• Scam Diego alerts

It's amazing how perpetual fudgers and fabricators sometimes let the truth slip out. So it is with the purported analysis of the economic impact of Petco Park, arranged by the San Diego Regional Economic Development Corp. The so-called study claims that Petco Park has been a great boon. It is complete statistical fabrication, and I will get into myriad details later. But on page 61, the consulting firm doing the study lets the truth out. Here's the statement: "Would redevelopment have happened anyway? Likely, but not to the extent, and not at this rapid pace." Amen. That is a major reason why there is not only a huge glut of condos and hotels in the ballpark district, but the ballpark-generated overbuilding has also helped cause gluts elsewhere downtown and throughout the city. Hopefully, San Diegans understand that downtown condos are a disaster, as are hotels. (Any hotel built or refinanced in the last five years is underwater.) The consultant clearly admits that the rapid and excessive construction of these buildings to facilitate the ballpark project is greatly to blame. Opponents of the project said all along that what is now called the ballpark district would develop some day when there was a market for it. But pushing the process would only cause a glut. And it is there for all to see.

The wholly fallacious study goes to great length to say how assessed valuations have soared, as have assets. But think of it this way: suppose a company spends $500 million on a plant and equipment to build a smart phone. But quickly, another company comes out with a phone that is twice is good at half the price. The building's assessed valuation remains high for an indefinite period; the asset stays on the books. But what are the building and the equipment REALLY worth? That's downtown San Diego. That's the ballpark district. Thanks to the economic development corp. for unwittingly admitting what has happened.

  • Scam Diego alerts

Comments

JustWondering July 15, 2010 @ 9:22 p.m.

Thanks for spending the time reading the report and shinning the light into the deep darkened areas. To bad SDUT chose not to spend a little time and conduct some due diligence to expose the truth themselves. But I suspect the reality is just as the UT chose to change their "Ring of Truth" logo, their "new truth" is to support those who would obfuscate the truth at taxpayer expense.

0

Don Bauder July 15, 2010 @ 9:43 p.m.

Response to post #1: I can assure you that the U-T will not spend the time to expose the fallacies in this egregious report. That would be against company policy. Any reporter who tried that would go to the guillotine. Best, Don Bauder

0

SurfPuppy619 July 15, 2010 @ 10:47 p.m.

Allowing muni's to use eminent domain to take private property, always low balling, and give it to losers like John Moores for development just kills me. Kelo v City of New London, awful ruling.

Is Moores real estate company-JMI-still around or did he close it down when he skipped out of town???

0

Don Bauder July 16, 2010 @ 6:57 a.m.

Response to post #3: Losers like John Moores? It has been estimated that he rode back to Texas with $700 million to $1 billion that he netted from the ballpark district taxpayer swindle. He has denied the sum was that great. Also, he sold $650 million of Peregrine Systems stock, for which he had paid very little, before it collapsed in scandal. I don't know whether JMI is still around. With it raking in that kind of money, why should he kill it? Best, Don Bauder

0

Duhbya July 16, 2010 @ 7 a.m.

Re #1: Back in the day, the "Ring" in Ring of Truth signified the sound of a cash register drawer opening.

0

a2zresource July 16, 2010 @ 7:32 a.m.

If there was so much of a positive economic impact from Petco Park, then why in the blue blazes does CCDC need the Redevelopment Agency to have $288 million in HUD community development block grant-funded loans and not-so-legally accumulated interest forgiven by San Diego City Council members when they are not wearing their Redevelopment Agency hats?

And since the Reader site is not allowing me to post new blog entries this morning (I had a good one on recent U-T editorial love fest with Sunrise Powerlink), Tuesday's City Council item 335 "Ceasing of interest accrual on [Redevelopment] Agency debt to the City and extinguishing of Agency CDGB and HUD Section 108 Debt to the City" was returned to staff by unanimous consent, the only item that doesn't list any council member moving or seconding any motion for action or the lack of it.

0

Don Bauder July 16, 2010 @ 8:59 a.m.

Response to post #5: Yes, at one point the Copley newspapers in San Diego were as profitable as the Wall Street Journal. (This was in the 1980s.) Five years before Copley sold the Union-Tribune for $52 million, it was worth $1 billion. Best, Don Bauder

0

MURPHYJUNK July 16, 2010 @ 9:03 a.m.

it no wonder that the general public feels helpless ( frustrated) like many issues like this, every one knows whats going on ( total bs) and it still goes on.

the old " mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore" does not work these days, we end up taking it, and can't stop it.

0

Don Bauder July 16, 2010 @ 9:04 a.m.

Response to post #6: Yes, CCDC constantly talks out of both sides of its mouth and neither the public nor the city council, which supposedly runs CCDC, notices. The one that gives me a chuckle is CCDC boasting all the time how its subsidies have made downtown San Diego blossom. Then CCDC turns around and says downtown is blighted -- a requirement for redevelopment, which only fattens developers. Best, Don Bauder

0

MURPHYJUNK July 16, 2010 @ 9:04 a.m.

its no wonder that the general public feels helpless ( frustrated) like many issues like this, every one knows whats going on ( total bs) and it still goes on.

the old " mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore" does not work these days, we end up taking it, and can't stop it.

0

SurfPuppy619 July 16, 2010 @ 10:34 a.m.

the old " mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore" does not work these days, we end up taking it, and can't stop it.

By MURPHYJUNK 9

Oh Murph-you nailed it brother~!

The scam cannot be stopped, all three branches of gov have been bought and paid for byu special interests, even the judicial branch is nothing more than political back scratching these days.......Why does the supposedly nonpartisan Supreme Court split so often along ideological lines, with the four conservatives locked in combat against the four liberals and the eclectic Justice Anthony Kennedy determining which faction wins? And why do all of the justices so often find in the Constitution a mirror image of their own political and policy views on issues as diverse as abortion, race, religion, gay rights, campaign finance, the death penalty and national security?.......because they are bought and paid for-starts at the SCOTUS and filters down to the local level.....

0

mindbomber July 16, 2010 @ 12:09 p.m.

This is the problem with living in Colorado, Don. You can't see the facts on the ground.

The Ballpark certainly has been an improvement, as anyone who has been to the East Village in oh say, the past year can attest to.

Was there overbuilding? Certainly, but not all downtown condos were a "disaster."

If you look at it from the 1,000 (2,000?) mile view, that's probably how it looks. But if you're here in SD you can see some downtown East Village condos are filling up with young people who pay taxes here not in Durango and an urban core is developing that is not totally dependent on the tourist economy -- in other words, a real downtown.

It's actually pretty exciting to watch, but that doesn't jive with the everyone-and-everything-is-corrupt-and-we're-all-going-to-be-ruined view of your former home.

0

Don Bauder July 16, 2010 @ 12:11 p.m.

Response to post #10: There are some things you can do: 1. Stop reading publications or watching TV news that is obviously slanted in favor of corporate welfare projects; 2. Scream to your councilperson that the downtown establishment is steering all the money to worthless legacy projects downtown (massive Chargers stadium subsidy, convention center expansion, city hall complex and library) while shortening library hours, ignoring potholes, refusing to maintain streets, not keeping up with water and sewer requirements, cutting back on fire protection, letting the infrastructure rot, etc. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder July 16, 2010 @ 12:14 p.m.

