ugp
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
Retail/residential to take place of Scripps school?
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST (character limit exceeded) Think this can't happen in your neighborhood? Think again. This vote has allowed a dangerous precedent to be set, and the district is trying to do the same at locations throughout the county. They will succeed. Their vote has done nothing but increase the debt and allowed a private developer to make a fortune at a cost to our families, future generations, and the greater district as a whole. $20 million in district funds that could have helped an area truly in need was foolishly wasted here, and more debt will be incurred through the terms of the lease.— June 21, 2018 1:25 p.m.
Retail/residential to take place of Scripps school?
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST (character limit exceeded) The district is not making money here, they are losing money. They are giving the property away to a private developer at a tremendous loss, and incurring more debt in the process. None of the board members will be on this Earth 66 years from now to witness the full devastation their irresponsibility has brought on our children and grandchildren. To make matters even worse, board Vice-President Sharon Whitehurst-Payne spoke down to the Scripps Ranch community, stereotyping citizens as racist, elitist, and faux-Christian for opposing this project. Clearly Sharon has never visited this area nor taken the time to get to know the residents that live here. While the average income levels and housing prices may be higher here than the district she represents, her stereotypes couldn’t be further from the truth. The community contains a diverse mix of people of all backgrounds, ethnicities, occupations, income levels, and creeds. No one I have met here was fed from a silver spoon, they got to where they are today through hard work and prioritizing education (something the school board seems to have forgotten). Sharon’s colleagues sat quiet during her attack and did not address her verbal assault afterwards. Her colleagues actions, or lack thereof, speak for themselves. For the record, President Beiser, perhaps in hope of protecting his image for re-election, casted the dissenting vote. If Mr. Beiser truly cared for the community and children he was elected to represent, he would have reached out to the community, studied the facts, and convinced his colleagues to rethink this debacle. While claiming the contrary, Monarch and the school district made no effort to reach out, engage, and collaborate with the community throughout this process. I’ve yet to meet a single resident in our community that supports this project. The board’s decision was clearly made from the start, with some perhaps making that decision “from the heart” to benefit their own colleagues. Innovations Academy was targeted by the district due to the value of the land, and fact that the school is a charter vs public school. At the vote, President Beiser claimed that charter schools take away funding from San Diego public schools. Charter schools may take away students from public schools, but they do not take away funding from public schools. Charter schools receive funding from the state, not the local district. Public school funding is based on student attendance; less students require less teachers and supplies. Unless the public schools are allocated more revenue than required per student, the local public schools should not be impacted by a slightly decreased student enrollment. Scripps Ranch schools are overcrowded as it is. CONTINUED IN NEXT POST (character limit exceeded)— June 21, 2018 1:25 p.m.
Retail/residential to take place of Scripps school?
John Lee Evans, Michael McQuary, Richard Barrera, Sharon Whitehurst-Payne, and Kevin Beiser. Remember these names fellow San Diegans. These people comprise your elected San Diego school board that cast their votes in a historic decision to allow a successful and growing charter school to be torn down and replaced with an apartment complex. There is no win-win here for our community or our children. There is no win-win here for the broader district. $20 million dollars is being taken away and spent to unnecessarily demolish, relocate, and rebuild a successful school. 264 apartments are being added to an area with the most populated middle school in the district, one of the most populated elementary schools, and one of the most populated high schools. But fear not. 2% of the land from the torn down school will be used as a "joint-use space", consisting of an unstaffed STEAM lab and community garden. The school is responsible for the staffing, operation, and maintenance of the STEAM lab and garden. The district will earn a meager $425k/yr in revenue, before expenses, by renting out the school property to a private developer for 66 years. The terms of the lease are that the private developer, Monarch, pays $425k/yr in rent for ten years. Rent increases by ten percent every ten years. While Monarch presents itself as an organization caring deeply about the housing crisis and serving the needs of low income families, do you think Monarch will offer the same escalation terms to their tenants? Find one landlord that has offered fixed rent for ten years, only to be increased by ten percent every ten years. At least in the eyes of the district, 22 of these apartments will be classified as low-income and marketed to qualifying school district employees (as documented in the district environmental impact report). Will these 22 low-income apartments also be marketed to qualified families throughout the county that are not district employees? During the vote, Vice-President Sharon Whitehurst-Payne urged the community to consider the project “from the heart”. Afterwards, President Beiser claimed that these 22 low-income apartments would allow some low-income school district employees to live near their work. The vast majority of the San Diego workforce does not live near their place of employment, and enjoys an extensive commute to and from work each day. Who exactly does this project aim to benefit? CONTINUED IN NEXT POST (character limit exceeded)— June 21, 2018 1:24 p.m.
Retail/residential to take place of Scripps school?
