jelula

Comments by jelula

Newsom's San Diegans of interest

Wayne Donaldson continues to serve as Chair of the National Advisory Commission on Historic Preservation. The professional biography enumerating his many State and National historic preservation activities, posted at the ACHP website <http://www.achp.gov/members.html>, makes clear that the "Newsom Incident" was a small blip along his path. Ironically the current principle of the company founded by Wayne Donaldson, is now David Marshall, the so-called "historic preservationist" who did everything he could to present the Jacobs plan in Balboa Park as acceptable in a National Historical Landmark District.
— March 2, 2013 6:16 p.m.

Labor group talks transit plans

Regarding Murtaza Baxamuza's comments about the very low percentage of San Diegans who use public transportation, an important reason is people like me who would love to use it but have learned (by experience) that public transportation adds at least double the time and often more in order to get somewhere, largely because of the length of time between buses and/or the added time needed to even get (by car, mostly) to a transit line. And I live in the coastal area of the city where there are more options available than many other parts of the city. I've never forgotten a diagram about San Diego commuter traffic diagram done by Alan Hoffman, a local transportation expert who is knowledgeable about and experienced with public transportation systems in many other major cities in the world. The most compelling element was the substantial number of commuters along the I-15 corridor who "peel off" long before they get to Fashion Valley and downtown. Public transportation choices for them are either very limited or non-existent. No wonder I-15 resembles a parking lot during (lengthening) commuter hours.
— February 22, 2013 10:54 a.m.

Convention center expansion would build into a glut

"....The City's general fund will have to pay off the bonds if the ... [revenue from TOT is insufficient to pay off the bonds]..." This is the exact same situation with the Balboa Park underground garage ($17.4 million bond approved by Council) IF [we devoutly hope not] the City is able to go forward with building it. If revenues from parking don't raise enough to pay the bonds, pay for operation & maintenance & for a short-line tram system (all promised in the plan approved by Council], the cost will fall directly on the General Fund. The General Fund, for anyone reading this who doesn't yet know, pays for public safety, recreation and libraries, just for starters. How well are we doing with that? Just how many more hits can the General Fund take on top of the already projected $40 million deficit? Nonetheless, Todd Gloria continues searching for some solution that will allow construction of the Plaza de Panama plan. If he pursues some means for re-interpreting or waiving the relevant city ordinance, the legal costs to the city from those of us who oppose this grotesquely over-size solution to removing fewer than 75 parking spaces in the Plaza plus ensuring that no one will be allowed to drive through the Plaza in future, will continue to balloon.
— February 14, 2013 7:28 p.m.

Jacobs says he is bowing out of Balboa Park makeover

Matt Potter's article, in combination with all of the comments above, has done a superb job of delineating the complex power interrelationships and why, even when it should have been evident that the DEIR Finding #1 was a clear violation of the city's municipal code, the Mayor & Council pushed it through. They're too accustomed to getting away with it (whatever "it" might be at the time). There couldn't be a better illustration of the ways that our elected City officials have manipulated just about every element of city government to the benefit of a limited group of "citizens" when City Attorney Jan Goldsmith asked the judge if he couldn't take a more flexible interpretation of the city code element on which the judge's decision was based. The judge, admirably, responded by suggesting in that case, why have laws at all. On to the final topic of the article, we can still use the tram system for which the city has posted bids. We'll need them come 2015 (we hope) and this time, the trams can run from Inspiration Point to the Plaza (or even across to Balboa Dr., west of the bridge) instead of the absurdly short run the recently deceased project envisioned from the parking garage behind the Organ Pavilion to the Plaza. Of course, we would need to raise funds to pay for the tram system and its continued operation. Now there's a perfect undertaking for the Balboa Park Conservancy - a project that will benefit the 2015 celebration and remain an enduring benefit for visitors to the park for many years beyond. Do you think Dr. Jacobs could be persuaded to kick in a few dollars?
— February 6, 2013 10:25 p.m.

