Agreed wholeheartedly. But he's going to run for another term. And he'll probably win regardless of an opponent. The sickening possibility is that he'll run unopposed. That happened with ol' Bill "Keystone" Kolender, who was likely already suffering dementia when he was re-elected the final time. Makes ya' feel so good about cops, i.e. law enforcement, in the region, doesn't it?
A competent port would have ran the plans by the Coastal Commission before "awarding" the project to Brigantine. If the project was a renovation it would have been okay, but it seems the greedy port wants to wall off every inch of the bay for the benefit of - well themselves. They want to destroy quaint Seaport Village too.
Now, the building will be an ugly empty eyesore that could have been a tax generating property on a month-to-month lease while the redevelopment plans were negotiated. The Port is a disgrace and filled with useless cronies. This debacle proves it.
Setting aside misgivings about Mayor Kevin Faulconer's supporters/lobbyists being billed as "brands" and his slush fund as a "charity," if San Diego became known as "Soccer City" instead of "America's Finest City," I would be a happier citizen. But hat's off to commenter Cassander for that succinct takedown of Mayor Sunny and his money-making creation, One San Diego.
Pro-Density Cheerleaders are assisting Developers to profit while doing too little to ease the shortage of Low and Low-Moderate housing units. They are the ones responsible for the "affordable housing" shortage (as opposed to all the market rate housing) we have today because they are focused on profits and are enabled to do so because of their donations to elected officials! Mission Hills Heritage and SOHO are working together in the only way that they can, seeing that the City and the CD3 Office have taken advantage of all the people that have spent many years working on improving their Community Plan Update only to be sold out at the end, just like so many people in North Park (NP) were. The one big difference between NP and Mission Hills is that the NP Planning Committee (NPPC) is owned by NP Main Street and the CD3 office; so, of course, all the last minute planning changes were approved by the majority of the North Park Planning Committee Board because it was the best we could do. Many in NP are also angry and I expect to see additional lawsuits occur once NP residents get organized.
Once again SOHO has come forward to do the heavy lifting to get our city officials to take the concerns of its citizens seriously. What City Council, under the leadership of former Council Member Gloria, did is shameful. Their complete disregard of 8 years of work by the community to do the bidding of developer lobbyists, while cynically using the climate and affordable housing as cover, was a low point for our city. Hopefully SOHO and Mission Hills Heritage will force City officials to do right by the community.
On January 4, 2017, preservationist groups Save Our Heritage Organisation and Mission Hills Heritage filed suit against the City of San Diego for allowing last-minute changes to Uptown's community-plan update. The revised plan would include ...
thinkered is 180 degrees out of whack with what the community wants. there isn't nearly the infrastructure to handle 5000 residents squeezed into the area. Congestion is already at unbearable levels and you want to do what? go to NY or somewhere else and breath deep all the Urban gas.
I could see 30 ft residential building supporting a few hundred but I/we can't see 1700 units with not enough parking or infrastructure for ingress and egresss around that area.
thanks, Bay Park Native.
Yikes. It seems like the city should have just written new laws specific to AirBnB operators instead of going after them using bed and breakfast code requirements. As Smith clearly states here, there is no breakfast portion of her business. Technically, this ruling sets the precedent that anybody who lets a buddy stay in their apartment for a case beer could be prosecuted under this same law. The sample apartment would most likely have a kitchen, and that kitchen would have (at one time or another) most likely served a meal commonly referred to as "breakfast." I have no issue with the city going after AirBnB operators if they decide they don't approve of the idea of the short-term rentals. If you don't like it, just outlaw it. It's simple. You may have to deal with an excess of anger from local constituents and potential tourists, but if you are clearly against something, come up with some laws that specifically state how clearly against this thing you are. This case is akin to arresting someone for jaywalking who is just out jogging because you want to outlaw jogging, but since there are no specific laws against jogging you just chose the closest illegal activity. Are all the drivers working for rideshares in danger of losing lawsuits since they don't follow the same operating codes as cab drivers? Both services pick up passengers and transfer them to destinations for a fee. One could argue they are remotely similar. If anything, this ruling shows that cities like San Diego need to do a better job of staying ahead of the curve when it comes to new technologies such as AirBnB and Uber. If you see something coming that you don't like, either outlaw it or regulate it quick. If you wait too long and start retroactively going after individuals operating legally within the city you're just going to look silly. All this ruling shows is that the city is either too scared to outlaw AirBnB, or too afraid to deal with the wrath of a handful of neighbors dealing with two extra cars parked on their block.