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST (character limit exceeded) The district is not making money here, they are losing money. They are giving the property away to a private developer at a tremendous loss, and incurring more debt in the process. None of the board members will be on this Earth 66 years from now to witness the full devastation their irresponsibility has brought on our children and grandchildren. To make matters even worse, board Vice-President Sharon Whitehurst-Payne spoke down to the Scripps Ranch community, stereotyping us as racist, elitist, and attacked community members for their Christian faith and for opposing this project. Clearly Sharon has never visited this area nor taken the time to get to know the residents that live here. While the average income levels and housing prices may be higher here than the district she represents, her stereotypes couldn’t be further from the truth. The community contains a diverse mix of people of all backgrounds, races, occupations, income levels, and religious denominations (or non-denominations). No one I have met here was fed from a silver spoon, they got to where they are today through hard work and prioritizing education (something the school board seems to have forgotten). Sharon’s colleagues sat quiet during her attack and did not address her assault afterwards. Her colleagues actions, or lack thereof, speak for themselves. Think this can't happen in your neighborhood? Think again. This vote has allowed a dangerous precedent to be set, and the district is trying to do the same at locations throughout the county. They will succeed. Their historic vote has done nothing but increase the debt and allowed a private developer to make a fortune at a cost to our families, future generations, and the greater district as a whole. $20 million in district funds that could have helped an area truly in need was foolishly wasted here, and more debt will be incurred through the terms of the lease. For the record, President Beiser, perhaps in hope of protecting his image for re-election, casted the dissenting vote. If Mr. Beiser truly cared for the community and children he was elected to represent, he would have reached out to the community and convinced his colleagues to rethink this debacle. While claiming the contrary, Monarch and the school district made no effort to reach out, engage, and collaborate with the community throughout this process. I’ve yet to meet a single resident in our community that supports this project.— June 21, 2018 10:20 a.m.
Retail/residential to take place of Scripps school?
John Lee Evans, Michael McQuary, Richard Barrera, Sharon Whitehurst-Payne, and Kevin Beiser. Remember these names fellow San Diegans. These people comprise your elected San Diego school board that cast their votes in a historic decision to allow a successful and growing charter school to be torn down and replaced with an apartment complex. There is no win-win here for our community or our children. There is no win-win here for the broader district. $20 million dollars is being taken away and spent to unnecessarily demolish, relocate, and rebuild a successful school. 264 apartments are being added to an area with the most populated middle school in the district, one of the most populated elementary schools, and one of the most populated high schools. But fear not. 2% of the land from the torn down school will be used as a "joint-use space", consisting of an unstaffed STEAM lab and community garden. The school is responsible for the staffing, operation, and maintenance of the STEAM lab and garden. The district will earn a meager $425k/yr in revenue, before expenses, by renting out the school property to a private developer for 66 years. The terms of the lease are that the private developer, Monarch, pays $425k/yr in rent for ten years. Rent increases by ten percent every ten years. While Monarch presents itself as an organization caring deeply about the housing crisis and serving the needs of low income families, do you think Monarch will offer the same escalation terms to their tenants? Show me a single landlord that has offered fixed rent for ten years, only to be increased by ten percent every ten years. At least in the eyes of the district, 22 of these apartments will be classified as low-income and marketed to qualifying school district employees (as documented in the district environmental impact report). Will these 22 low-income apartments also be marketed to qualified families throughout the county that are not district employees? CONTINUED IN NEXT POST (character limit exceeded)— June 21, 2018 10:20 a.m.
Retail/residential to take place of Scripps school?
Four months later and comments originally posted along with this article have been deleted... Let's look at this situation from a pure financial standpoint, since this is the driving factor for the school district. Anyone wonder why the school district is "broke"? Case in point right here folks. This is the deal of the century for Monarch, all at the taxpayer's expense. Monarch is paying the school district $440K/yr to lease this land for 66 years. Monarch's rent goes up 10% every ten years. Ten percent every ten years, not ten percent every year. This is unheard of. And don't think for a second that Monarch will offer that same deal to its renters. The rent comes out to 12.5 cents per sq/ft, less than half the next lowest rent in Allied Gardens in East San Diego county. SDUSD is allocating $20 million dollars to move Innovations Academy, when it does not need to be moved in the first place. How many years will it take the district to recoup that $20 million through the $440K/yr rental income? Plus the district is responsible for repair/maintenance of the community "STEAM lab" that Monarch is valuing at $625/sq ft. Monarch's revenue stream is estimated at one billion dollars over those 66 years, whereas this is a losing proposition for the district. Where is the reset button? Why is the district authorized to make these deals when they clearly have no clue what they are doing.— June 19, 2018 1:23 p.m.
Retail/residential to take place of Scripps school?
Yes and lets not forget the 22 very low income apartments that will be "affirmatively marketed to qualifying District employees", per the draft EIR. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. At the taxpayers expense. Were the hundreds to thousands of apartments developed, and being developed, at Casa Mira View at the junction of Mira Mesa blvd & 15 not enough? Regardless, I don't recall any schools being taken down in support of that project.— February 9, 2018 12:22 p.m.