Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Close to Home — What it’s like on the street where you live
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
Number of mayoral candidates now stands at nine...make that 13
I posted this on Bauder’s recent DeMaio article: And speaking to the issues, we have SB 1 and SB 731 working their way through the Legislature. SB 1 would recreate redevelopment at transit hubs, use tax increment financing and allow eminent domain for promoting a “sustainable community.” SB 731 weakens CEQA to make it easier for the developers. These bills are all about corporate welfare, SB 1 author Steinberg says as much. This would also encourage more money going to downtown projects, since “the neighborhoods” typically are not transit hubs, e.g. Serra Mesa. Speaking of mayoral candidates, Bruce Coons' “one issue” speaks to all of this. Historic preservation intersects with redevelopment, infill development, infrastructure, community planning…— August 29, 2013 8:37 a.m.
Hueso, Emerald reconfirm statements on DeMaio behavior
Pat, I agree with you. This story has no heroes and is “gross” (DeMaio’s term). The more Hueso and Marti weigh in on this, the more it tarnishes them. As Don commented earlier, there are important issues in this city. Hopefully, this will take the shine off of any Marti mayoral aspirations, as much as her cozying up to Grantville developers, after they paid off her 2008 campaign debt.— August 29, 2013 6:43 a.m.
Hueso, Emerald reconfirm statements on DeMaio behavior
And speaking to the issues, we have SB 1 and SB 731 working their way through the Legislature. SB 1 would recreate redevelopment at transit hubs, use tax increment financing and allow eminent domain for promoting a “sustainable community.” SB 731 weakens CEQA to make it easier for the developers. These bills are all about corporate welfare, SB 1 author Steinberg says as much. This would also encourage more money going to downtown projects, since “the neighborhoods” typically are not transit hubs, e.g. Serra Mesa. Speaking of mayoral candidates, Bruce Coons' “one issue” speaks to all of this. Historic preservation intersects with redevelopment, infill development, infrastructure, community planning…— August 29, 2013 6:31 a.m.
Allred wants council to nix deal with Filner
Well, what I remember from the “COW” (community orientation workshop) is special meetings need to be officially noticed within 24 hours, which I think this was. (I looked late this morning; I was surprised it wasn’t noticed yet. I next looked at about 3; it was noticed.) It should state if it is an action item or not, which this one does not. And so far, the description of the item says it is about settling McCormack Jackson’s lawsuit. All indications are that McCormack Jackson is not a party to a settlement. This suggests the closed session meeting is about something else, like settling with Filner. Given this is likely the subject of the meeting, it should say so. Closed session agendas often contain items which relate to employee/employer (City) issues, which are best done in private. Paying Filner would seem to fall under this umbrella. Of course, I am not an attorney, but I was cognizant of the Brown Act, when I was on a planning group. In a general sense, the Brown Act is to ensure that legislative bodies do the public’s business in a transparent way and in a way the public may participate. My interactions with various incarnations of the city council lead me to believe that this is not one of their priorities.— August 22, 2013 6:13 p.m.
Allred wants council to nix deal with Filner
Here is the official notice of tomorrow’s special closed session city council meeting: "Conference with Legal Counsel - existing litigation, pursuant to California Government Code section 54956.9(d)(1): SCS-1 McCormack Jackson v. City of San Diego, et al. San Diego County Superior Court Case No. 37-2013-00058613-CU-OE-CTL Attorney Assigned: J. Goldsmith, City Attorney This case, including the City’s cross-complaint, arises from a claim by an employee against the City of San Diego and Mayor Filner alleging sexual harassment. The City Attorney will update the City Council on the status of the litigation and seek direction regarding settlement and other matters related to the case." Note the title is “McCormack Jackson v. City of San Diego, et al.” The description of the item suggests they are meeting regarding settling this litigation. It does not say “settlement with Bob Filner, so he resigns as Mayor.” If this closed session is a vote to authorize a settlement with Filner, it should say so. And, assuming they decide to indemnify Filner or otherwise pay him off, that would have to be done in a properly noticed open meeting of the city council. So, maybe if this whole thing does not result in a settlement with McCormack Jackson, Allred will have a Brown Act violation lawsuit, too.— August 22, 2013 5:30 p.m.
Councilmember Lorie Zapf collects $130k in six months nearly $36k from fundraisers hosted by Sudberry Properties
Count on Lorie Zapf to vote in favor of the Franklin Ridge (aka Phyllis Place) road connection from Quarry Falls into Serra Mesa. Mission Valley developers, including former Filner advisor Allen Jones, are all for it; Serra Mesa residents, not so much. It might be a good idea to see how much Sudberry donated to District 7 Councilman Scott Sherman, who currently represents Serra Mesa and Mission Valley.— July 30, 2013 3:23 p.m.
Big people talk about issues; small people talk about people
Fred, Thanks for your comments here, and elsewhere, helping to keep eyes on the ball: The issue is not sexual harassment. It is the ongoing corruption and abuse of power at City Hall. Sexual harassment just happens to be one thing that everyone, including “The Conservatives,” can appreciate as wrong. One of the reasons the City Council approved the Sunroad deal is that The Conservatives thought that the $100,000 payoff was “a good business deal.” Don, Regardless of the dollar amount involved, you must agree that cutting special deals to fund a project in one community, so a development can happen in another community, is bad government. This is just like the Grantville money transfers, using $46 million of Grantville’s property tax to fund projects elsewhere, just so redevelopment can happen in Grantville. Sure, the dollar amounts of Sanders’ backroom deals probably far outweigh anything Filner would consider. But, Filner’s smaller deals are still a betrayal to those who voted for him. This is the mentality of corruption that permeates City Hall. In addition to sexual harassment training, let’s give the Mayor and his staff corruption training. The government should not be in bed with big business. Brian— July 12, 2013 6:32 a.m.
Will Civic San Diego help truly needy?
“Centre City ‘was often criticized for keeping all of the downtown tax-increment money downtown, yet the critics choose to ignore that it was illegal to do otherwise,’ bristles Graham.’’ But wait. The Fourth District Court of Appeals just ruled that it is legal to take money out of Grantville redevelopment and send that to downtown. Over $31 million! This suggests if CCDC or The Downtown Cheerleaders had the will, they could have transferred downtown tax increment to other communities. They wanted to keep all the Centre City money downtown, plus suck it in from other communities. Besides, Katheryn Rhodes is correct. California redevelopment law allows TI for affordable housing to be spent anywhere in the region, not just within the project area.— June 19, 2013 8:30 a.m.
Grantville Action Group loses at appeals court level
Not yet. The California Department of Finance is disputing the $31 million trolley line payment to downtown. I believe this is because this is a cooperation agreement between the RDA and the City. The DOF said they would not allow these. But, will they allow cooperation agreements between the City’s RDA and the County? This is what the rest of the Grantville settlement payments are. So far, the DOF is not questioning these.— June 1, 2013 11 a.m.
Grantville Action Group loses at appeals court level
Fred, Just to clarify, for the Grantville Action Group, it has been a team effort. Thanks go to the thousands who signed “Stop Grantville Redevelopment” petitions and became supporters, the hundreds who donated to the legal fund, the hearty folks who attended meetings and worked Spring Fest booths and walked the community, and to our attorney who did much of his work for GAG—especially the appeal—pro bono. Brian— June 1, 2013 8:38 a.m.