New and Improved Jack In The Box For North Park Moving Forward

Anybody that seriously looks at the proposed plans for this project will start listing problems immediately, and just keep listing them. Hey Mr. Luscombe, of course "company representatives feel the project will enhance the area" --none of them live near this location, and it's doubtful whether any of them have ever even driven by. Throughout the past two years, the very few meetings anybody associated with Jack in the Box have had with neighbors have only resulted in the Jack crew digging in their heels and not making even ONE concession to the concerns or complaints of the neighbors. The very minimal changes made to their plans have been ones the City has required them to do (and so far, that's not many). A silent order confirmation board??? Puh-leeeze!!! Nobody is suggesting that a pretty new, albeit 'typical stucco box' with some added ornamentation wouldn't be better than the dismal premises that sits there now, but the City has actually done some smart things since the early '60's when Jack opened his box at this location. They're called Municipal Code, Land Use Plan, Community Plan, and Zoning regulations. Check them out, they make a lot of sense for a community where commercial areas abut single family homes, and they were enacted to protect those residents who live in those homes. And by the way, we now know you only have 7 more years on your lease, with the option of 4 - five year renewals, so your veiled threats that if you don't get your way, we'll have to look at your nasty existing building for "many more years" is just another manipulative effort to make the neighbors cave...Your current facility is so out of date that it's unlikely that you will even remain for those seven years and operate with such limited conditions. You simply could not meet a twenty-first century demand with a twentieth century technology. You are welcome to build anything you want on that lot. There is nobody in North Park that wouldn't love to see a new facility there. But you have to play by the rules like the rest of us. Throwing lots of money at the powers that be may get you some special favors, but there is a huge groundswell of residents, both nearby and throughout the community that know the laws that exist, and are demanding they be enforced. By tearing down the existing building, you go back to square one, just like you never had been there at all. What you are proposing is simply not allowed at that location under existing laws. You have given the residents no concessions or compromises to their concerns or requests. Now we are insisting you follow the rules. Period. They are laws, not suggestions. And the City needs to stand by the laws they have enacted, regardless of how much money you have given to good causes.
— May 22, 2012 12:26 a.m.

Have Fun on Land

Yes, PLEASE catch the Drinkabout bus and come drink beer on 30th in North Park!!! We just can't get enough people here drinking ! You neglected, however, to to let people in on the fun activities that take place after 2:00 am when the bars close: 'Drunks Returning to Their Cars in Residential Neighborhoods" !! It's a hoot! Yell, urinate, vomit, ---hell, even have sex in somebody's yard ! Great fun for drunks and residents alike! Bus them in! Bring them in from all over the country, please! It's what North Park is all about!
— May 9, 2012 4:26 a.m.

First Look at Proposed U-T San Diego Video Billboard and News Ticker in Mission Valley

They'll be able to show video tours of the condos for sale, and advertise vacancies in the rental units!!! Plus, with some cleverly placed subliminal messaging, Doug will have everybody in San Diego giving him what he wants instead of just City officials.
— May 9, 2012 3:45 a.m.

First Look at Proposed U-T San Diego Video Billboard and News Ticker in Mission Valley

Good God, don't give Douggie any ideas......he'll be raising the height of that huge screen to 27 feet!!! But then again, I can probably watch movies from North Park....hmmmmmmm
— May 9, 2012 3:36 a.m.

