Timely article on bringing pro-housing and anti-displacement people together: http://www.betterinstitutions.com/blog/2016/7/6/p….
For every Uptown resident opposed to development because it won't create any affordable housing, another resident says that younger people don't deserve affordable housing in Uptown in the first place. It's impossible to accommodate both of those views. And residents who rented or bought in Uptown in the 1980's and 90's don't seem to comprehend (or care) about how much more unaffordable rents are there today.
I agree we shouldn't remove existing affordable housing, but when I look at the blocks in the Gateway project, I don't see much in the way of any housing. Maybe I'm missing it, but would development on these blocks truly remove affordable housing? — July 7, 2016 6:07 p.m.
The water comes from our successful conservation programs, re-use (http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2014/nov…) and housing like these Mission Valley projects, which use less water per capita than single family homes.
Established residents want to block badly-needed housing for their own children, so they can keep their lush green lawns in our semi-arid climate? I know baby boomers are the most selfish generation in history, but that takes the cake.
— October 13, 2015 11:02 p.m.
Will lower fines encourage fare skipping on buses and trolley?
"Public transportation is subsidized by the tax payer." Driving is also subsidized by the tax payer. "The vast majority of the taxpayers get no benefit from public transportation." They *choose* not to, because we've subsidized driving at the expense of public transit funding. Don't forget about oil exploration subsidies, oil wars, etc. "Most buses and trolleys are empty most of the time." There were 85.3 *million* rides on MTS last year. "If they really wanted more people to ride and get cars off the road then the mass/public transportation should be no fare." Hey - we agree on something!— June 24, 2020 10:37 a.m.
Bus rider pet peeves: walking and waiting
We subsidize driving on a massive scale - where's your criticism of that? http://cityobservatory.org/theres-no-such-thing-a… Not to mention all the free parking our city provides on residential streets, parks and even at the beach! These cost money for the city to maintain. Many other cities charge for items like prime beachfront parking and use the revenue for a variety of services - including maintenance of roads and lots.— June 13, 2018 11:49 a.m.
Linda Vista renters threaten strike
The problem *is* a lack of housing. San Diego has under-built by tens of thousands of units for decades, given our job growth (35K/year). And let's stop blaming "The City" - the cause is NIMBY San Diego homeowners and the exclusionary zoning they've created, to keep out multi-family housing. How do local politicians stand up to these folks when older homeowners are 10 times more likely to vote in local elections than younger renters? If "San Diego has always had low wages", then how are we ahead of 16 out of 25 large metros on this updated income list: https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library… Or ahead of 253 metros on the wikipedia list of highest income areas?— October 2, 2017 10:30 a.m.
City Heights planners displeased with bikeway plans
Bike routes should *absolutely* be on the principal business routes through a community - how else do bicyclists access the businesses there? This is also where transit routes are often located. Bikes are a good first/last mile option when using public transit. In Hillcrest, Robinson was infeasible due to the bridge over 163 being too narrow to accommodate a bike lane. What in the world does your Olympic training have to do with safely accessing El Cajon Blvd. businesses and bus lines by bike? Perhaps you could try some "compassion" for bicyclists who are just trying to get to these. Maybe businesses could show some "cooperation" regarding on-street parking, since only 46% of it is being used in this corridor.— December 9, 2016 2:15 p.m.
Hillcrest's Uptown Planners wonder wtf
Timely article on bringing pro-housing and anti-displacement people together: http://www.betterinstitutions.com/blog/2016/7/6/p…. For every Uptown resident opposed to development because it won't create any affordable housing, another resident says that younger people don't deserve affordable housing in Uptown in the first place. It's impossible to accommodate both of those views. And residents who rented or bought in Uptown in the 1980's and 90's don't seem to comprehend (or care) about how much more unaffordable rents are there today. I agree we shouldn't remove existing affordable housing, but when I look at the blocks in the Gateway project, I don't see much in the way of any housing. Maybe I'm missing it, but would development on these blocks truly remove affordable housing?— July 7, 2016 6:07 p.m.
New O.B. houses dropped off by crane
If this were a McMansion being built, I might sympathize with your point. But it's sad when NIMBYs grasp at any excuse to deny housing for others in their neighborhood.— June 2, 2016 12:08 p.m.
San Diego won’t be any more affordable next year
"Housing affordability is one of the nation’s worst. That’s a reason that domestic migration outflow tops inflow: how many families can afford San Diego?" The Reader prints article after article filled with quotes from residents opposing any development in San Diego, simply because they got here first. Their parking and traffic concerns trump everything else, because they insist on driving for every trip. No matter that we're setting global temperature records each year as climate change impacts are already being felt. Along with contributors Barbara Zaragoza and Susan Lazarro, Mr. Bauder is consistently one of the biggest opponents at the Reader to any new housing: http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2015/apr/02/ti…. Given this incredible hostility to development, is it any wonder why families can't afford it here? Wealthy homeowners are more concerned with increasing their home values through exclusionary zoning than providing badly-needed housing for their own children. I've asked the Reader to reference our region's housing crisis when they print development-related articles, yet the one-sided NIMBY pieces keep coming. How about a more balanced approach in 2016?— December 24, 2015 8:36 p.m.
Chula Vista condo plan misses mark again
If "there is no housing shortage in Chula Vista", then why are rents up nearly 40% in 3+ years? https://www.rentjungle.com/average-rent-in-chula-…— December 23, 2015 12:20 a.m.
Mission Valley development machine cranks up
The water comes from our successful conservation programs, re-use (http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2014/nov…) and housing like these Mission Valley projects, which use less water per capita than single family homes. Established residents want to block badly-needed housing for their own children, so they can keep their lush green lawns in our semi-arid climate? I know baby boomers are the most selfish generation in history, but that takes the cake.— October 13, 2015 11:02 p.m.
SD climate plan moving backward or forward?
If it can't work, then how did a record number of people ride public transit in San Diego last year? Younger Americans are increasingly seeking cities with transit options. Just because alternative transit doesn't work for you, don't assume that applies to everyone else. San Diego ocean temps are their warmest in 85 years and 2014 & 2015 are the warmest air temp years on record globally. How would you address the climate change that's already happening as a result of our auto emissions?— September 25, 2015 3:18 p.m.