Response to post #11: Milton Friedman said it best: the one getting the subsidy will spend the most to get it. Those opposing the subsidy are dispersed and unlikely to raise the funds to fight the gifts to the special interests. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder July 16, 2010 @ 12:20 p.m.

Response to post #12: You're saying exactly the reverse of what others are telling me. First, there is no question that the condo situation downtown, particularly in the ballpark district, remains a disaster. The only people who challenge that are developers who are propagandizing, and they can't come up with credible numbers. Second, people tell me that, except on nights when there are games, it is quite lonely and sometimes dangerous to walk around the ballpark district. It's clear people aren't living in the condos. One reason is that some have been bought by people who only occupy them a couple of weeks a year. But many are empty. Many have been foreclosed upon. Many high-rises have problems, such as with water. Best, Don Bauder

0

ecoasttransplant July 17, 2010 @ 10:26 a.m.

Not that downtown development has been perfect but the comments here sound like a lot of whining from sprawl residents.

So how much money was spent/wasted on building the massive amounts of infrastructure to support the sprawl? Was that more than the amount that people are complaining about in the East Village. I am 99.9% positive it is?

How much did the 56 and 52 expansion cost? What about the 805/15 and 5 projects. Not all of the work but the money spent in just the last 10 years.

Every single item that people are complaining about with the ballpark district cost is repeated around San Diego.

0

ecoasttransplant July 17, 2010 @ 10:38 a.m.

Question for Don Bauder....

If you can get past your slant, I would love to hear your answer on the following?

How much does it cost to maintain a city block in the East Village home to say 300 condos like M2i between Market and Island IN COMPARISON TO a new subdivision off the 56 that is home to 300 houses?

How many more MILES of road are needed on the subdivision in comparison to the city block? When you complain about the city not filling potholes...does it not make sense to make LESS roads and therefore LESS potholes.

How much water is needed for the lawns of those 300 homes? How much more is that than the city block.

What about police protection...fire protection.

You complain about the closing of libraries but are ignorant to the fact of the internet giving access to most of what people wanted in the library.

You talk about slant but you are shilling it just fine old man.

0

Burwell July 17, 2010 @ 1:41 p.m.

How much does it cost to maintain a city block in the East Village home to say 300 condos like M2i between Market and Island IN COMPARISON TO a new subdivision off the 56 that is home to 300 houses?

=============

East Coast Transplant's comments are based on sheer ignorance of the facts. The City transfers its share of the downtown property tax revenue to the Center City Development Corporation (CCDC) which uses the money to subsidize private development. As an example, the CCDC recently used taxpayer money to subsidize construction of a new campus for the Thomas Jefferson School of Law. Because of this arrangement, the City does not receive property tax money from the downtown area to pay for road repairs, police protection, fire protection, etc. provided to the downtown area. The property tax money that pays for City services to the downtown area comes from raping property tax revenue from Clairemont, Mira Mesa, Scripps Ranch, and other areas. As a result, the infrastructure in these areas is falling apart while the downtown area glistens with newly paved streets, parking structures that are 90% empty, and multimillion dollar pedestrian bridges that no one uses.

0

Don Bauder July 17, 2010 @ 3:23 p.m.

Response to post #16: There is no question that San Diego and the county spent a lot of money expanding freeways to accommodate more development, and the money should have been spent on public transportation, etc. Unfortunately, the ballpark district experience is an example of public money lining the pockets of developers but the project not providing the affordable housing that was promised. Your point is well taken: both the city and the county governments are puppets of developers. The ballpark district scam is an example of this downtown, but freeway construction and widening to permit more building of outlying developments are an example in the suburbs and exurbs. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder July 17, 2010 @ 3:28 p.m.

Response to post #17: Your points are good but let me just address two of them: 1. You ask about police and fire protection. Good point. The City is cutting it back. One reason is the money diverted to developers for redevelopment projects. 2. You say that libraries are not so necessary because of the Internet. But it's libraries that give many people who don't own computers access to the Internet. That's one of the main uses of libraries today. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder July 17, 2010 @ 3:36 p.m.

Response to post #18: Right on, Burwell. The rest of the city is being ignored -- along with infrastructure, maintenance, streets, libraries, fire protection, etc. -- as the money goes to downtown developers for useless projects such as those now on the table. Best, Don Bauder

0

a2zresource July 17, 2010 @ 4:56 p.m.

RE "East Coast Transplant's comments are based on sheer ignorance of the facts. The City transfers its share of the downtown property tax revenue to the Center City Development Corporation (CCDC) which uses the money to subsidize private development..."

This may explain the recent Redevelopment Agency/CCDC action to push for a raised Tax Increment cap. I'm not sure of the numbers, but if I remember correctly the current cap of just under $3 billion is recommended to increase to about $9 billion. For all I know, even if it hasn't been formally approved, the TI cap raise is most likely a done deal.

"Tax Increment" is the excess tax revenues, calculated as the difference from old blighted area tax revenues to new higher revenues after agency-sponsored redevelopment. California state law keeps the Tax Increment (overage compare to old tax revenues) inside the redevelopment area, kind of like the Sheriff of Nottingham's private treasure chest. Like the old sheriff, CCDC is a master at redistributing the wealth to the wealthy, namely the developers that CCDC is a cheerleader for.

http://www.sandiego.gov/iba/pdf/10_54.pdf

I could buy a lot of friends with $9 billion... a whole brand new stadium full of friends.

0

a2zresource July 17, 2010 @ 5:01 p.m.

I just realized what I wrote after looking at Burwell's comment again.

That's a $9 billion stadium full of friends that can only be built inside CCDC's rather limited redevelopment zone, with nothing left over for firefighters, police patrols, emergency medical responders, libraries, parks, or anything else anywhere else in the City of San Diego.

Maybe the only fix for this is to make CCDC the City Council of San Diego.

0

ecoasttransplant July 17, 2010 @ 5:13 p.m.

@18,

Wow..for someone who uses ignorance in a comment, you sure as heck do not know how things work.

First off, again let me say the development downtown has not been perfect. However, no mater how you slice it, it is needed.

Secondly, I still stand by my point that dense urban neighborhoods are better for the taxpayer overall than the SoCal sprawl that most people commenting live in.

So this urban neighborhoods need some help to accelerate the progress. Why you ask? Well San Diego can not afford to continue to develop new subdivisions at the pace it has in the past.

So people here do not like Petco Park...I can see that. But the fact that it has helped spur development can not be denied. Are the numbers as good as some claim right now? Maybe, maybe not. Who cares. Only a bloody fool thinks that at some point San Diego and the taxpayer is not going to better off.

As for the Law School Burwell...that is a part of the mixture you twit.
The Law School takes up about 40% of a city block but will put hundreds of people in that area during the day. Right now, it is pretty much 100% residential, meaning people are only around (outside of Padres games) at night.