City Council to authorize funding for Balboa Park Parking Garage

Excerpt from Feb. 16, 2012, Minutes of the SF Recreation and Parks Dept, regarding request for increases in parking rates in the Concourse garage: "GOLDEN GATE PARK CONCOURSE GARAGE Martha Kropf: Good morning. I chair the Board of Directors of MCCP, the Music Community Partnership. The garage was opened in 2005. I’m just going to give you a little bit of background. Construction was funded as you recall through a combination of $36.4 million in private philanthropy and $26.5 million in bond anticipatory notes. In December of 2010 we refinanced the bands with a bank qualified tax exempt loan. The debt is scheduled to be retired in 2039 at such time the garage will be transferred to you. Use of the garage has steadily increased after the de Young opened in 2005 and then really jumped significantly when the Academy opened in 2008. Use has now leveled off and somewhat declined. It’s a common pattern among new cultural institutions. The peak use of the garage is in the spring and summer when tourism is high. Usage is also heavily dependent on events and maybe the weather. Our revenue is way down for December and January, they were all at the Zoo. Expenses are very basic. We have debt service, we have staffing, city rent, and the utilities and insurance. MCCP is a nonprofit with a responsibility to operate the garage obviously in the most prudent way possible for the visitors to the institutions in Golden Gate Park. Currently we’re not able to cover our expenses even though our expenses are right on-budget. We have a revenue problem. The rate increase is necessary to carry the garage during the winter months and between special exhibits. Rates initially were set by ordinance in 2003. There have been two increases since then, a .25 cent COLA increase in 2009 and a .75 cent increase which was approved here in August of 2010. The proposal before you today is to increase the weekday rate by $1 from $3.50 to $4.50 an house. Likewise $1 increase per hour on the weekend rate which means the rate would go from $4 to $5 in house. After-hour event parking would increase to $15. That is pegged to Performing Arts garage and the daily maximum rates are unchanged. They will remain at $25 and $28. Monthly rates are also unchanged. There’s just a few numbers that I will share with you. ... There were twenty percent fewer parkers in December 2011 than in December 2010. The Impressionists was at the de Young in 2010, it’s not there 2011. There were thirty-four percent fewer parkers in January of 2012 than in 2011. Said another way, December 2011’s revenue was thirty-six percent below the revenue in 2010. January revenues were twenty-seven percent below of January of the preceding year. Year to date we are about seventeen percent behind on revenue."
— October 4, 2012 12:06 p.m.

City Council to authorize funding for Balboa Park Parking Garage

It's amazing that, no matter how often opponents to the plan (myself included) tried to tell people that the Jacobs plan was not going to be covered entirely by Jacobs, or even by the fundraising that is supposed to pay for the bypass and related elements, no one paid attention. Over and over, we pointed out that the garage was not included and would be on the City's nickle - or, to be more direct, on the City's General Fund nickle as backup for bond payments if revenue from the parking garage is inadequate. They also kept telling us that the garage cost would only be $14 million, ignoring the additional bonding costs and bond payment coverage until the garage is built. By the time we got to City Council, the bond amount was finally stated clearly as $16 million. Yet, on Monday, the Council approved a bond of just over $17 million. And if revenue from the parking garage is insufficient to meet bond payment requirements and operation/maintenance of the garage, the money will come from the General Fund - which is what pays for public safety (fire, police, etc), libraries, recreation centers and pools, parks..... all of the basic public services that are already gasping for life because of radical cuts over the past decade or more. San Francisco built an underground garage in Golden Gate Park and it's not free parking - the City of SF is continuing to subsidize it because the revenue is insufficient to cover the costs. Why would we think it any different here in San Diego?
— October 4, 2012 11:58 a.m.

State Suspends Portions Of Brown Act

The article states "...suspending a portion of the Brown Act that requires government agencies to post agendas 72 hours in advance and announce closed-session meetings. The state is then required to reimburse cities and other government agencies the cost of proper notification. Now cities, counties and other agencies are forced to foot the bill." I'm not clear from this article if the 72-hours in advance noticing requirement is suspended or only the requirement for the State to reimburse local jurisdictions for costs of posting Brown Act notices. The first (partial) sentence cited above seems to state clearly that the 72 hour requirement is suspended but, then, the closing sentence quote above implies that it's the reimbursement by the State requirement that is suspended. Can anyone clarify that for me?
— July 13, 2012 3:46 p.m.

