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
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
San Diego's welfare plan for hotel owners
It's my pleasure. But the real thanks go to people like you who take the time to get educated on what's happening and then ask questions so that everyone can be on the same page with the same info. More people need to understand the inaccuracy and lack of transparency among contiguous-expansion boosters.— May 2, 2016 7:13 a.m.
San Diego's welfare plan for hotel owners
Don: When the last expansion was approved for the waterfront (the Phase 2 expansion), the city and port and convention-center boosters promised that the next expansion (the current Phase 3 expansion) would occur on Tailgate Park. To that end, the port built a bridge across Harbor Drive, south of the existing convention center, over to what is known today as Tailgate Park. The port also purchased Tailgate Park -- yes, the port owned it before the city did and sold it to the city to facilitate Petco Park -- to further demonstrate its commitment to no further expansions on the waterfront. CCDC (what is now Civic San Diego) and the convention center had committees evaluate the Phase 3 expansion back in the early 2000's, and those committees concluded that Tailgate Park would be the best location for the expansion. When my client opposed the current, contiguous proposal before the Coastal Commission in October 2013, we gave the commissioners copies of the committee documents -- the existence of which the port had conveniently been denying when staff at the Commission asked about them. So when people claim that a non-contiguous expansion will not work, be sure to ask them: (1) why it would have worked in the minds of the city, the port, and the convention-center boosters until about 2004; (2) why those people spent roughly $27 million to build a bridge over to Tailgate Park; (3) why the port bought Tailgate Park, a piece of property outside its jurisdiction, in the 1990s if not to facilitate a non-contiguous expansion; and (4) why, given that their own expert said last year that the return on investment for contiguous vs. non-contiguous is about the same, taxpayers should support the more expensive contiguous expansion?— May 2, 2016 7:07 a.m.
San Diego's welfare plan for hotel owners
Flapper: The municipal code currently earmarks 4% of the 10.5% for "promoting the city." As Don points out, however, that money was raided long ago for other things and to this day is used for things tenuously connected to tourism but hardly related to marketing and advertising the city as a tourist destination; that is why the hoteliers and the politicians created the Tourism Marketing District tax, which my client is currently challenging in court because (like the illegal convention center tax from a few years go) the public was never given the opportunity to vote on it. The Citizens' Plan (not to be confused with the Chargers' proposal) eliminates that earmark because it is no longer honest for the city to say that the 4% is going toward promoting the city. That money is being used like general-fund money, so we eliminate the earmark to bring the municipal code into conformance with the actual budgeting practices for the last 20-plus years.— May 2, 2016 6:58 a.m.
San Diego's welfare plan for hotel owners
In what way, Don? The Citizens' Plan would the TOT for the bigger hotels at 15.5%; now it's 10.5%. The full 5% would go into the general fund. Hoteliers would get a 2% incentive to build their own off-waterfront expansion, and another 2% to assume tourism-marketing responsibilities from the city. If the hoteliers don't avail themselves of the incentives, that money stays in the gen fund.— May 1, 2016 12:47 p.m.
San Diego's welfare plan for hotel owners
Ponzi, the full 5% in additional funds goes into the general fund, where it can be used for infrastructure and other general government services. The incentives given to the hoteliers, if taken and by most estimates, will generate more TOT than the incentives, so it's a reasonable investment. If they don't take them, then the public at least has the 5%.— May 1, 2016 8:02 a.m.
San Diego's welfare plan for hotel owners
High, Don. The language in the Citizens' Plan was done when it appeared the Chargers were laser-focused on moving to Los Angeles and was based on polling data showing 70-80% of the public against any public money for the team. So the compromise/fall-back was to authorize a downtown stadium as a land use but to prohibit subsidies and require the team to pay for the stadium. I'm obviously biased because I wrote the no-subsidy language. But even city attorney Jan Goldsmith has admitted that the Citizens' Plan gives no public money for the stadium. As for suing on the team's name choice, we wouldn't do that even if we could (which we can't). All of these are technically "citizen initiatives." In our campaign, we distinguish between the Citizens' Plan and the Chargers' Plan and try as much as possible to help the public keep the names straight.— May 1, 2016 7:58 a.m.
San Diego's welfare plan for hotel owners
There are some good points made in the article and comments. Those very concerns are why the Citizens' Plan (for the Responsible Management of Major Tourism and Entertainment Resources) takes the debt and obligations off the backs of residents and puts those burdens on the hotel/tourism industry. The Citizens' Plan gives the industry financial incentives to make good business decisions that benefit the public and taxpayers first and foremost. If the industry does not step up to the plate, then all new revenues (about $90 million per year at today's rate) under the Citizens' Plan will go into the general fund. Taxpayers and the public win either way. (N.B.: The "Citizens' Plan" should not be confused with the Chargers' similar-sounding "citizens' initiative.")— April 30, 2016 8:45 a.m.
San Diego's convention center sails in choppy financial waters
Don: Please help your readers avoid underestimating just how badly the hoteliers are screwing up things with the convention center and Chargers; the hoteliers are masters of disaster. No matter how people feel about the CC or the stadium, the reality is that the hoteliers have manipulated the politicians into a terrible negotiating position. I wrote about that today for Voice of San Diego, which you can read here: http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/opinion/the…. Thanks for always shining the light on downtown.— June 10, 2015 8:19 p.m.
Todd Gloria ordered to round up e-messages
The judge deserves credit. My briefs did not make the point in a way that he could easily understand at first. But he heard me out in court, and went back and re-read everything. His ruling was quite reasonable because it protects the records until our trial, which is set for June. We should not fault the judge for going the extra mile to get it right. CJB— March 20, 2014 3:52 p.m.
City Attorney's one-eighty on Sunroad. Office calls Sunroad lawsuit a "sham"
2 of 2: The best example, in my mind, is the false story about Filner telling Andrew Jones to sit in the back of the room during a closed-session meeting of the city council last March/April. If you two knew anything, you'd know that my client (the same one who sued over Sunroad) has sued the city to obtain a copy of the transcript at which the alleged statement was made. City rules require the presence of a court reporter during closed-session meetings and require a transcription of the discussions that take place during such meetings. Goldsmith's office released the transcript from the June 18 Filner-Jones incident because comments about where a staffer sits are not subject to Brown Act confidentiality; the transcript was released in record time because Goldsmith wanted to use it to shame Filner. By the same reasoning, Filner's alleged statement to Jones about where to sit in the room would also be beyond Brown Act confidentiality. When my client asked for a redacted transcript showing only the Filner statement to Jones about where to sit in the room, however, Goldsmith's office denied the existence of any such transcript; that is to say, there is no transcript in existence with any statement by Filner to Jones about where the latter should be sitting during a closed-session meeting. Translation: the statement that Filner allegedly made was never made. Either Goldsmith's covering that up, which will come out during the course of the lawsuit, or he's illegally withholding public information. So not only is there a lawsuit over Filner's credibility (i.e., Sunroad), but there's one over Goldsmith's credibility (i.e., withholding public records). One must be crazy to think that co-conspirators in this so-called "palace coup" would reward each other with lawsuits--at least any co-conspiracy that I'd ever be involved in. (Since I do not know what a "subtrifuge" is, I admit that Diogenes might be right that I'm involved in one.) As I have said to many folks who've taken it upon themselves to publicly state things about my clients and me that they (the folks) know nothing about, before you go off saying false things you should call me. I'm happy to help you make an informed contribution to the important debate that the public's having over the many problems at city hall. Armed with the facts, you just might make a valuable contribution to the discussion. Armed with fiction, at best you provide comic relief. Thanks for the laughs.— August 21, 2013 9:20 a.m.