When you have a steady flow of foot traffic all day long, you increase your retail. Retail pays taxes and when added makes the neighborhood more desirable. More desirable neighborhoods lead to higher real estate prices, which in turn mean more taxes.

Anyways...most of you are twits.

You want to cry about how much a ballpark costs and fail to ignore the infrastructure costs for your freaking cars that make the ballpark a drop in the bucket.

0

SurfPuppy619 July 17, 2010 @ 5:56 p.m.

"Tax Increment" is the excess tax revenues, calculated as the difference from old blighted area tax revenues to new higher revenues after agency-sponsored redevelopment. California state law keeps the Tax Increment (overage compare to old tax revenues) inside the redevelopment area, kind of like the Sheriff of Nottingham's private treasure chest. Like the old sheriff, CCDC is a master at redistributing the wealth to the wealthy, namely the developers that CCDC is a cheerleader for.

As Don has stated, it is "contrived complexity" that makes this scam work.......

0

SurfPuppy619 July 17, 2010 @ 5:59 p.m.

First off, again let me say the development downtown has not been perfect. However, no mater how you slice it, it is needed.

Says who-YOU???????????????? Some east coast transplant who has no clue about So Cal.

Please!

You are just a sock puppet account for Burnham, Moores or one of the other DT yahoo developers....

0

SurfPuppy619 July 17, 2010 @ 6:01 p.m.

So people here do not like Petco Park...I can see that. But the fact that it has helped spur development can not be denied.

Errr...WRONG...again....it can be denied all day long.

I'm no real estate wonder whiz you know....I bet you don't even know the back story behind Horton Plaza.........

0

Don Bauder July 18, 2010 @ 8:38 a.m.

Response to post #22: You are right: most of the tax increment goes back to redevelopment -- therefore, into the pockets of the downtown developers who continue getting rich as the rest of San Diego suffers, and CCDC chuckles with Machiavellian glee. The county and the schools lose out; that's why it can be said that the Padres's ballpark stole money from education. The public doesn't understand how this scam works. For years, some of us have been doing our best to get the word out. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder July 18, 2010 @ 8:41 a.m.

Response to post #23: CCDC already dominates city council, which as the redevelopment agency should actually be controlling CCDC. How would formalizing this unholy arrangement improve things? Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder July 18, 2010 @ 8:47 a.m.

Response to post #24: You aren't the first to call me a twit, and won't be the last. I agree that urban sprawl is bad. I don't have a problem with urban density. But when that density is accomplished through a scam that makes a handful of people enormously wealthy, and steals money from schools, and then the project flops completely -- sorry, I can't join your club. Best, Don (Twit) Bauder

0

Don Bauder July 18, 2010 @ 8:51 a.m.

Response to post #25: The rule that keeps this money in the redevelopment area is the one that developers and CCDC exploit. Redevelopment is supposed to provide affordable housing and alleviate blight. In San Diego, it does not provide affordable housing, because the projects are almost invariably upscale, benefitting only a chosen few who are already rich. Blight? CCDC brags that it has rejuvenated downtown San Diego. But then it says the very same area is blighted, so these scam projects can proliferate. It's time to throw the bums out. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder July 18, 2010 @ 8:53 a.m.

Response to post #26: Redevelopment has hardly been a smashing success in the East, where our critic originated. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder July 18, 2010 @ 8:55 a.m.

Response to poset #27: The ballpark has not spurred successful redevelopment. There is a huge condo and hotel glut. Horton Plaza? You're right. It is NOT a great success. Best, Don Bauder

0

mindbomber July 18, 2010 @ 9:11 a.m.

Eastcoasttransplant, Don't bother trying to reason with the folks on this board. They can find a conspiracy in a hill of beans.

0

nan shartel July 18, 2010 @ 10:58 a.m.

u now have a poem and a song of ur own on this http://www.sandiegoreader.com/weblogs... Don

oh and to stay on subject "everything u said BIG DON"

0

nan shartel July 18, 2010 @ 11:03 a.m.

i didn't know u fought over a "Cajun Queen"...so u were straightening the scams out in Nawlins to eh??

0

SanDiegoParrothead July 18, 2010 @ 1:30 p.m.

ecoasttransplant

How you doing, Mark Fabiani!

0

laplayaheritage July 18, 2010 @ 4:08 p.m.

CCDC and the Redevelopment Agency are trying to resteal $144 Million in Federal funds to leverage tax increment funds for private developers. In 1992 in CCDC’s Social Issues Strategy Report and Topical Focus Plan, CCDC promised to solve downtown Homeless problem if taxpayer allow the addition of Little Italy, Cortez, Core, and East Village into CCDC's Project Area expansion. The Social Issues Strategy to resolve Homelessness has failed miserably.

The Audit Report 2009-LA-1005 for the City of San Diego’s Administration of Redevelopment Agency Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program Projects by the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), dated December 30, 2008 documented the Redevelopment Agency and CCDC’s failure to properly administer $228 million in Federal CDBG funds and HUD Section 108 Debt that could have been used for Emergency Shelter for the Homeless and provide social services to reintegrate the Veteran population.

http://www.sandiego.gov/redevelopment-agency/pdf/attachbfy2010redeverafcdbgcitydebtpaymentsrpt.pdf

0

SurfPuppy619 July 18, 2010 @ 4:25 p.m.

ecoasttransplant

How you doing, Mark Fabiani!

OMG-Classic!!!!!

0

Don Bauder July 18, 2010 @ 9:53 p.m.

Response to post #34:According to you, this is the Paranoia Post Place. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder July 18, 2010 @ 9:55 p.m.

Response to post #35: Yes, Nan, somebody else sent me your song. I'm flattered, but don't deserve such praise. You are quite a poet. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder July 18, 2010 @ 9:57 p.m.

Response to post #36: I've only been in Nawlins once, to the best of my memory. It may have been twice, though. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder July 18, 2010 @ 9:58 p.m.

Response to post #37: Yes, Fabiani is an East Coast transplant, and a master propagandist. Could you be right? Dunno. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder July 18, 2010 @ 10 p.m.

Response to post #38: Yes, that is exactly what is going on, and you are doing a valiant job exposing and fighting the theft. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder July 18, 2010 @ 10:01 p.m.

Response to post #39: Yes, classic. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder July 19, 2010 @ 9:40 a.m.

Response to post #46: "I'm just a little black rain cloud, hovering over your honey tree...." Best, Don Bauder

0

mindbomber July 19, 2010 @ 10:15 a.m.

Response to #40:

http://media.photobucket.com/image/tin foil hat/theGinsue/tin-foil-hat.jpg?o=1

Best, MB

0

ErikB July 19, 2010 @ 11:20 a.m.

Don - some of these comments point to something that Potter or a stringer could do for the Reader - get into the property tax records for a few of the ballpark district condos and try to ascertain % owner-occupied. Shouldn't be THAT hard. First screen could be whether or not the mailing address for the property tax bill same as unit. Second screen could be whether or not individual also owned another residential property. You could compare with 2-3 projects in Little Italy (or a Mission Valley/UTC condo project) to see if the DT property truly outlier. Would answer speculation above and be good journalism.

