Today is the first day I have even seen signs up for Proposition C. In Fact its the first time I knew about Prop C. The signs read "Yes on C, for more responsible neighborhood planning". I thought...."hmmmmmm, thats interesting, I wonder what "responsible neighborhood planning" means?" Since we all know special interests like to make you think you are voting in the interest of the greater good when its actually quite the opposite.

It was hard for me to find any real articles about Prop C except this one in the Voice of San Diego,

They use great words like "libraries" and "schools", but is that just their way of getting us to undo a Proposition that limited development in that area?

Something doesnt seem right about this Prop. First of all Pardee homes is supporting it. That is the first red flag and it appears that what it actually does is undo the Proposition that limited development. Here is what the Voice says.... "Residents there want parks, libraries and other facilities, like a shopping center -- the amenities that make a neighborhood a neighborhood.

But there's a problem: the city of San Diego can only build those amenities once the neighborhood's population reaches a certain size. And the neighborhood's population can't reach that size because enough homes aren't allowed to be built yet."

OK there it is BINGO!!! This Prop they are trying to undo LIMITED the number of homes to 1900 until infrastructure like ramps were in place to handle more traffic.

So now "the people" and by people I mean the developers are whining that the infrastructure wont be in place for another 10 years so no new homes can be built until then.

They are throwing the "elementary school" and "library" word out there to get you hooked. Everyone likes elementary schools and libraries and the developers are going to build them out of the kindness of their hearts with their money.

Don't be fooled. This Proposition is nothing but a greenlight for developers to develop this area into oblivion

here is what will happen if you approve this Prop:

"If citywide voters approve Proposition C on November's ballot, the restriction tying the construction of new homes to the completion of the freeway ramps would be eliminated, in turn allowing developers to keep building, the neighborhood to keep growing, and the city to build those amenities.

Which brings us to one final problem: In the past, the city has said it couldn't build those facilities on time anyway, because there was no money available to operate them.

But Prop. C's proponents say right now, that is a secondary concern. They'll lobby the City Council to fund park and library operations later. First, they say, they have to free the community to keep growing so it can reach the population levels required to build the amenities."

Boy does this sound like a recipe for disaster!!!!

Look very closely at this Proposition. It looks like yet another BIG giveaway to the land developers. .


Sdean1955 Oct. 25, 2010 @ 9:48 a.m.

The effort to amend Proposition M was initiated by the community and is supported by the Carmel Valley, Torrey Pines, Del Mar Mesa, Torrey Hills, Mira Mesa and Scripps Miramar Ranch Community Planning Groups, as well as Pacific Highlands Ranch residents.

Proposition C has no organized opposition and will bring the community of Pacific Highlands Ranch to fruition through PHASED DEVELOPMENT at no cost to taxpayers! The only thing this prop does is release the commuity from the connectors. Get your facts straight!



SDMaggie Oct. 25, 2010 @ 10:21 a.m.

If "history matters" as this blogger's handle indicates, then it helps to get the facts straight before running off at the keyboard.

Prop C doesn't "giveaway" anything to developers. In fact, it absolutely requires a full review of the plans to develop Pacific Highlands Ranch in phases and approval by the City Council.

The analysis of Prop C performed by the League of Women Voters says in part, "[Prop C] would provide that development of more than 1,900 dwelling units can proceed once the City Council approves a program to phase development in PHR and revises the Public Facilities Financing Plan for the community. Phased development would restrict building permits from being issued until the completion of community amenities and public facilities consistent with thresholds established in the City’s General Plan."

If the City can't operate the parks that must be built at developer expense, then building permits will not be issued. Straight up fact. Tying this community to the timing of its own facilities makes much more sense than a regional freeway connection.


cpskwh4yesonpropc Oct. 25, 2010 @ 10:51 a.m.

@history matters... I can appreciate your concern regarding uncontrolled housing development and special interest groups in San Diego but as others have posted this is a PHASED development and does not give Pardee unlimited building permits!

As a 4+ year resident in Pacific Highlands Ranch (PHR), it is unfortunate that our neighborhood is wrapped up in this political mistake from 1998. We, the homeowners, living in PHR currently, ask all city of San Diego voters to vote YES on Prop C next week.

I ensure you that Pardee is not hiding behind the political rhetoric that this blogger suggests in this article....We the residents, want Prop C to pass so we can continue to raise our families in the beautiful community that Pardee has proposed for us! We need Prop C to pass so we can proceed with building our park, school, library and village center that we the residents pay taxes for and deserve! There is no reason to vote against Prop C (there are no additional hidden costs/taxes to you)... before you vote no PLEASE call and talk to a resident living here in cell phone 858-699-3946...come and drive through our neighborhood and see all the signs in support of Prop C... talk to the people living here!

Thanks for your support! Sincerely, Clay Whiting (resident of PHR)


a2zresource Oct. 25, 2010 @ 11:46 a.m.

For me, Proposition passing or failing next week is of no consequence YET, as the measure fails to identify the future funding sources for any PHR public amenities to be constructed later.

