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
DeMaio Blind to One Thing: Greed
Carl's past is worth reviewing, from the time past when the U-T had one or two real reporters: http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050518/…— November 8, 2010 7:05 p.m.
Council Votes to Reopen Winter Shelter in Barrio Logan
The rearrest and arraignment happened last week. It was all over the news. From the U-T, "“Some investigations we are able to prosecute very quickly and others require months if not years of investigation,”... “What I think is important is the San Diego Police Department homicide detectives never forgot [the little girl]." Capt Long was fully aware that a "homeless" person is not the arrested, arraigned, alleged killer. A Logan Heights gang member is. Logan Heights is in whose Council district?— November 5, 2010 7:59 a.m.
Council Votes to Reopen Winter Shelter in Barrio Logan
I think a letter to Capt Boyd Land is in order. You know he knew.— November 4, 2010 6:24 p.m.
Council Votes to Reopen Winter Shelter in Barrio Logan
"'There was a person who was killed by a homeless person in Golden Hill, is that not true?" Hueso asked San Diego Police Captain Boyd Long.'" Hueso is an unbelievable. What a doooosh! Didn't anyone offer up the actual info and put Hueso to shame? The police did a great job just this week of arresting and filing a case against a man, potentially closing the case on a horrible crime, for a crime NOT committed by a homeless person, but rather reported by one: "On Dec. 31, 2007, at about 7:20 p.m., a homeless man discovered Pinson in an abandoned house in the 2900 block of E Street in Golden Hill. The girl appeared top be injured and unconscious. The man left the house and borrowed a cell phone to call police, who arrived a short time later and found Pinson dead inside the house." Source: Police Think They Solved Murder Mystery | NBC San Diego— November 4, 2010 3:38 p.m.
South Park's Granny Flats — City Says Yea, Some Citizens Say Nay
#35, Thanks for being honest and open. You are appreciated for that. But as far as me or others "cramming" a "blog" (the Reader is a newspaper that allows comments on articles), please think of this: The Reader is the only paper in town that will report things that the city doesn't want the public to freely weigh in on. The Reader reported this story in a straightforward way, but the city wouldn't talk to the reporter. The Reader comments section allows residents to present data in support of or against an issue. In our comments we may argue for and against issues, issues concerning what we know the city doesn't give a damn what residents want or think, if it isn't in line with the city's goal. This is the only open forum residents have. After years of writing sincere letters to our councilpersons and being ignored or politely and slickly dismissed, we get it. After taking off work and waiting all day to speak for 3 minutes in council meetings, then being told we only get one minute, we get it. After learning that the city has decided things behind closed doors and after realizing that council votes are decided long before the councilmembers sit down and cast a vote, we get it. It's great that you are part of very organized and well-established advocacy groups and that you and they have the power to put more pressure on the mayor and the council than small groups of citizens do. But that is your job. You earn a living by being an organization professional. Our jobs are to go to work in labs or offices or schools or whatever. This is our free chance to report ideas and findings. We don't have the ear of Ann Jarmusch or Roger Showley, or the money to make major enough campaign contributions to mayors and council candidates to get their ears. Back to the subject of changing the single-family residential code to allow rental units on single parcels: it hasn't been allowed since 2003, thank goodness and thanks to the Dick Murphy city council. (Maybe that's why Murphy wasn't popular with the Republicans and developers!) Anyway, it's likely there haven't been any applications since 2003, right? Because the 2003 code for single parcels in single-family zones didn't allow construction of extra rental units. If it had been allowed, in the huge real estate mess that blew through between 2003 and now, my neighborhood would probably now be quite a bit more crowded with rentals. You'll probably get what you want, now that you'll have Zapf plus a new council president who will put it on the agenda. Ben Hueso frustrated you, because he didn't want the fight before going to the Assembly. I'm sure you'll now get what you want. It's pretty clear it's open season on the old neighborhoods, and the moving parts are all working in your favor.— November 3, 2010 1:45 p.m.
A Family (Genovese) Affair?
