their bank account and the number of possessions they have.

Overall, the growth imperative has destructive consequences for both the environment and society. Instead of blindly chasing after growth at any cost, we need to find a more sustainable and equitable way of living. This might mean prioritizing the well-being of both people and the planet, and finding ways to thrive without constantly consuming and destroying. By rethinking our approach to growth, we can create a better future for all.

                                                                              —Guest author Artificial Intelligence on ChatGPT

Hey locals, it’s Beacon! 

In 1963, Dave Stern and Bill Cleary published Surfing Guide to Southern California. At the time, Stern was an economics professor at UCLA. Cleary later became the editor of the highly regarded Surf Guide magazine. Those roles probably account for their book’s thoroughness and accuracy.

Surfing Guide to Southern California details six breaks in Leucadia. Among them is “The Beacon.” The text reads:

“THE BEACON—Much like Grandview Street, in that outside breaks become good at 5-8 feet. An easy break. Peak just south of parking lot behaves more like reef at times than other nearby breaks. Restaurants close by. No facilities. Located at foot of Fulvia Street [now Leucadia Boulevard].”

Why did Stern and Cleary call it “The Beacon”?

A 1939-1940 nautical chart (1) shows nine aeronautical lights from Dana Point to Point Loma. One light that flashed every 10 seconds was on the bluff at 33 degrees 4 minutes north latitude. That spot is now the overlook at the north end of the Beacon parking lot, behind the sign that erroneously names the place “Beacon’s.” If you stand at the fence and look west through the brush, you’ll see two concrete pillars jutting vertically out of the bluff edge. They’re in precisely the right spot to have been part of the footing for the aeronautical light tower.

A 1948 topographical map (2) shows and labels a “Beacon” on the bluff edge north of what was then Fulvia Street and south of what is still Jasper Street. It’s the exact location where the nautical chart shows an aeronautical light.

Following the attack on Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors adopted a blackout ordinance that went into effect on Dec. 11. A headline in that day’s edition of the Encinitas Coast Dispatch read “You Must Black Out or Face Arrest Under New Ordinance.” The text warned that anyone who failed to comply with the blackout rules faced a $500 fine or six months’ imprisonment or both.

In its Feb. 26, 1942 edition, the same newspaper advised readers with the headline “Good Blackout Signal” and the text “Persons desiring to play safe against possible blackout can find assistance by looking for the ray from the beacon light in the north end of the district . . . . If the beacon is not lighted at night do not turn on your own light.”

Somewhere along the line—maybe when the sign was made—somebody in local and/or state government made a mistake and named Leucadia’s midway beach and surf break “Beacon’s” rather than the historically accurate “Beacon.” 

Because the sign erroneously says “Beacon’s,” people who have no way to know better think that name is right. City documents are riddled with the incorrect name. A nearby mobile home park that used to be called “Evergreen” changed owners and was renamed “Beacon’s Beach Village.” A contagious infection is still loose among us.

Some locals, probably realizing that “Beacon’s” implies that somebody named Beacon once owned the beach, have taken to writing “Beacons.” As the documents cited above show, there was one beacon, hence the singular name “Beacon.”

I first surfed Beacon in 1966. Back then, everybody called it “Beacon.” I think it’s high time we locals reclaimed the correct name.

1. San Diego to Santa Rosa, 1537 NAUT-5101A-1939/40.

2. Encinitas, USGS Topographical Map, 1948.

                                                                                                                                                  — Doug Fiske

VOSD Has a Habit of Getting Encinitas Housing Wrong

On March 30, 2022, VOSD North County Reporter Tigist Layne wrote, “Encinitas has consistently gone to great lengths to avoid making it possible to build more homes there, arguing it would change the city’s character, and once again, the state is taking notice.”

On April 27, Layne wrote, “Encinitas has reached a settlement with the developer of the Encinitas Boulevard Apartments, a housing project that the city rejected last year. Encinitas has a history of denying housing projects . . .”

That same day, I posted to Layne and asked her to provide proof of the city’s history of denying housing projects. She didn’t reply.

On May 16, I sent a public records request to the city. My question was, “Has the Encinitas City Council ever denied a housing project other than the Encinitas Blvd. Apartments project, the adjusted version of which it later approved to settle a lawsuit by the developer?”

Development Services Director Roy Sapa’u replied, “The answer would be no.”

Encinitas became an incorporated city in 1986. In the 36 years since, it has never denied a housing project.

VOSD’s extremely biased and often inaccurate reporting on Encinitas housing began with an article by Maya Srikrishnan on March 9, 2016. VOSD has been on a roll since.

On February 14, 2019, Lisa Halverstat, then a VOSD staff writer, now the senior investigative reporter, was one of a “panel of experts” who spoke at a Building Industry Association (BIA)-hosted breakfast meeting at the La Jolla Marriott hotel. The introduction was, “Today, the NIMBYs have a very loud voice and are halting projects around the county. Learn from a panel of experts to see what builders/developers are doing to get projects approved and how our industry must help.”

The speculation among Encinitas activists is that BIA funds VOSD. Consequently, VOSD violates journalism’s principle of objectivity to avoid jeopardizing the funding.

                                                                                                — Doug Fiske 

The Other Plague Infecting America

In November 2020, 74 million people voted for the Orange Menace. Today, Trump’s favorability rating hovers around 43 percent according to the Real Clear Politics average of eight national polls. That’s 110.4 million people when applied to the estimated US voting-age population in 2020. 

There has always been a wacko fringe. But now that extreme wing is huge.

How is it that so many millions of people support a self-interested, pathological liar? How is it that so many millions don’t recognize the treason Trump committed on January 6, 2021?

The reason runs deep, but there are little indicator flags everywhere. They’re the canaries in the coal mine.

A magazine editor was once asked the qualifications for his job. His reply was, “You have to know the difference between there, their and they’re.”

When many millions of Americans think that people lay down, not lie down, say “I could have went” instead of “I could have gone,” say “aks” rather than “ask,” and don’t know the difference between its and it’s or your and you’re, that indicates there’s something seriously lacking in primary and secondary education.

Not knowing simple, standard English is like not knowing basic arithmetic.

If American education has failed at teaching the fundamentals, it cannot have succeeded at teaching critical thinking. That’s shown in the support for Trump. More than 110 million people cannot distinguish fact from falsehood, reality from fantasy.

That disconnect has always infected a small percentage of the population. But now the infection has been amplified and hurried along by the internet and right-wing media. 

The infection has become a plague, and it’s threatening American democracy.                                

                                                                                                                                            — Doug Fiske