Anchor ads are not supported on this page.
Print Edition
Classifieds
Stories
Events
Contests
Music
Movies
Theater
Food
Life Events
Cannabis
April 17, 2024
April 10, 2024
April 2, 2024
March 27, 2024
March 20, 2024
March 13, 2024
March 6, 2024
February 28, 2024
February 21, 2024
February 14, 2024
February 7, 2024
January 31, 2024
Close
April 17, 2024
April 10, 2024
April 2, 2024
March 27, 2024
March 20, 2024
March 13, 2024
March 6, 2024
February 28, 2024
February 21, 2024
February 14, 2024
February 7, 2024
January 31, 2024
April 17, 2024
April 10, 2024
April 2, 2024
March 27, 2024
March 20, 2024
March 13, 2024
March 6, 2024
February 28, 2024
February 21, 2024
February 14, 2024
February 7, 2024
January 31, 2024
Close
Anchor ads are not supported on this page.
Chula Vista Goes for District Elections--Almost
Wow! Castaneda still sounds bitter from losing the mayoral primary with only garnishing less than 30% of the vote. Newsflash to Castaneda: after your recent acts of ignoring the public during the June 28, 2012 council meeting, you are <b>done</b> as a politician in the South Bay. There are thousands of people that will vote, just to make sure they are no longer voting for you! Your arrogance and lack of knowledge was most evident when you consistently rolled your eyes at the throngs of speakers that came to speak before you on that day and you still ignored them, claiming they were not real Chula Vistans.— July 20, 2012 2:40 p.m.
Local Coastal Commission Meeting Won't Address Chula Vista Bayfront Plan
Thanks for the insight. I've always wondered why they called it Crossroads II.— July 10, 2012 7:23 p.m.
Local Coastal Commission Meeting Won't Address Chula Vista Bayfront Plan
I could be wrong, but Crossroads II was formed after the city was proposing to increase height limits, essentially to have tall buildings, right? Jentz spent over $200k of his own money for Proposition E in 2008. The main civic group behind Prop E was CII. Now there were other groups, the Northwest Civic Association, which Pamela Bensoussan co-founded, and the Southwest Civic Association, led by Teresa Acero, but Crossroads II was by far the loudest supporter of Prop E. You can see the old controversy from this old UT article: http://www.utsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080515/news… Now some may claim that Jentz has not given a penny to CII, but CII's relevance and campaigning efforts would be minimal without his financial backing, even if it is done indirectly. Do your homework and you will find Jentz has around 60 properties in Chula Vista. The better question is how many of those properties are in the former redevelopment zone, which he loathed so much. Lastly, it is not simplistic to say that CII can be seen as obstructionist just look at their history. What city initiated projects has CII supported?— July 10, 2012 3:49 a.m.
Local Coastal Commission Meeting Won't Address Chula Vista Bayfront Plan
I read the two opinion pieces in yesterday's Sunday UT San Diego. I sometimes feel the Crossroads II group just wants to be obstructionist. While I support their idea of greater parks space for the public, I think they have consistently been unwilling to be real partners with the city and more blockades to what the city is trying to do. One co-founder, Sandy Duncan I believe, dropped from the group because of the direction they were going and another co-founder, Pat Aguilar, is now a city council member. I just want something more than an eyesore for the bayfront, which is what we have had for a long time. Susan, doesn't Crossroads II also enjoy the funding from Earl Jentz? He owns something like 60 properties in Chula Vista and has opposed redevelopment. Does Jentz also oppose the city's bayfront plan? That is the real question.— July 9, 2012 9:04 p.m.
Friends of Chula Vista Parks & Recreation Back Buck Martin
Visduh, I think a better question is why did the council push so hard to get rid of Martin, but after all the public pressure choose to replace him with an assistant director saving $30k? The council's original intent was a full salary saving, but after the public discontent, they chose to follow part of the city manager's advice. For me, it was less about a person or a job and more about merging the two departments, which the council had done before 1998-2000. This was a terrible experience for all involved and that was why they split the departments again shortly after. I do not know Martin personally, but I do believe the people there felt they were losing a promotor for public parks and recreation as well as somebody who allegedly brought in a lot of grant money.— July 1, 2012 8:48 p.m.
Friends of Chula Vista Parks & Recreation Back Buck Martin
@Susan, those t-shirts were cracking me up. I think Mr. Liuag's first name is Mark, not Brian. There were a ton of great speakers at the council meeting and they had nobody there speaking in favor of what the council was trying to do, so I do not know why the council members were so unwilling to change their minds. While many of us in the community appreciate the additional funding for parks & recreation (BTW: the council should have done this last year when they increased the funding for the senior center), removing the director that brought in all that grant funding and community relationships will hurt the city in the end. Many of us believe this was Ramirez hating on the director of recreation for something none of us really understand. Ultimately, the city only saves $30,000 a year because the council ultimately agreed to hire an assistant director of recreation after all that public pressure.— June 30, 2012 7:54 p.m.
Has the Lincoln Club Lost Sway in the South Bay?
And @johndewey: I'll be at the protest planned tomorrow at 3 pm http://www.10news.com/news/31232108/detail.html— June 27, 2012 7:51 p.m.
Has the Lincoln Club Lost Sway in the South Bay?
johndewey: Being that you have only seven posts total, I'm going to assume that you haven't seen a lot of my posts and activity regarding parks & rec and Chula Vista. Yes I have protested and opposed many of council's actions publicly and in writing since 2008. Now onto your other question. NO! The city will not use the money to hire back the full-time rec staff they cut. The city council was clear about that. They did not want that money to pay for another person. They have already cut the top management in recreation. Pay attention. In 2006, the rec dept had 6 top management positions. They now have two managers after their director of recreation was let go last week. So your cookie cutter approach will not work here. According to 10 News, the director that was released last week was responsible for bringing in 3.4 million dollars in grants. I feel this is an ill-conceived idea that is doomed to fail. Managing the size and complexity of a department as large as the CV Recreation Department requires executive management with expertise in Recreation. The proposal eliminates that and puts an additional department under the City’s Library director. Inevitably, a manager will be hired to head the Recreation division, thereby eliminating any savings anticipated by the elimination of the current director. BAD IDEA!— June 26, 2012 9:52 p.m.
Has the Lincoln Club Lost Sway in the South Bay?
True. I have wondered a lot lately what direction the city is going. It seems as though the council meetings have been hijacked by Ramirez with Castaneda & Aguilar following most if not all of his motions that the mayor and Bensoussan oppose. Susan, have you been following all the last minute budget changes by council (3 to 2 vote) with realigning the library and recreation departments, among other things? Lots of people are upset and planning a protest in front of council chambers at 3 pm on Thursday, June 28, an hour before the meeting is set to start for the final vote on the budget. Are you going to be there?— June 25, 2012 10:06 p.m.
The House Where Michael Lived
". . . overloods the lobby . . ." ". . . Ava Gardner were p inned up . . ." ". . . girant hot tub . . ." I sure hope you don't get paid for editing.— June 25, 2012 8:08 p.m.