0

Don Bauder July 19, 2010 @ 11:54 a.m.

Response to post #48: You can laugh at those who are skeptical all you want, but watch out for your wallet. It doesn't pay to be a believer. Best, Don Bauder

0

mindbomber July 19, 2010 @ 11:59 a.m.

Won't Vantage Pointe skew the numbers for downtown?

0

Don Bauder July 19, 2010 @ 12:05 p.m.

Response to post #49: That would be one way to set up a semi-definitive count. Remember, however, that we are not just talking about the ballpark district. The glut is throughout downtown and beyond, exacerbated by the overbuilding in the ballpark district. So you could start out with 679 vacant units at Vantage Pointe. You also have to look at the structures that were built for condos that are now renting. I am told that an easy way to get a feeling for the failure of the project is just to walk down in the ballpark district on a non-ballgame evening and ask yourself whether anybody is living in those condos. I understand it is an eye-opening experience. Even the biggest downtown condo boosters admit there is a glut. More than 1,000 new and previously-occupied condos are for sale. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder July 19, 2010 @ 12:07 p.m.

Response to post #51: Vantage Pointe "skew" the numbers? Come now. It's an example of what has happened downtown. Best, Don Bauder

0

mindbomber July 19, 2010 @ 12:11 p.m.

Response to #50: It isn't cheap to live in LA or San Francisco or New York either, but something draws people there. It's called economic development. Yes, the developers and politicians are sometimes (but not always) crooks. Sometimes they go to jail; sometimes they get really rich. People still want to live in these places because it's where the jobs are. They also have news organizations of significantly higher quality than your current or former employers.

0

mindbomber July 19, 2010 @ 1:44 p.m.

Response to #52: OK. Don, I'll take your 1000 number at face value even though you didn't cite a source for it.

Most of that 1000 as you acknowledge is Vantage Pointe, which is a disaster, no doubt about it. Bad idea and bad location -- but it's no more part of the Ballpark district than Seaport Village is.

If you take out Vantage Pointe that leaves you w/310 condos for sale in "downtown." Is that really so many? What's the total number of condos downtown? According to the total fabrication of a report you reference above it's 3,500 units in a 26-block area. That's a vacancy rate of 1 percent.

Doesn't sound that bad to me, but at least we are now getting down to the truth of the matter, not the tin foil hat stuff.

0

a2zresource July 19, 2010 @ 3:02 p.m.

RE "CCDC already dominates city council, which as the redevelopment agency should actually be controlling CCDC. How would formalizing this unholy arrangement improve things?":

Maybe I was just wondering how we could get that $9 billion in the CCDC Tax Increment piggy bank out to benefit the rest of us in the now-underfunded remainder of the City of San Diego... but on second thought, maybe it would all go to shoring up Mount Soledad due to recent the City Council vote to extend that state of emergency (Item 118 of July 13, 2010 tentative City Council meeting results).

After all, if La Jolla slides into Mission Bay, then La Jolla is not uniquely La Jolla anymore, is it?

0

SurfPuppy619 July 19, 2010 @ 4:03 p.m.

If you take out Vantage Pointe that leaves you w/310 condos for sale in "downtown." Is that really so many?

By mindbomber

Well, if the market is selling only 10 per month, then yes, 310 condos for sell is too many-in fact it is a 3 year supply.

0

Don Bauder July 19, 2010 @ 4:24 p.m.

Response to post #54: San Francisco is known for its quality of life specifically because it has restricted development. There are parks and open spaces galore -- both in the city and Silicon Valley. (And I'm not sure the San Francisco Chronicle is the great newspaper you seem to think it is.) Best, Don Bauder

0

ErikB July 19, 2010 @ 4:24 p.m.

I looked back and honestly I don't even begin to understand how to think about this.

"That is a major reason why there is not only a huge glut of condos and hotels in the ballpark district, but the ballpark-generated overbuilding has also helped cause gluts elsewhere downtown and throughout the city. Hopefully, San Diegans understand that downtown condos are a disaster, as are hotels. (Any hotel built or refinanced in the last five years is underwater.) The consultant clearly admits that the rapid and excessive construction of these buildings to facilitate the ballpark project is greatly to blame"

Essentially what I THINK you are arguing is that Moores/Ballpark deal fueled subsidized and speculative construction - detached from general market signals. But you are also dealing with variables pointing in the same direction such as cheap money, overall real estate asset bubble, and difficulty in tying what was going on in downtown to say speculative building/buying in Chula Vista. Pretty tortured logic to get from here to there.

I don't know if anecedotal responses from people about what the streets feel like are a good measure. The buildings are designed to be self contained where residents drive into underground lots and go up to their condos. Maybe bad urban form but it is what it is. As noted above, the better measure is to find out if there are less owner occupied units than in other parts of the city as this would be a good measure that the real estate that CS&L is examining was largely priced as a specuative asset or, for all its warts, the ballpark district did provide 3000+ housing units people are using as their primary residence. Only data answers that question.

0

Don Bauder July 19, 2010 @ 4:52 p.m.

Response to post #55: A June story in the Union-Tribune said there were 1,400 housing units for sale downtown, "a three-year glut." Of the 1,400, 500 are resales, less than 200 are in new projects and about 700 Vantage Pointe. I don't know how many condos there are that have been switched to rentals. A slew of them are still empty. You can't just dismiss half the 1400 units because they are supposedly aberrations, particularly when so many condos have switched to rentals and aren't in the figures. Best, Don Bauder

0

David Dodd July 19, 2010 @ 4:53 p.m.

"Opponents of the project said all along that what is now called the ballpark district would develop some day when there was a market for it."

I don't want to pile on, but I take some issue with this. Without the ballpark there, I don't think that district would have been developed for thirty or forty years. I know several people who bought after the ballpark was built. Why? Because of the ballpark. In other words, the expectation from development was that it would go hand-and-hand. And yes, I think the report is a fabrication, and I think that 310 condos is about 300 too many. But I also think that the housing bubble bursting had more to do with this mess than some are willing to admit.

The Moores rip-off is a seperate issue in my opinion.

0

Don Bauder July 19, 2010 @ 4:54 p.m.

Response to post #56: Again, can't say that. We must know how many went rental and aren't on the market, and how many of those are empty. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder July 19, 2010 @ 4:56 p.m.

Response to post #57: That's one way to lower assessed valuations: have La Jolla slip into the ocean. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder July 19, 2010 @ 4:58 p.m.

Response to post #58: But it's many more than 310. That's just Mindbomber's number and it's way too low. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder July 19, 2010 @ 5:52 p.m.

Response to post #60: Yes, the subsidies related to the ballpark project stimulated wholly speculative construction and added to a glut of both condos and hotels. The City wrongly believed in 1998 that there would be a huge need for hotels because of the ballpark and convention center. But ballparks do NOT stimulate tourism and convention centers are overbuilt. Yes, there are other temporal factors, such as a condo boom everywhere that went bust, cheap money, corruption. But the ancillary development related to the ballpark added to a glut that will be around for 4 or 5 years -- longer for hotels. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder July 19, 2010 @ 5:54 p.m.