Let’s Build an Even Bigger Jack in the Box in North Park

In a perfect world, the posters on here would actually CHECK the facts and do a bit of research surrounding the issue before blessing everybody with their pearls of wisdom: It doesn't matter who was 'here first', or 'if you don't want to live by a Jack in the Box, don't buy a house near one'. The FACTS are: SD Municipal Code, Land Use Code, NP Community Plan, and City Zoning for this location all prohibit what Jack wants to do. Even DSD has stated in their Cycle Issues Report, that if the current building is demolished, Jack will lose all pre-conforming rights. Simply put: They will have to follow the rules, obey the laws, be a good and responsible business. In a perfect world, Jack in the Box would want to follow the rules. It's the right thing to do. But no--not only are they wanting to break the rules, they want to do it with even worse impacts on neighbors who deal with Jack getting away with violating noise ordinance now---(and yes, Robert H. neighbors DO expect Jack to keep noise down-- just like the law says. Have you ever tried to get Code Compliance to enforce the zoning law after regular business hours? And please inform as to how to contact a "zoning commission"? Again, do some research before you speak, please. In a perfect world, DSD would not even be considering this redevelopment unless their own rules were followed. But instead, they will suck thousands upon thousands of dollars from Jack while 'staff' pours over how to let them get around the rules and give them a free pass, despite the law. In a perfect world, if you don't like the laws, you get them changed through a civic process, and don't expect special rights in order to skirt them. In a perfect world, ---Oh, wait, this is San Diego. What was I thinking? And please, the rest of you that have all the answers but none of the facts, PLEASE don't tell me to move if I dont like it. I'd much prefer to stay, and make a difference by actually doing the research, knowing the facts, and insisting that the rules be followed. Doesn't matter who was here first. The ones that don't want to follow the rules can be the ones to move.
— February 4, 2012 1:30 a.m.

North Park Residents Plan Rally In Protest of High Number of Alcohol Licenses

Well said again! It amazes me that there are people that thnk that any business that generates jobs and revenue for the community is good business. Everybody wants a vibrant, diverse, and lively community, be it North Park, PB, or wherever--including me. Does anybody REALLY want any of those things at the cost of high crime, violence, or drunk drivers on any street at any time? For ABC to continue to expand an identified problem and then dump it into the hands of SDPD is not only unfair, it is unconscionable, but nobody has charged ABC with the necessity of having a conscience. We weill never guilt them or otherwise force them to use good sense or judgement in their licensing policies. The best we can hope for is to control even more of their current negative impacts on us with a land use policy, specifically a CUP. Responsible business of all types should logically support that. How can increased crime, dui's and community ill-will be of any benefit to any business? Unless greed is the only motivating factor,and they just don't give a damn about the rest.
— January 20, 2012 2:59 p.m.

North Park Residents Plan Rally In Protest of High Number of Alcohol Licenses

Well said!
— January 20, 2012 2:36 p.m.

North Park Residents Plan Rally In Protest of High Number of Alcohol Licenses

Hey, InOmbra, we're on the same team page regarding the City's faulty policies and enforcement. I just wanted to clarify that not everything Mr. Hargrove stated was a quote from the Rally organizers or handouts. The 3 numbered points I made were pointing out and correcting the specific discrepancies. I'm not even disagreeing with what he said, just that it wasn't completely accurate reporting. I'm sure I don't have to tell you that any opposing point of view will pick up on any of these points and use them to discredit organizers and supportersor paint them as fanatics. Yes, Gloria and Faulconer are a part of the problem, but no more so than the rest of the City Council. Restaurants indeed depend on alcohol as a major part of their revenue. I like a cocktail, or glass of wine or beer with my meal as much as anybody, and do not advocate for no liquor at restaurants, and would fight for their right to serve it. But read my point again and then take a close look at the restaurants in North Park. It is quite evident which ones morph into full-on bars after 10:00 or 11:00 at night. And it is blatantly clear when a restaurant that has for years closed at those hours, or even midnight-- suddenly applies to ABC for a change in license from A TYPE 41 LICENSE to a TYPE 47 LICENSE, and applies for change of operating hours until 2:00 am that they are changing the focus of their business from a restaurant to a drinking establishment, at least during the extended hours. And for your clarification, YES, ABC certainly DOES decide hours of alcohol serving of its licensees. The hours of business operation can be mandated by local City Code, but in an area where there is no LOCAL CONTROL over SERVING hours, NUMBER of alcohol licenses allowed, TYPE of alcohol licenses allowed, and CHANGES to existing licenses, ABC can literally do whatever it wants, simply by adding "conditions" that make it OK. Conditions that they then do not enforce. This is EXACTLY what this Rally & Walk is all about--raising the awareness of the community to all of this, and telling the 'powers that be' that local control is the only way to deal with ABC. That way the residents of San Diego have a say in what the alcohol policy is for their comunity. If the residents want a liquor license in every storefront, then so be it, but shouldn't we at least have the chance to decide that for ourselves? Your last line "Without strong pro-resident policy by the City and the Councilmembers, the restaurant-bars usually get whatever they want" could not be more true. And our 'Strong Mayor' system adds yet another hurdle to all of that. But unless residents TELL them 'this is what we want', it will never happen. And keep in mind, it is an election year, and those representatives work for US---the ones that elect them. Hence, the Rally and Walk tonight---to tell them just that.
— January 20, 2012 1:11 p.m.