There are thousands of houses being rented in San Diego tonight under identical circumstances. Legal or not, it isn't fair to this one woman. They are all advertised on the Internet. If every tourist in the country can find them, surely the City Attorney should be able to find them also.
Caden - By your logic, Developers must be $AINT$ since they make so much money creating ever more Density in what is already a very cool neighborhood, thanks to all the people that already live here, not the developers.
"Folks investing in their Neighborhood" is different than cramming ever more new folks into a neighborhood that already lacks the infrastructure it is due, all in the name of Progress. I'd love to live in Rancho Santa Fe but nobody is building Density there. Why, because it is not as good a deal for the Developers as it could be in Mid-City. This is a push by Developers to make big bucks and all the talk about providing low and moderate housing is a canard.
If all new developments had to include large amounts of low and moderate housing (with rents that were fixed for 30+ years) you would see the Developers cry foul... They want to be able to sell market rate units or better yet lease market rate units so that they can have an ever increasing income stream.
Just wondering if Mr. McCann would have really had to pay for those legal services? Would the Republican Party have reached into its treasure trove of donations and helped him out if he had lost?
In answer to the headline of this story - YES, CITIZENS did loose! This is a far larger issue than Mr. McCann.
Why does the San Diego Registrar have discretion??????
And the Judge, ruling Ms. Clark should pay - curious, very curious!
There is change in the air folks, the great American Citizens are fed up - perhaps the true message in the National Arena is - ITS TIME FOR ORDINARY FOLKS TO START PAYING ATTENTION TO THE NATIONAL DYSFUNCTION OF THE WORLD WE CALL POLITICS!!!!!
Thanks for researching and making public this tale of a rich man's ego and a politician's ambitions....and sadly the good of the community and well being of our spectacular park is not part of their considerations. There are two aspects to what these "good old boys" are trying to pull off that need to be addressed.
One is the needless and permanent damage they would bring to our treasure of a park. I have read dozens of comments and been part of many conversations about this concept and it’s very hard to find anyone in favor of it. It just is not necessary to either open up the Plaza (that has already happened with Filner's plan) or create parking (there are many many other less destructive ideas to address that, if its really the issue). We can only assume there are other agendas the connected power players of our City have for reviving the plan: a gift to a parking companies? construction companies? various consultants,? or even further commercial development of Balboa Park? Maybe a hotel in the park is part of their long term agenda. Perhaps development similar to Paul Jacobs proposal for Sea Port Village. Its public land, so they must feel it needs to be offered up as a resource for some wealthy donor to make money off of.
The other issue is also now becoming clear, that San Diego only has one political party when it comes to city politics, and its the party of the developers, the land owners and the rich. At times our local politicians call themselves Democrats and other times Republicans, but they are all working for the same folks, and its not the citizens of this city. Could it be the case that the Democrats chose to give Faulconer a free pass to win the June primary? They said since around the first time Faulconer started meeting with Jacobs that it was pointless to run a Democrat in the primary because he was so popular. They almost got away with that until Lori Saldana spoiled their plan by getting in the race, shaming them into nominally supporting Ed Harris. Given their big national donor (Jacobs) was supporting Faulconer their agenda potentially seems to have been to help get him reelected so as to not alienate Jacobs support for other candidates.
We need to have a city government that is working for the people who live and work here, not just the rich and powerful who see this city as their treasure chest to make money from. But that won't happen until we get a political party that isn't controlled by the old guard. But at the moment we also need to save Balboa Park from their terrible plan.
Cdydatzigs: Do not fall for this line of nonsense. Money is fungible. If the San Diego economy could stand up under a boost in the TOT tax to 16.5 percent, the city would get $120 million a year. This could be used for numerous things -- particularly infrastructure. That's why the group is named "No Downtown Stadium -- Jobs and Streets First!"
The $120 million that would not be spent subsidizing on an out-of-town billionaire could be used for many, many things.
Again, the question is: Do you want a rundown city or do you want to subsidize a dishonest, incompetent Stockton billionaire family's football stadium? If San Diego subsidizes the Spanos family, it is probably guaranteeing many years of lousy football. Best, Don Bauder