Response to post #62: It wouldn't have been 30 or 40 years, but it might have been a long time, given what we know now. So what? It should have been developed when there were market signals and not before. Best, Don Bauder

0

paul July 19, 2010 @ 10:23 p.m.

refriedgringo said: "But I also think that the housing bubble bursting had more to do with this mess than some are willing to admit"

I think you touched on something without realizing it.

Yes, the housing bubble bursting ravaged the downtown developments, but the fact is that the housing was built based on the bubble, not on the stadium. The bubble was obviously going to pop at some point, but developers always think they can get in and get out before it happens. The buildings were built because of cheap land and incentives along with skyrocketing housing prices, not because of the ballpark.

The stadium also had virtually nothing to do with hotels either built or planned. Baseball stadiums don't need hotels. The hotels are strictly for the convention center.

In fact, if the "ballpark district" was renamed the "convention center district" and the ballpark was never built but the same developer incentives were in place, just as much development would have occurred (for better or worse), the neighborhoods would be nicer without that monolith blocking streets and views, and the city would be a whole lot better off financially.

If there was no designation of blight at all, and the area continued to develop naturally as a mixed use work/live with some light industrial, we would all be a lot better off today.

0

David Dodd July 19, 2010 @ 10:31 p.m.

"..the fact is that the housing was built based on the bubble, not on the stadium."

Oh, yes, I totally agree. Investors ride the wave, and it was one hell of a wave. Give me a night to think it over, and I'll enjoy responding to the rest of your comment, it raises many good points. Believe me, I did realize the implications of my comment. I was a detached (yet intrinsic) part of the housing bubble and burst. From an employment standpoint, not a cause-and-effect one.

0

SurfPuppy619 July 19, 2010 @ 11:23 p.m.

If there was no designation of blight at all, and the area continued to develop naturally as a mixed use work/live with some light industrial, we would all be a lot better off today.

By paul

Good observation. I agree 100%.

The term "blight" as used by the state for redevelopment today is nothing more than a fraud in every sense.

0

Don Bauder July 19, 2010 @ 11:42 p.m.

Response to post #68: Those juicy subsidies from CCDC lured the developers. The billowing and bursting of the housing bubble had much to do with today's woes, of course, but San Diego's downtown condos were never filled up. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder July 19, 2010 @ 11:46 p.m.

Response to post #69: We'e back to square one. San Diego used the ballpark as a pretext to build into the bubble. Actually, the grand jury made several warnings, but the public didn't know about them because the U-T buried them. The jury warned of a recession, for example -- and also warned that the TOT would not pay for debt service on ballpark bonds. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder July 19, 2010 @ 11:48 p.m.

Response to post #70: Most of downtown San Diego is still considered blighted, despite CCDC claims that it rejuvenated downtown. Yes, it's fraud. Best, Don Bauder

0

paul July 20, 2010 @ 7:08 a.m.

ecoasttransplant said: "Anyways...most of you are twits.

You want to cry about how much a ballpark costs and fail to ignore the infrastructure costs for your freaking cars that make the ballpark a drop in the bucket."

...

Every single item that people are complaining about with the ballpark district cost is repeated around San Diego.

============================================================= If ectransplant is still listening:

I don't see MLB and NFL stadiums sprouting up all over the county, so no, every single item of complaint is emphatically NOT being repeated around San Diego.

I have no problem with the debate over the proper use of infrastructure dollars, but you are (intentionally?) confusing the issue by equating a huge public subsidy for a private business (the ballpark) with public infrastructure. The debate arguing the merits of a high density downtown versus suburban sprawl has nothing to do with Petco.

At least the issue gets discussed here at length, since we are constantly failing to ignore it.

0

Don Bauder July 20, 2010 @ 7:23 a.m.

Response to post #74: The more subsidies for private enterprises such as the Padres and the Chargers, the less public infrastructure throughout the city. Period. It has certainly worked that way in San Diego. Best, Don Bauder

0

a2zresource July 20, 2010 @ 10:30 a.m.

RE "The more subsidies for private enterprises such as the Padres and the Chargers, the less public infrastructure throughout the city. Period. It has certainly worked that way in San Diego."

Earlier in life, not soon after I fell off of a turnip truck, I really didn't have an opinion about the ballpark as it was being bandied about in the late last millennium. Of course, I was still ignorantly tolerable of the level of "coziness" between local developers and our unique complexity of redevelopment agencies and corporations, most prominently RA (AKA City Council members wearing their Redevelopment Agency hats), CCDC, and SEDC. My relative ignorance of the still-ongoing state of civic affairs then I can blame on the general lack of coverage in our distinguished daily paper and other mainstream local media, which, as discussed elsewhere in other Reader comments, has been judged in print form to be worthy of relieving constipation in caged canaries.

I've been blogging here for about two years, and I've been observing the contents of CITY LIGHTS and SCAM DIEGO for awhile now.

It's been awhile since I fell off of that turnip truck.

I assume the east coast transplant blew into town some time after me.

Tax Increment kitties held by redevelopment agencies and redevelopment corporations pretending to be government agencies are a good thing WHEN THEY ARE DOING THE GREATEST GOOD FOR THE GREATEST NUMBER OF US. My rough translation of this is that they need to provide a decent level of true infrastructure, the kind of stuff that increases our own value as individuals in the community AND that protects that value from harm. Now, investors in development of officially-designated and unchallenged "blighted" areas (having a sufficient amount of mandated environmental impact review) are entitled to take a profit or they wouldn't be investing, but I am arguing that them taking a profit AND providing real infrastructure that increases our own value as individuals in the community AND that infrastructure also protects that value from harm is far better than redevelopment that ONLY gives them the chance to take a profit while concurrently driving the local economy into the dirt nose first and taking our communities to hell in a handcart along with it.

"Real infrastructure" includes but is not limited to cheap, reliable and uncontested access to power, water, and the other public utilities that make life possible in this chaparral biome, where "chaparral" is biology shorthand for a desert in which the flora and fauna try to act as if it weren't a desert.

To the extent that local government AND developers AND redevelopment agencies/corporations AND the public utility franchises do not meet the threshold of providing true infrastructure improvements as discussed above, we are on our own with no paddle up that creek until we all understand where we are and how to manage ourselves by objectives out of the mess that others seem to have put us in.

0

David Dodd July 20, 2010 @ 10:41 a.m.

There are way too many DIFFERENT arguments going on in here at the same time. I thought about this last might, and have re-read this today, and I'm not certain that we're not separating the blog content (which I mostly agree with) from the stadium issue at its inception. How to proceed?

0

Don Bauder July 20, 2010 @ 12:20 p.m.

Response to post #76: But how will the citizenry awaken to the pickpockets' depredations when the media are almost entirely in the pickpockets' pockets? Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder July 20, 2010 @ 12:23 p.m.

Response to post #77: There are a lot of themes going back and forth in this opus -- kind of like Dostoevsky vs. Hemingway. Best, Don Bauder

0

nan shartel July 20, 2010 @ 12:56 p.m.

79

HMOG!!!

that could cause a brain concussion!!!

