northparkrick

Comments by northparkrick

Lawsuit filed against City of San Diego for allowing fast-food chain Jack in the Box to remodel North Park restaurant

I am always amazed at how those who don't have a clue about the full situation are so quick to post their completely uneducated opinion. It would be a waste of time, rosijoni, to go into the detail it would take to cover your comments and questions, and mostly because you have it all figured out in your own mind anyway. Any facts given to you would be ignored or lumped into your pre-conceived categories of people and issues of which you have already drawn your own conclusions, and clearly have no comprehension or understanding. Just a few facts that you might want to look into for the truth: 1. Bluefoot Bar was approved by the City in violation of the Zoning. People did NOT buy their homes next to a liquor bar (it was a beer/wine bar only), but even after 6 or more years of opposition, and with the Municipal Code and zoning on the neighbor's side, the City will not rescind this use. 2. Jonathan Segal, the architect/developer of the North Parker lofts is following the rules. The neighbor's may not like them all, but we're not fighting this development because J.S. is playing by the book, and not doing anything he is not legally allowed to do. If we can't win cases where we have the law on our side, why would we think we'd have a snowball's chance in hell raising issues with a development that is perfectly legal? 3. Jack in the Box is knowingly and willfully violating the Muni Code, Zoning, and the NP community plan. They were denied what they are doing a year ago by the Planning Commission, and are weaseling their way around the rules and thumbing their nose at the neighborhood and the community by calling what they are doing a "remodel". And the City refuses to force them to comply out of fear of a lawsuit. Yes, many people bought their homes knowing there was a fast food chain there. We were also promised that they would never be able to rebuild a new restaurant on that site and keep the drive thru. And to clear up the biggest misconception of all, this is not about Jack in the Box. They are welcome to stay. They just cannot keep the drive-through according to 'the rules'. The City Atty. has stated that JIB has violated the permit they were given, and that the City issued the wrong permit in the first place (we have that in writing), but because they are so far along in construction, to make them comply with the rules now would likely lead to a lawsuit that Jack could likely win. But our City picks and chooses who has to follow the rules, and in this case, our neighborhood gets dumped on once again, just like with Bluefoot, because it's easier to condone a mistake than to correct it, and business interests are more important than residents or neighborhoods to the power mongers that run this city. Do me favor, get your facts straight and know what you're talking about before you throw around phrases like NIMBY, OK?
— August 18, 2013 1:40 a.m.

New and Improved Jack In The Box For North Park Moving Forward

Anybody that seriously looks at the proposed plans for this project will start listing problems immediately, and just keep listing them. Hey Mr. Luscombe, of course "company representatives feel the project will enhance the area" --none of them live near this location, and it's doubtful whether any of them have ever even driven by. Throughout the past two years, the very few meetings anybody associated with Jack in the Box have had with neighbors have only resulted in the Jack crew digging in their heels and not making even ONE concession to the concerns or complaints of the neighbors. The very minimal changes made to their plans have been ones the City has required them to do (and so far, that's not many). A silent order confirmation board??? Puh-leeeze!!! Nobody is suggesting that a pretty new, albeit 'typical stucco box' with some added ornamentation wouldn't be better than the dismal premises that sits there now, but the City has actually done some smart things since the early '60's when Jack opened his box at this location. They're called Municipal Code, Land Use Plan, Community Plan, and Zoning regulations. Check them out, they make a lot of sense for a community where commercial areas abut single family homes, and they were enacted to protect those residents who live in those homes. And by the way, we now know you only have 7 more years on your lease, with the option of 4 - five year renewals, so your veiled threats that if you don't get your way, we'll have to look at your nasty existing building for "many more years" is just another manipulative effort to make the neighbors cave...Your current facility is so out of date that it's unlikely that you will even remain for those seven years and operate with such limited conditions. You simply could not meet a twenty-first century demand with a twentieth century technology. You are welcome to build anything you want on that lot. There is nobody in North Park that wouldn't love to see a new facility there. But you have to play by the rules like the rest of us. Throwing lots of money at the powers that be may get you some special favors, but there is a huge groundswell of residents, both nearby and throughout the community that know the laws that exist, and are demanding they be enforced. By tearing down the existing building, you go back to square one, just like you never had been there at all. What you are proposing is simply not allowed at that location under existing laws. You have given the residents no concessions or compromises to their concerns or requests. Now we are insisting you follow the rules. Period. They are laws, not suggestions. And the City needs to stand by the laws they have enacted, regardless of how much money you have given to good causes.
— May 22, 2012 12:26 a.m.

Join our
newsletter list

Enter to win $25 at Broken Yolk Cafe

Each newsletter subscription
means another chance to win!

Close