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
Grantville Action Group loses at appeals court level
The judges who ruled in favor of the Grantville redevelopment money-transfer scam are: Joan Lewis (Superior Court); P.J. Nares, J. McIntyre, and J.Irion (Fourth District Court of Appeals).— June 1, 2013 8:12 a.m.
Grantville Action Group loses at appeals court level
The first payment of the money transfer was to be October 2011. Given the existence of redevelopment was up in the air at that point, I don’t know if the first payment happened or not. The most recent ROPS (recognized obligation payment schedule) is when a Grantville money-transfer payment first showed up on an ROPS. The successor agency has been generating ROPSs since last summer. If the money transfer from downtown stands, the funding comes from Grantville property tax receipts. The successor agency will continue to collect tax increment from Grantville until redevelopment debts are paid off.— May 31, 2013 3:38 p.m.
Chargers Stadium, Affordable or Not
“Filner wants to set up a neighborhood investment corporation…” Okay, so what is a neighborhood investment corporation? I did a brief online search. Evidently, Washington, D.C. has one, which is funded with property tax. And there was one in Michigan that went broke. Is Filner’s neighborhood investment corporation different from Jerry Sanders’ Civic San Diego? Is Filner’s an infrastructure financing district? There are multiple bills coming out of the Legislature to make it easier for cities to establish infrastructure financing districts. Even Ben Hueso authored one. Mainly, these bills would allow cities to establish one of these without a public vote. Their funding source would be some version of tax increment financing. And they would have eminent domain powers to fight something as vague as climate change. Would the Chargers’ new stadium have a retractable roof covered in native plants and solar panels? The Chargers could even get a new stadium via redevelopment. The Successor Agency (the City Council) is intent on putting every payment—valid or not—on the enforceable obligation payment schedule for the former Redevelopment Agency. The Oversight Board rubberstamps these payments as they come up for review, and the state Department of Finance seems like they would like to wash their hands of the whole thing. Would Filner, if elected Mayor, put an end to this abuse?— September 12, 2012 9 a.m.
San Diego's redevelopment pigs want back at the trough
My understanding of the Dodgers deal is that the cherry on top is the new, massive TV contract with Fox regional sports network. However, it would be fitting in some way, if redevelopment is part of the deal, because Dodger Stadium is one of the most notorious redevelopments ever. The Latino residents of Chavez Ravine were evicted via eminent domain, forced to leave with their belongings on their backs practically, bulldozers following right behind, mowing down their homes. This was to make way for Dodger Stadium, supposedly in the interest of public good.— March 29, 2012 11:44 a.m.
Can’t Park It in Grantville
As far as I know, these projects are moving forward without redevelopment (successor agency) subsidy and without eminent domain. The outstanding issues are the local infrastructure impacts of these large developments and increasing population density in Grantville/Allied Gardens without providing the required park space. As of February 1, 2012, Grantville redevelopment is stopped, except for projects that are already contracted for. My understanding is Shawnee is not one of them.— March 14, 2012 12:30 p.m.
The return of the Chargers scandals
The City likes to hire consultants who look at only one side of the equation. A more reasonable view of sports stadium subsidies is provided by Stanford economics professor Roger Noll, who spoke at the MORR (Municipal Officials for Redevelopment Reform) conference two years ago in San Jose. His conclusion: There is no net economic benefit from stadium subsidies to the municipalities who subsidize them. The lone exception: Fenway Park in Boston…which was built when, 100 years ago? Why is Fenway a benefit? According to Noll, it has a small footprint and concessions are offsite. New stadiums have all concessions onsite. And, as this article points out, the net effect is the transfer of wealth from the locals to the team owner and players, who, for the most part, live elsewhere. Fortunately, with the demise of redevelopment agencies, San Diego won’t have redevelopment as a funding source to offer up for the football stadium, unless the City Council and Mayor can figure out some way to sneak this onto the Successor Agency’s Enforceable Obligation Payment Schedule. This is the list of payments the City claims are obligated, based on previous Redevelopment Agency contracts. Currently, I know of at least two payments on the EOPS that are for projects that do not exist. On Wednesday, March 7 we will be in Sacramento at the final MORR conference to celebrate the demise of redevelopment agencies. We plan to lobby the Department of Finance to investigate the payments on the San Diego EOPS. If any readers know of dubious redevelopment projects on this list, please let me know, and we will present them to the Department of Finance next Wednesday. www.GrantvilleActionGroup.com— February 29, 2012 9:11 a.m.