North Park Residents Plan Rally In Protest of High Number of Alcohol Licenses

Well, Dorian, you got it almost right---but I guess without ruffling some feathers of those with a different take on the situation, any news story would be kinds boring, huh? just a few corrections and clarifications: 1. NOWHERE and at NO TIME were Kevin Faulconer or Todd Gloria specifically 'blamed' for the situation we find our communities in-it is lack of city POLICY, and especially lack of any effort to establish one (by ALL city officials), that has allowed ABC to oversaturate some census tracts with liquor licenses by 200% up to nearly 1000%. 2. Vice is only mentioned because of their inconsistent recommendations for license approvals within the same census tracts. 3. Everybody involved in these rallies/walks fully supports a vibrant commercial district, including restaurants. Nobody has claimed that there is an oversaturation of restaurants. Hey, the more restaurants, the better! Great food establishments is one of the things that is breathing new life into North Park. But if you are licensed by ABC as a restaurant, or applying for a new liquor license as restaurant, then BE a Restaurant. If you want to be a bar, then apply for the appropriate license, and give the public a chance to weigh in on it. (Be honest--how many people are really out at 1:00 am sitting down to a meal? Blotter food, maybe, but not fine dining!) This is exactly why we fully embrace venues like the recently opened Wang's, and the soon to open Casa de Luz--the both will serve alcohol, but it is not paramount to their exisrtence. They, and a host of others act responsibly. They act like restaurants, not as thinly disguised drinking venues. And hmmmmmmm--they close by midnight or earlier, and are still successful! Hopefully, the fact the North Park Rally and Walk will not pinpoint any problem alcohol venues will be evident. Our focus is on the root of the problem; lack of local control over the State run ABC. They are an agency that monitors itself, governs itself, and disregards virtually all imput from the local community. Look at the statistics and data: they show that ABC, in fact, does not even following its own mission statement. The result is a community where alcohol is becoming the prevailing draw, and party bars are becoming the economic base. Is that really what you want for your community? Our goal: to raise awareness of the community, SDPD, and any and all City officials to the very real problem, and solve it by enacting a Land Use Policy that gives LOCAL control over alcohol licensing. Every other major California City has done just that--it's time for us to do the same.
— January 20, 2012 12:22 a.m.

San Diego Tops Nation in DUIs

For a look at what happens in North Park with our "neighborhood bar" check out this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4rVDmw00jA This is bar STAFF in a street fight with some of the patrons they have ejected from the bar, along with some clips of some of the other patrons on just about any weekend night, when they are allowed to stay open two hours beyond the city zoning laws for this location. ABC just keeps issuing licenses, well beyond their own stated limits for any given area, and the city officials approve variances to their own regulations and laws, and then dump it all on understaffed and overworked Police Dept. to monitor and enforce the "conditions" ABC places on new licenses in order to justify all of the over-saturation in areas like PB and North Park. (look out City Heights, Hillcrest, Normal Heights, Logan,...you guys are all ripe for the same thing from ABC...) YES, Founder,we need a CITY-WIDE 'CUP' so we have some local control over the out of control ABC.
— December 26, 2011 11:21 a.m.