0

Don Bauder July 20, 2010 @ 1:52 p.m.

Response to post #80: I read "Scrambled Eggs Super" over and over to our two sons -- so much that they got tired of it, but I didn't. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder July 20, 2010 @ 1:54 p.m.

Response to post #81: Ya gotta tell me what HMOG means. Best, Don Bauder

0

ecoasttransplant July 20, 2010 @ 1:55 p.m.

@SurfPuppy619

I am simply a resident of Downtown San Diego for the last 11 years. I have watched from my window the development. FWIW, San Diego transplants make up most of the population.

I come from Buffalo, NY where the backwards politics delivers ZERO results. So I know the difference. Perspective is about perspective. I have a view based on living here and other places. It sounds like you have an ignorant view of just San Diego.

All I know is this. San Diego is going to grow. No denying that. It also is limited on resources. Don't think you can deny that. San Diego needs to create a dense urban core. Population trends around the US prove that the migration is going to happen back to the core.

Now is the CCDC perfect or corrupt? Who knows and to be honest I really do not care. The results are all that matters.

It is not like San Diego is a bastion of fiscal responsibility. Look are the sprawl issues and the cost of that.

People want to bitch about Petco Park yet the taxpayer is shelling out $1.3 BILLION for the I-15 express lane project. If you add up the cost of all of the transportation infrastructure, the cost of downtown development is a drop in the bucket.

The reason, I feel, why people are not adding up those numbers because it is their cars that drive to the 3rd and 4th ring burbs and have no problem wasting money on their needs.

@ Don (Twit) Bauder

I have yet to read of a redevelopment project that does not make someone rich. I have yet to find a redevelopment project that was done in a non-profit state of mind.

If you agree that sprawl is bad, how about providing that perspective in your posts? As I said before, San Diego is known for wasting money.

If you want to see what unsuccessful redevelopment looks like, take a visit to the rust belt. THAT is where true FAIL happens.

Urban development takes time as in decades not years or months. You have to ride the ups and downs of the real estate market and economy. Right now it is in a slump but it will rebound.

I walk the streets of downtown every.single.day. I see the small bits of improvement. I lived in the east village before there was a single place to dine, minus a grease spoon, west of 7th. Now there are several. I have watched the slow progress along Broadway between 3rd and 9th. Yes it is very slow but it is still progress.

I am all for a conversation on how it could have been done better and how it can be done better going forward. However, the position that no positive product has occurred is ignorant.

0

ecoasttransplant July 20, 2010 @ 1:56 p.m.

EXPANDED---

As for the subject of affordable housing, I agree there needs to be more. But it should not be done in a way where those who invest top dollar are put at risk.

A perfect example of this risk is how the elected 'leaders' push the homeless around without regards to the neighborhood property values. So I like the CCDC because it protects me to an extent and some politician who does not represent me can not put his trash in my front yard.

Lastly, the argument that libraries are needed to provide internet access is comical. The overhead of a library is a massive waste if one of the main uses is access to a computer.

San Diego should rethink how it distributes services. Operating an internet cafe for the public would be so much cheaper than operating a library that the main purpose it to provide internet.

0

nan shartel July 20, 2010 @ 2:07 p.m.

82...how about Silverstein....A Light in the Attic and Where the Sidewalk Ends...my kids and i all loved him...

83

and HMOG!!!= Holy Mother Of God!!!!!!!...perfect for us ex-pats of the Vatican persuasion...hahahahahahahahaha

that picnic???????

have a great week Don

0

Burwell July 20, 2010 @ 8:59 p.m.

All I know is this. San Diego is going to grow. No denying that. It also is limited on resources. Don't think you can deny that. San Diego needs to create a dense urban core. Population trends around the US prove that the migration is going to happen back to the core.

==========

There's no reason why San Diego has to expand merely to accomodate every slob from the East Coast who wants to live here. North Park and other neighborhoods should not be razed to build cracker box apartment buildings to house the horde of losers that want to live here. The city is totally built out and there should be no development whatever. Most of the transplants who come here have no job skills and lack the ability to make a meaningful contribution to the economy.

0

Don Bauder July 20, 2010 @ 11:02 p.m.

Response to post #84: OK, I'm a twit. I do agree that San Diego will have to provide density, although it doesn't have to be downtown. There have been all kinds of plans for that kind of development around the city, not just at the core, and those plans have lain dormant because the downtown establishment runs things. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder July 20, 2010 @ 11:07 p.m.

Response to post #85: You've only lived here 11 years. You haven't yet learned how concern about keeping residential neighborhood values high is utterly paramount. There is no concern whatever for the unfortunate in San Diego; there is only concern for property values, skewed to the property owned by the top 1%. In a way, though, everybody in Buffalo, from whence you came, is unfortunate. We lived in Cleveland for seven years. The only way I kept my wife from leaving me is telling her we could move to Buffalo. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder July 20, 2010 @ 11:08 p.m.

Response to post #86: OK, now I know HMOG. But there is so much I don't know, as our East Coast friend can attest. Best, Don bauder

0

Don Bauder July 20, 2010 @ 11:11 p.m.

Response to post #87: Remember, too, that there are several reasons why San Diego may NOT grow. One is spelled w-a-t-e-r. Best, Don Bauder

0

Burwell July 20, 2010 @ 11:27 p.m.

There is no concern whatever for the unfortunate in San Diego;

It makes no sense to be "unfortunate" in one of the highest cost areas in the country. The government should force the "unfortunate" out of San Diego and into lower cost areas such as Barstow, Fresno, and Bakersfield where their welfare and disability payments will stretch farther. The state should be "redlined" so as to prevent the "unfortunate" from clustering in desirable areas where it is too costly for the state to financially maintain them.

0

nan shartel July 21, 2010 @ 8:14 a.m.

92

Burwell...u get my first official ZIP IT!!!

i mean like...some peoples children!!!

0

nan shartel July 21, 2010 @ 8:17 a.m.

hey POOH...let those Right Coasties go fish

·´¯·.¸¸..>·.¸´¯·.¸¸..>.·´¯·.¸¸..>·´¯·.¸¸..>·´¯`·.¸¸..>

0

Grasca July 21, 2010 @ 8:56 a.m.

18 Burwell is correct about the abysmal condition of the infrastructure in some areas.

Presently, the Mid Coast Corridor is planned to shirt the edges of Clairemont and offer 25 parking spots on Morena Blvd for those who might use the trolley. In truth there will be no great ridership at this stop because of the parking and access constraints. Anyone who might use this trolley stop will, however, have a prime view to the west of a dead shopping center (Bayview Plaza in the works for over 10 years) and an another abandoned site across from Bayview on Clmt Drive.

You can also enjoy a view of the jacarandas planted on the west side of Morena Blvd which are hand watered under a contract with the Urban Corps. Some of the trees are dead. Most are tilting westward.

But this is about being green and the Urban Forestry Committee started under Mayor Dick Murphy who coined the phrase "America's Finest City" to describe San Diego.

0

paul July 21, 2010 @ 10:41 a.m.

EC said: "People want to bitch about Petco Park yet the taxpayer is shelling out $1.3 BILLION for the I-15 express lane project."