The city filed some more docs yesterday (11/02/2010) in Kessler v City : "Ex Parte Application - Other and Supporting Documents (requesting an Order to 1) set Hearing on Demurrer; 2) Vacate Trial Date; 3) issue ruling on M.S.J.) filed by City of San Diego." Anyone want to explain what this means? Ex Parte was scheduled for today (11/03/2010) at 08:30:00 AM at Central in C-61.— November 3, 2010 9:36 a.m.
Proposition D Thumbed Down Overwhelmingly
#7, "Jerry Sanders wanted to be a leader, the mayor" Not really. His campaign theme was "to run the city like a business." And he has done that...a really bad business (a few models come to mind). The people were never to be his shareholders. Many people knew that, but the U-T and VoSD championed Sanders on, never asking him about his phony "CEO" resume, created by Tom Stickel and other downtown/Coronado/North County bankers and wheeler dealers. In any normal town Sanders would have been ripped to shreds over his phony CEO claim. For god's sake, the company he claimed to oversee was named "Virtual Capital." That was too good to be true. But he was the Republican's and businessmen's boy, and so here we are now.... with a virtual mayor and a virtual government.— November 3, 2010 9:07 a.m.
South Park's Granny Flats — City Says Yea, Some Citizens Say Nay
#18 The irony is that City's reason for the community plan updates is infill, ...and somewhere in there they say this is to provide convenient housing near downtown, to keep the gas-guzzling anti-green suburbanites from seeking homes ever further out and destroying the remaining open space. But...but, but, but, ...destroying the very near-downtown single-family zones by allowing them to become de facto multi zones will do just what it always does, drive young and old families further away, out to quieter, safer, uncrowded areas. (Where most of the consultants for the CPUs live.) You'd think the City could make sense some of time! What makes sense to the City Planners is the influence of realtors and investors and businesses. Struggling property owners lose their homes, investors jump in and buy them up ...and then investors want to increase the value of what will be an income-generating unit. Investors and realtors and builders are the ones who want Companion Units in single-family areas. It's pretty obvious. There have been quite a few recent purchases by investors in Gelded Hill. Good action there. And they will all tell you, the money isn't in the rents: it's in the resale value. And the resale value is hyped up with every potential rent dollar they claim can be made... What I say to the population-scaremongers: don't build it and they can't come. And the realtors, architects, and developers can go back to school and learn to be nurses or teachers. Simple!— November 1, 2010 4:58 p.m.
South Park's Granny Flats — City Says Yea, Some Citizens Say Nay
Oh, #14, hope you show up at all of the community plan update meetings and bring a lot of attention to the current code changes made without public notice by the city and "Community Planners" (builders, real estate investors, business owners, architect-developers, realtors). Make a pitch for changing single-family zones into these multi-zones...— November 1, 2010 4 p.m.
South Park's Granny Flats — City Says Yea, Some Citizens Say Nay
#14 writes "The new amendments will allow ADU’s [another dwelling unit, available to rent out, on a single-family-zoned lot] to be built with reasonable restrictions to allay community concerns." What are the reasonable restrictions that stop one-family-house-per-lot from turning into two houses per lot? If the unit is cute, or has grampa or a "jobless adult" in it, why would that allay anyone's concerns about crowding, noise, and increased crime and fire hazards? A homeowner who is "struggling to make ends meet" in any single-family-zoned neighborhood isn't likely to have the money to build a brand new second rental housing unit in their backyard. "Economic climate," "changing demographics," ... this is all familiar language from many years ago...very much like what you can see written here: http://www.sandiegoissues.com/Grannyflats.htm and here: http://www.sandiegoissues.com/index.htm Hmmm. No, I'm not a NIMBY, my backyard is safe and open and green, with birds and butterflies and kids playing: I'm a Not in YOUR Backyard, because I don't want a second house, and the extra people and traffic and crowding and fire danger that come with it, crammed on your lot or looking down on my lot in my single-family-zoned residential neighborhood. But thanks.— November 1, 2010 3:52 p.m.