Residents Oppose Road Linking Mission Valley to Serra Mesa
This is from the “Environmental Initial Study” for this road-connection project: “The current configuration of the street system in the southern part of Serra Mesa and the surrounding area contributes to the congestion of arterial roadways and the surrounding freeway system.” However, we know that this proposed road connection is all about mitigating traffic impacts from the Quarry Falls (now Civitas) development in Mission Valley. It is not about Serra Mesa. We know this, because when then District 7 City Councilman Jim Madaffer made the motion in favor of Quarry Falls, the motion included initiating the Serra Mesa community plan amendment to allow for this road connection. (By the way, why wasn’t Donna Frye, who represented Mission Valley at the time, allowed to make the motion at City Council?) This statement in the Environmental Initial Study has the ring of a “presumptive conclusion” to it. This is like the Grantville settlement agreement, which will shunt $31 million of Grantville’s property tax to downtown to pay for C Street trolley improvements. According to the City, the C Street trolley improvement is a Grantville improvement. Because the City Council said so, it is presumed true. Here, Serra Mesa traffic demands road connections to Mission Valley, because the Planning Department says so. The environmental documents for the Phyllis Place road connection should at least be honest and say this road connection is all about Mission Valley traffic—not Serra Mesa’s traffic. If it were not for the massive Civitas/Quarry Falls development, this road connection would not be a consideration. And we know that the Mission Valley traffic coming up this road will only make Serra Mesa traffic worse—especially as it relates to the arterial roadways in Serra Mesa.— January 31, 2012 3:24 p.m.
Councilmember David Alvarez Says Community-Benefit Districts Will Help Galvanize Barrio Logan
If the Barrio Logan “Community-Benefit District” is run anything like a Maintenance Assessment District (MAD) or Business Improvement District (BID), watch out. And the fact that this article mentions an “engineers report” suggests this is another MAD. MADs and BIDs utilize a backward form of democracy wherein the landed gentry, who own the largest parcels or the most properties, get the most votes. The purpose of the engineer is to gerrymander the district in such a way as to maximize the votes in favor of the MAD, i.e. maximize the voters with the most votes to their names in order to rig the vote in favor of the MAD. This is “tyranny of the majority” at its worst, or maybe it’s just tyranny. The end result is the small land owner, who may want nothing to do with the MAD, is forced to pay an additional tax for a benefit they may not want. If this thing goes forward in Barrio Logan, at least run it as a one man, one vote election. Give the smaller property owners a fair shot and an equal say.— January 27, 2012 11:28 a.m.
Push Me, Pull You, Arrest Me at California State University Headquarters
UC Davis update: All charges were dropped against the student-protesters arrested during the November pepper-spray incident. The internal investigation of UCD campus police continues. Occupiers are back on the quad and have recently decided to relocate their occupation to a nearby campus building. UCD protesters, students, parents and alumni, including me, are still calling for the resignation of Chancellor Katehi. In the wake of the pepper-spray incident, she admitted she needed to become more acquainted with the UCD students. By the time of the incident, she was already well into her second year as Chancellor. At the time of the occupation, if she were familiar with UCD students, she never would have called on the cops to roust the occupiers from the quad. They likely would have left of their own accord. Katehi’s lack of judgment here questions if she is the best person, or even capable, of running the UC Davis campus. Assemblyman Block and our other Legislators should seek Katehi’s ouster as UCD chancellor.— January 25, 2012 9:38 a.m.
Redevelopment promoters weep over supreme court decision
The problem for the lobbyists who want to bring back redevelopment will be the Governor. Dan Walters in today’s Sac Bee quotes Darrel Steinberg: “The governor appears uninterested in re-creating anything related to redevelopment.” Walters continues, “And Brown, after all, has the final say on what, if anything, will be done to keep redevelopment alive.” http://www.sacbee.com/2012/01/18/4195486/dan-walt… And if, as Mike Aguirre says, “both Democrats and Republicans are united against redevelopment,” that’s a switch. It was the Republican caucus in the Legislature who stood fast against Brown and for redevelopment. Their argument: They did not want to give Brown the political victory. Fortunately, there were a handful of Republicans who had a moral compass, who voted to abolish redevelopment agencies. By the way, the local Republicans’ lack of a moral compass on this is why I re-registered “non-partisan.” Also, check out www.GrantvilleActionGroup.com for more redevelopment skepticism.— January 18, 2012 9:10 a.m.