Please stop confusing public infrastructure with a huge subsidy to a private business. Those are two different arguments.

EC said: "San Diego needs to create a dense urban core."

Says who? Why? To improve San Diego has a whole, or to improve your particular experience and property values in a tiny slice of San Diego? San Diego is geographically huge. Why should any proposed dense urban core be centered around your apartment building???

EC said: "Population trends around the US prove that the migration is going to happen back to the core."

Really? The studies I have read don't say that. Can you cite your source for such a statement?

EC said: "Urban development takes time as in decades not years or months"

While the population of the country rose by 78.9% in the 5 decades from 1950 to 2000, the urban cores where you are from dropped dramatically: Philadelphia (-26.7%), Boston(-26.5%), Chicago(-20.0%), Detroit(-48.6%), Cleveland (-47.7%). New York held steady and is about the same.

Yes, you know failure, so why are you proposing we reproduce it in San Diego?

0

Don Bauder July 21, 2010 @ 10:43 a.m.

Response to post #92: I'm sure your suggestion will go over well in Barstow, Fresno and Bakersfield. Have you considered the cost of moving all those people? Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder July 21, 2010 @ 10:44 a.m.

Response to posts #s 93 and 94: Nan always says it well -- and poetically. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder July 21, 2010 @ 10:46 a.m.

Response to post #95: Abysmal infrastructure in SOME areas? Best, Don Bauder

0

paul July 21, 2010 @ 10:49 a.m.

Grasca said: "Mayor Dick Murphy who coined the phrase "America's Finest City" to describe San Diego."

No, you are off by 30 years.

Newly elected mayor Pete Wilson coined the phrase to boost the city's morale after Nixon pulled the 1972 republican convention from San Diego due to rampant corruption. San Diego held "America's finest city week" that year the same week as the Republican convention which was moved to Miami.

0

Don Bauder July 21, 2010 @ 10:50 a.m.

Response to post #96: Good post, Paul. And East Coast has made some good ones, too. These are critical issues that are not covered well in other media and must be debated. I will have more on them, and hope to get more responses such as yours and East Coast's. Best, Don Bauder

0

Grasca July 21, 2010 @ 11:26 a.m.

100 At least I got the political party right. Sorry for the error about who dubbed San Diego "America's Finest City." Murphy used to say it a lot so I assumed he created the title.

0

Grasca July 21, 2010 @ 11:31 a.m.

I can only speak about the abysmal infrastructure in the areas I have visited.

If there are other areas as dismal as mine, please share.

I think Elvis had a song about the conditions I experience called "In the Ghetto."

But we may get a new library, city hall, and downtown ball park as monuments to the reign of Mayor Sanders.

At least pyramids have gone out of style or we would have one of those too.

0

ecoasttransplant July 21, 2010 @ 7:34 p.m.

@ Burwell - Post 87

While you take that view of migration, I have another. I was paid to move to San Diego from the east cost. Probably because they could not find someone with the same skill sets that I have. To consider someone with an MBA a slob...well that is just funny.

I do think some sections of San Diego need to razed. Mainly the parts of downtown from Park to 17th and from Balboa Park to the water.

@ Don - Post 89

I disagree 100% that there is no concern for the unfortunate in San Diego. But you simply cannot put these people first. The reason for this is to service the unfortunate requires money. The better the tax base you have the more money you have for programs that help others.

I have mentioned where I live and where I am from. Nobody else has done the same. Odds are this is because they live in Carmel Valley or La Jolla and simply want to keep their lifestyle without the burden of growing the region.

Post 87

Yes, WATER is a huge issue. Which is why the lawns in front of homes all around San Diego are unsustainable. My building has 2 4ft by 4 ft planter boxes on a concrete sidewalk.

What San Diego needs to do is stop the growth as it stands today and work backwards to the core. That is all I am saying. They project San Diego to grow to 1.6M by 2030. San Diego County to 3.8M in that same time frame.

THE ONLY PLACE you can put that many people is downtown without creating more harm than good. But in order to get people to move downtown, you MUST create a community. You MUST create a sense of place. This can come from retail, library's (just for you) or entertainment complexes.

The other advantage to downtown is it DOES NOT require more infrastructure. It already has the trolley and coaster and by 2030 it will have HS rail to all of California.

Could DT grow without Petco? Sure. But not at the pace you need it to develop.

@ Paul - Post 96

I am not confusing public infrastructure with a huge subsidy to a private business because to me they are one in the same. They are simply tax dollars at work.

I get little to no benefit in the I15 project but my money is paying for it. So while Petco, in your opinion, might be wasted on a couple of private business owners..I say the I15 money is being wasted on PRIVATE HOMEOWNERS.

As for the population growth...it is comical you point out Philadelphia, Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland and New York.

0

ecoasttransplant July 21, 2010 @ 7:34 p.m.

EXTENDED

Why don't you look at Los Angeles, Houston, Phoenix, San Antonio, Dallas, San Jose and ummm SAN DIEGO.

As for the trends...use google guy. There is plenty to read. Here is a little bit of info for you...God is not making any more land. So the only way to go is in and up. Let that sink in for a second.

Let me make it clear. My thinking on the whole process is the ends justify the means. People want to complain about downtown developers making a profit but fail to identify the developers behind their cookie cutter subdivisions and the cost of that.

If people want to have a discussion on the development downtown in a more cost effective manor...so be it. But to say that the development plan did not work or is not needed is just stupid. Even more ignorant to boo the cost of this from a sprawl region.

Let me put it another way. If dense urban development does not happen downtown, it is going to happen in your back yards. Take a look at Pacific Beach. What USED to be a great community of family housing is overrun with renter and duplexes in the back yards where kids played 40 years ago.

Try getting in and out of places like OB or PB...it is a bitch. The reason is the street system is NOT designed to handle that kind of density. Downtown, on the other hand, IS.

Just how far do you want to take the 5-805-15 expansion? 12 lanes? 15?

I am happy Petco Park was built because it was one of the reasons I purchased downtown. I will be even more happy when the new football stadium goes up next to it. Not only will my property values go up but my quality of life will improve.

So enjoy your time in the car on the way home to your 4bed slice of life. I will enjoy a stroll downtown and look to look at what is going to be.

0

Don Bauder July 21, 2010 @ 8:01 p.m.

Response to post #100: It was Pete Wilson who came up with the moniker "America's Finest City." I have written about that. I believe it was in 1972 after the city lost the Republican convention. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder July 21, 2010 @ 8:04 p.m.

Response to post #102: It wasn't just Murphy who used it a lot. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder July 21, 2010 @ 8:06 p.m.

Response to post #103: Shhhh. Don't talk too loud about that pyramid. It would be fitting, though: San Diego is a capital of the pyramid scheme. Might as well make a monument to honor it. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder July 21, 2010 @ 8:10 p.m.

Response to post #104: Even if San Diego has to go the density route downtown (I'm not necessarily agreeing with that), it shouldn't massively subsidize the buildings and then watch them sit nearly empty until a market develops. That is not good planning. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder July 21, 2010 @ 8:15 p.m.

