AlexClarke: Someone who cannot afford legal help can go to public defenders. However, public defenders are overworked and responsible for too many clients, so the defense is often inadequate. In the case of Steigerwalt and his associates, the people were not getting representation at all, despite having paid. It can be a dilemma. Best, Don Bauder
Uptown Planners is the official elected community group that exists expressly to advise the planning department and city council on the community's thoughts on development issues. The current board was elected with a record breaking turnout by Uptown residents. A broad and diverse group of people chose this board, not a small group of naysayers or NIMBY's as you wrongly suggest. The City Council and specifically Todd Gloria chose to completely ignore their work as well the hundreds of people who wrote or showed up at meetings to oppose support the Gateway Plan. These residents did not oppose development, or diversity, or affordable housing or saving the planet. What they opposed was more of the business as usual where our elected officials help the well connected and wealthy use our city as the want for their profits. These residents want to help the city evolve and grow while respecting its history and it residents. And you're just naive to think Todd Gloria is anything but a politician trying to please the people who really keep him in power, the elite of this city.
Where the affluent meet the effluent?
ICare - Calling out someone as a NIMBY just identifies you as name caller! Stick to the facts and others might pay attention to what you are saying.
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.
All facts here. The Titles of the story tell it all. A rare story on the Reader that is credible. Marty Graham is an effective freelance writer, not a biased union loving one like Reader reporter Susan Luzzaro (and her union loving gadlfy entourage of posters).
You're exactly right, Founder. I was about to post what you described is precisely what happened.
SOHO and MHH have got a very strong case, because the adopted plan was such a sloppy, grasping mess. If the developers could have been satisfied with the almost total giveaway they got in the draft plan, this lawsuit wouldn't stand a chance. Because up until they had the planning commission muck it up, the update process did follow the letter of legal review (even if only to completely ignore the input from the community).
But no, they got too greedy, and this snap at their reflection is going to cost them the meal already in their mouth.
Strange world isn't it? Two cities fighting about which one "gets" to treat sewage, rather than which one is stuck with the task. And now sewage is a resource, I must assume.
When I reported on this in 2014 (http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/20...), there was talk the two homes would eventually be used for homeless housing. But I guess that plan fizzled. Here was the SD Public Works statement at that time: "The long term plan is for the homes to continue their lives as residences after final locations are determined and environmental review is completed."
Trees play a significant role in the Climate Action Plan; contributing more to GHG reduction than any local action except mass transit and increasing electric car charging stations. (CAP Table 3.1)
There are plenty of trees that do fine in San Diego once established. I've planted six from three species: Pearl Acacia, Bottle Brush and Chinese Flame trees and they are thriving. The city has great recommendations for selecting trees, i.e. trees appropriate for the parkway space between the sidewalk and curb,
And palm trees don't count. They're actually a part of the grass family.
Like a Spanos, the eucalyptus is top heavy with shallow roots. Could topple over if ground support is too saturated.
Honestly, Alex Clarke what's the motivation in spending so much time commenting on articles? Do you even live in the South Bay?
Pjamason2, The issue is safety and access, I'm not an advocate of us vs. them which this boils down to more often than not. If a reasonable alternative exists or could be made to exist it should be reviewed. As for access to El Cajon Blvd there are cross streets every couple of hundred meters. If you can read a street sign you know what block you are on and can access your location/destination. I favor cycling as a transportation source but not if it makes the cyclist a target which makes many of these proposed routes less tangible in the eyes of the non-cycling/commuting public. If a proposed route is already congested with many stop signals and cross traffic how does making it worse benefit the cycling community? I would personally rather see Orange and Howard become "Traffic calmed" 30 mph through streets with minimal stop signals, so a nice steady cycling commute could be achieved, just a thought. Sorry about your lack of compassion and cooperation with the rest of the community.
You're absolutely right, bbq: side streets such as Howard/Orange and Robinson are the natural place for locating bike paths, not major thoroughfares. However, this whole pro-bike agenda has never been about providing safe or sensible passage for bicycling--it's about throttling vehicle traffic and creating sham "transit corridors" that will allow developers to build without providing parking.
Why else would SANDAG and the city duplicate effort, putting bike paths just a block away from the others' projects? For SANDAG, anti-car projects like this give it carbon offset credits that allow it to expand highways for north county. For the city, expanding the areas that can be defined as accessed by a "transit corridor" allows developers to claim density bonus and other shortcuts that shaft the community of parking and other infrastructure then pocket the difference.
Back in the day, how I've wondered when I would be able to use that, in the late 1970s I lived in North Park. As an Olympic hopeful, anytime I went out on a training ride to the east we always used Howard/Orange, El Cajon Blvd. was avoided at all costs, as were University and Washington in Hillcrest. The issue here is the bike routes do not and should not be located on the principle business routes through a community. I do agree that sections of town do require the traffic calming, specific markings such as sections of the coast highway due to limited alternative routes and the scenic aspects, but when reasonable alternatives such as Howard/Orange in this case and Robinson in Hillcrest they should become the principle cycling routes. Perhaps we allow some minor zoning changes that would allow cycling and pedestrian friendly businesses to relocate, a coffee kiosk or Bike repair? To the businesses and motorists work with the cycling community and vice versa. Great communities only get there through compassion and cooperation.
Trump will accomplish little of what he boast about. The stupid blue collar workers that think he will help them need to look at his past. Trump is and never has been a friend of the working guy. His so-called tax plan only benefits the wealthy. His jobs plan is just more bluff and bluster. He "saved" 800 jobs but the same company shipped 1200 jobs to Mexico. He has not yet chosen a single cabinet person that is friendly to the person who works by the hour or has a lower or middle management job. San Diego will go along and the rich will get richer, the poor will not benefit by an increase in the minimum wage and the middle class will become the working poor.
AlexClarke: Bernie Sanders was the first to tap into the discontent of American workers and the young. The stunning gap between middle class and upper 1% incomes and wealth are at the bottom of this content. Trump -- as you say, historically unfriendly to workers and the middle/lower classes -- picked up the Sanders beat and told one lie after another, convincing the uninformed voters (greatly white nationalists) that he could fix things. He can't and really has no desire (or political understanding) to do so.
Within two years, he may face impeachment and conviction, as people figure out how they have been duped by a con man. On the other hand, with his luck, he may still be popular. The nation faces a tumultuous immediate future. Best, Don Bauder
ImJustABill: Hillary was certainly not going to stop the corruption on Wall Street. Agreed. Bernie, however, would have done his best to stop the frightening income and wealth gap. Trump, on the other hand, will exacerbate it. That is one reason for the stock market's strong performance since his election. Best, Don Bauder