Jewish Community Foundation Backs Controversial Balboa Park Makeover with $1.57 Million, IRS Disclosure Shows

This helps to better understand Irwin Jacobs' desire for an MOU with the City (nullified by the court as inappropriate prior to approval of the draft EIR and Jacobs plan). Only one large donor during the first year of existence? An interesting thought, the very large contribution by JCF may have been a composite of a number of smaller donors who didn't want their names associated. I was struck by the lack of specific contributions by members of the Jacobs Plaza de Panama Committee. I wonder if the contributions rate has improved since closure of that reporting period? We won't know until long after the Council hearing on July 9, probably not until Spring 2013. Why isn't the Committee using a "thermometer" to show growth of contributions - and demonstrating the purported widespread support - if so many people support the plan, including - purportedly - many who can well afford 5, 6 or 7 digit contributions to the cause?
— July 3, 2012 12:25 p.m.

Save Our Heritage Wins Battle: Plaza de Panama Plan

There's already an excellent plan, adopted in 1989 after more than a decade of intensive public discussion to reach consensus. This could be implemented almost immediately with relatively little cost - remove the 67 parking spaces and limit vehicle access to one lane from the west, transiting the southwest corner of the Plaza where there would be drop-off & pick-up of passengers. Virtually everyone who come in across the Cabrillo Bridge (if they're coming to the Park and not through as commuters) must continue through to parking lots behind and beyond the Organ Pavilion since the odds are remote for finding a space in the Plaza or Alcazar lot after 9 am. Access is much easier via Park Blvd. as I, an OB/Pt.Loma resident, experience every time I come to the Park. ADA spaces now in the Plaza can be replaced by re-designating a dozen or more of the 130 spaces in the Alcazar Garden lot for ADA use. From that lot, there's quick and easy access through the Alcazar Garden to the West Prado(with minor improvements for transition from the Garden to the arcade walkway).
— January 23, 2012 noon

The Ugly Trailer Park Across the Water

Is it greedy to take back OUR PUBLIC PARKLAND from a use that should never have been allowed to occur? The true story is that De Anza is on OUR PUBLIC PARKLAND and was illegal from the get-go. Private residential use of parkland is illegal under State law and the City Charter of San Diego. Do you really think it okay that someone can claim a right to live in a public park in perpetuity? How would you feel if this was in Balboa Park? Yosemite? The Kapiloff Bill (1981) was not to force the residents out but to enable them to remain until November, 2003, when the master lease with the City expired. Residents were sub-lessees to the Master Lessee, De Anza Corporation; each resident owned the mobile home and paid rent to the Master Lessee for the parcel their home was on. The City had no obligation to pay for moving when the lease, and the provisions of the Kapiloff Bill, expired. Since when has a landlord (in this case, TAXPAYERS) been obligated to pay moving expenses of a tenant whose lease expires? The Court's decision was not that the City must pay residents' costs to move but that the City must do an "impact study" for the residents regarding conversion of De Anza back to its legal use as public parkland. The Court also required the City to pay damages for the City's bad choice of security/management company once the lease expired with De Anza Corporation. The residents of 1981 and all subsequent owners of these "mobile homes" were clearly informed of the 2003 expiration date, after which their continued residential use would be unlawful under State law and City Charter. In later years, some owners lived elsewhere and sublet their mobile home, in effect profiting from renting our public parkland to a third party. By the 1990s, a large majority of the owners and renters were newcomers but all were informed, through required disclosures when signing a lease with De Anza Corporation, of the 2003 expiration date and told they could not remain after that date. Nonetheless, some owners decided that they have a right to remain on our public parkland as long as they wish or that we, the taxpayers, are obligated to pay their costs of moving if they do not remain. Now does this make sense? The writer does, however, have it absolutely right that the City has handled this situation badly from the very beginning. You & I get to pay for the City's failure to handle things in a reasonable and business-like manner, and we still have not regained our public parkland, over 50 years after the City originally leased the property for development of an RV camping facility.
— September 16, 2011 12:30 p.m.