MisterRogers
Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
Let’s Build an Even Bigger Jack in the Box in North Park
What I find really interesting here is the accusation that JITB is "breaking the rules." JITB appears to be following all Land Development Process protocol. Just because City Codes and zoning don't currently allow for the requested project doesn't mean they can't request a variance/special permit to do so. Projects like the one proposed by JITB require discretionary review by the City via the Development Services Department. DSD takes all zoning and City Code information into account, along with neighbor feedback and property history to reach an informed and unsentimental recommendation on the matter. Right? It seems likely that DSD's "discretion" took into account that this was a very well-established business, and that it wouldn't be judicious to decide that the only way JITB could improve their building was to give up a main component of their business (like their drive-thru, or their hours) just because of historic zoning changes. I understand resident frustrations at the relocation of entrances and exits, of adjustments to hours of operations and things of that nature. But accusing a business in this situation of not "following the rules" is ridiculous. Homeowners also get variances from zoning and codes--to make garages into livable space, run businesses, to add second or third stories to their homes. Neighbors can petition DSD and the Planning Commission to protest that it takes away street parking, adds too much noise, or ruins their view, but in the end the decision lies with the City. If you don't like the City's decision, it doesn't mean your neighbor has broken the rules! Why should telling unhappy people to move be off the table? Everything changes. To me it seems shortsighted to imagine that anyone would purchase a home next to a business and expect that the operation would always remain the same. Nail said she believed that the "City would follow its own rules," when it comes to JITB, but I somehow doubt she looked closely at what the norm is for City rulings on this type of scenario. Also, if she did her due diligence then she must have been informed of the extended length of the JITB lease. Would she prefer that the quality of the building across the street continue to deteriorate for another 30 years and continue as business as usual instead? I have yet to hear anyone give a legitimate example of "something incredible" that JITB could do to appease the residents that doesn't involve cutting the business off at the knees or moving it to someone else's backyard. Perhaps we should try getting a zoning variance to put a stable full of unicorns there…— February 7, 2012 2:55 p.m.