Did anyone catch the KPBS coverage of downtown redevelopment? If you didn't, a transcript is here: http://www.kpbs.org/news/2010/jan/26/who-benefi...
To me the article reflected a perception from the San Diego populace that is very apprehensive of sending more money to redevelopment if it will be used for a sports stadium. Faulconer never committed to voting no to a Charger stadium, but he did say that he was against funding it from the general fund.
The article also gave me an interesting insight into how the CCDC actually collects funds and how the CCDC being funded doesn't /directly/ impact the general fund, although it's clear that there is some indirect influence.
Coming back to your article, Don, my perception (and you can correct me if I'm wrong) is that the Sanders is facing a lot of justified resistance on the Chargers stadium from the people of San Diego. The people of San Diego know there's a water issue and they know there's a budget issue and they're pissed that the the Mayor is considering going forward with the Chargers nonsense. It seems to me that the Mayor and City Counsel have an investment in making Downtown succeed in addition to addressing the other major issues across the city.
Lastly, if the CCDC does get an extension on funding, I'd realy like to see that money go to more social services. I've seen all the plans for development downtown and I think they're great for tourism and creating more public spaces and opportunities for business, but I also think it's time San Diego started taking care of its homeless people. The CCDC is capable of using additional money for that and I wish that it would. — February 4, 2010 11:01 a.m.