Response to post #105: That explains it. You located downtown to go to baseball games and hope you can go to football games. Telling you that the city is broke won't dissuade you. Incidentally, you refer to "cost effective manor." I think you meant "manner" but it works either way. Best, Don Bauder

0

SurfPuppy619 July 21, 2010 @ 8:30 p.m.

It makes no sense to be "unfortunate" in one of the highest cost areas in the country. The government should force the "unfortunate" out of San Diego and into lower cost areas such as Barstow, Fresno, and Bakersfield where their welfare and disability payments will stretch farther. The state should be "redlined" so as to prevent the "unfortunate" from clustering in desirable areas where it is too costly for the state to financially maintain them.

By Burwell

LOL...I have to agree with Burwell on some of his points......I remember getting into it numerous times with the local cops and FF's who post here, and elsewhere, that they deserve to make 6 figure cash salaries (not even counting the multi million dolalr pensions) b/c they cannot afford to buy a home in San Diego, did not make enough money.

I told them they are not entitled to a job that pays enough to live in a high cost city.....

0

Burwell July 21, 2010 @ 8:58 p.m.

While you take that view of migration, I have another. I was paid to move to San Diego from the east cost. Probably because they could not find someone with the same skill sets that I have. To consider someone with an MBA a slob...well that is just funny. You and others like you are a drain on our economy.

=============

MBAs are a dime a dozen. MBAs know nothing about running businesses and their perverted belief system caused our economic collapse. Ex-Mayor Dick Murphy's Harvard MBA didn't do him or the city any good.

0

Burwell July 21, 2010 @ 9:18 p.m.

The sentence above, "You and others like you are a drain on our economy.", should have appeared in the comment section and not in the quote.

0

David Dodd July 21, 2010 @ 9:29 p.m.

ecoast: Much as I'd love to champion your cause, I'm afraid that I have to agree with Burwell, as caustic and, well, as brutally ungraceful as his comments sometimes appear (no offense, Burwell). People with MBA's in San Diego often spend years sweeping warehouse floors, assembling PVC fixtures into I.V. bags, mopping cafeteria floors, and so on, until they find something more suitable. Nice that your employer moved you here, but an MBA in San Diego is less impressive that the ability to ride a short board for sixty seconds on a six-foot wave. Just sayin'.

0

SurfPuppy619 July 21, 2010 @ 10 p.m.

Ex-Mayor Dick Murphy's Harvard MBA didn't do him or the city any good.

Harvard Business School didn't work out so well for Enron either.....in fact the Harvard MBA is behind more Fortune 500 fraud than convicted felons.

0

paul July 21, 2010 @ 10:26 p.m.

ecoast said: "I am happy Petco Park was built because it was one of the reasons I purchased downtown. I will be even more happy when the new football stadium goes up next to it. Not only will my property values go up but my quality of life will improve. "

======================================

Well, that pretty much explains your position. You bought into the downtown speculation, you have taken a bath lately, and you desperately need more of our tax dollars to prop up you property value. You are most likely also wildly in favor of the convention center expansion, new city hall, chargers stadium and library. How convenient for your property value if the city spends a couple billion it can't afford downtown while letting the rest of the city rot.

If you want to argue relative merits of the trolley versus the freeway, fine, but when you call a sports stadium for a billionaire a public works project, then you have no credibility.

0

paul July 21, 2010 @ 10:57 p.m.

ecoasttransplant said: "As for the population growth...it is comical you point out Philadelphia, Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland and New York. ... Why don't you look at Los Angeles, Houston, Phoenix, San Antonio, Dallas, San Jose and ummm SAN DIEGO.

========================================== Why exactly is it comical?

I'd be happy to compare the two lists. See if you can spot the difference in population densities (pop per sq mile) between the growing cities and the shrinking cities.

San Antonio: 2,808.5 Phoenix: 2,937.8 Dalls: 3,697.44 Houston: 3,897 San Diego: 4,174.8 San Jose: 5,758.1

NY: 27,440 Boston: 13,321 Chicago: 12,649 Philly: 11,410 Detroit: 6,370.1 Cleveland: 6,166.5

Buffalo: 7,206.4

The populations of Buffalo, Detroit and Cleveland have dropped by roughly half to achieve those densities.

LA is an over-populated hell hole which still doesn't compare with the east coast cities.

LA: 8,205/sq mi (3,168/km2).

0

Don Bauder July 22, 2010 @ 8:08 a.m.

Response to post #111: In Orange County, those with low-paying jobs are forced to live in Riverside County. That leads to some dislocations -- including traffic jams. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder July 22, 2010 @ 8:09 a.m.

Response to post #112: Murphy had a fancy law degree, too. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder July 22, 2010 @ 8:11 a.m.

Response to post #113: Noted. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder July 22, 2010 @ 8:13 a.m.

Response to post #114: Great satire. But of course it isn't that bad. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder July 22, 2010 @ 8:14 a.m.

Response to post #115: As I said, I have known some real Harvard MBA thieves in my time. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder July 22, 2010 @ 8:16 a.m.

Response to post #116: Well said, Paul. I am hearing that San Diego citizens are getting wise to these scams. I certainly hope so. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder July 22, 2010 @ 8:19 a.m.

Response to post #117: Interesting data. Of course you know, Paul, that there are a plethora of factors behind those numbers. Still, they are revealing. Best, Don Bauder

0

paul July 22, 2010 @ 8:58 a.m.

Response to #124:

My feeling is that the numbers say, for better worse, dense urban cores have been out of fashion for at least 50-60 years.

Transportation and now information has become so distributed that dense urban cores don't hold the same advantage they once did. Parts can be moved from a world away fairly cheaply, so manufacturers don't need to set up shop next to other manufacturers.

With the speed and quality of information access, hypothetically an investigative reporter could cover stories say in a city like San Diego while actually living in a much less crowded area several states away, such as Colorado. Strictly hypothetical, of course!

0

Don Bauder July 22, 2010 @ 1:05 p.m.

Response to post #125: You make a good point about dense urban cores. They may have gone the way of the dodo. As to your hypothetical about the reporter living in rural Colorado and covering San Diego: thus far, it seems to have worked. And it's been going on for more than seven years. (We live on 36 acres outside a town of 5,500. We're thinking of buying the adjoining 36 acres, and taking down the fences that separate the two properties, so the elk can roam more easily.) Best, Don Bauder

0

paul July 22, 2010 @ 1:40 p.m.

Response to #126: Sounds like a rough life.

We worked our butts off all last year so that we could go watch the elk for a week in Wyoming. Right now my daughter would like nothing better than to move out by you (she is horse crazy). Of course in a couple of years, she would be begging to come back to Southern California to be by the beach!

Go knock down a few fences and enjoy your elk.

0

Don Bauder July 22, 2010 @ 8:30 p.m.

Response to post #127: We're not horse people, and neither are the people occupying the handful of homes in our area. Your daughter might find that kayaking and whitewater rafting in the Arkansas River, as well as skiing in the winter, would be so much fun she wouldn't want to go back to California beaches (and pay California taxes). Best, Don Bauder

0

Sign in to comment