For the PHR area residents in favor of C, ask yourselves this: How long will you have to wait for those public amenities which the developer had no concern for when your homes were initially built?

Right now, BEFORE the half-cent sales tax increase in Proposition D is decided, we have mandatory city budget cutbacks in all departments that might later be needed in the PHR area once new home development reaches appropriate levels. If Prop. D passes, its five year sunset clause means that none of that money will be available for PHR public amenities UNLESS all of those new homes are already bought and paid for in advance AND the public amenities' construction plans are already in the pipeline for approval. If that's not the case, then we can expect more AA- or lower grade bonds to be issued by City of San Diego.

Fitch Ratings has just completed training sessions for the City of San Diego council members in general obligation (GO) debt servicing. PHR residents need to be aware of the impact of Proposition C passing on individual tax-secured GO ratings that currently exist or may be issued later, and that the impact is city-wide, not just limited to PHR.

Personally, it will be on the far side of 2015 AND a much-improved economic outlook before I think of supporting more GO issuance or imposing more city-wide tax increases to fund their repayment. Unless PHR is already in the CCDC project area boundaries, there is no funding nor any help for you out here in the rest of San Diego, where PHR residents may have totally misunderstood the disgust at having $6 billion in future tax revenues set aside for downtown CCDC redevelopment as was done in secretive Sacramento state budget negotiations.

Of course, if PHR residents were willing to offer up some land for a brand new NFL stadium complex, then there can be some wheeling and dealing done during the election and afterwords...

One may search the City Clerk's website for information on the OCTOBER 11, 2010 DEBT SERVICING TRAINING (Item 200) supporting documents that may make things clearer on the impact of propositions such as C on individual GO ratings and the dependent interest rates on those city-issued bonds.

For those who cannot find those supporting documents through the City Clerk, there are copies posted at


Founder Oct. 25, 2010 @ 5:49 p.m.

Our Mantra should be Infrastructure BEFORE Building, that way the City cannot say it cannot afford them (i.e... Parks, Open Space, bike trails, walk paths and all the rest that never seem to get built as the money disappears into yet another black hole only to reemerge as part of another distant Project)!

Imagine if all the promised money went toward a Green Park around the Guacamole Bowl instead of where Proposition M "Promises" it will go!

Straighten out City Leadership out, before giving them any more money to squander!


reasonableperson Oct. 25, 2010 @ 6 p.m.

None of the above would cost the taxpayers of San Diego a dime the homeowners pay a CFD(mello-Roos)that is over and above the regular property tax and is already in place. The only way the developer is compelled to release this is through amending this proposition that was put into place before the 56 was finished.The original vote was in 1998 and the 56 was not completed all the way through to the 15 until 2005. Please come out to the PHR neighborhood first before making any speculative judgments and see for yourself what the dillema is. I think that the impact for the city comes only in this not passing and the amount of hardship on the residents and lack of revenue from what already exists.Remember if property value keeps going down so does the revenue stream. This isn't even part of San Diego unified school district so it will have no impact there. I realize that the politicians and developers make us all cynical but please don't punish those that just wanted something nice for our families. By doing so the only winner is the developer!


David Dodd Oct. 25, 2010 @ 7:08 p.m.

Four different comments from four different identities, this being the only comment they've ever left in the Reader. Prop. C isn't going to do anything other than to help developers build new homes, never mind that existing homes go unsold. There will be no parks and no libraries because there isn't any money to build them; and even if there was, there is no money to staff them.


MsGrant Oct. 25, 2010 @ 7:31 p.m.

:) Corky, anyone? Nice observations on the count BTW refried.


SurfPuppy619 Oct. 25, 2010 @ 7:54 p.m.

Four different comments from four different identities, this being the only comment they've ever left in the Reader.

Good observation, and most likely all from one person.

When you see posting like that it usually (but not always) means "special interest", at least to me.

Discount those posts IMO.


a2zresource Oct. 25, 2010 @ 8:14 p.m.

Whether a community facilities district exists or not, and regardless of what I feel or don't feel about Prop. C, PHR residents should be informed of activities in PHR and in the City of San Diego which may have an impact on any bonds that have been or will be issued. Since PHR is in the City of San Diego and given the statement about an existing tax assessment district in PHR is true, then everything the City Council does needs to be weighed as to the effect on PHR GO debt. For instance, if Proposition D fails, the rating agencies would generally perceive this to be a negative factor that could lead to a lowered rating on the City's (and therefore PHR's) GO debt, raising interest rates on any borrowing done to finance payments against that debt. Generally, the passage of C on D's failure wold not outweigh the negative factor impact of the City containing the PHR tax assessment and bond-issuing district upon PHR debt. In other words, a pro-C ballot position must be accompanied with a pro-D position or a portion of the sale of the bonds will just end up going back as increased debt interest payments.

I'm not voting for D because its revenue will pass through the City of San Diego general fund and most likely be used as settlement money, damages, and/or Court sanctions and awarded costs in KESSLER V. CITY OF SAN DIEGO (See Reader articles and blogs by Don Bauder on this whistle-blower wrongful termination matter, where Defendant City lost its motions for summary judgment and deposition protective order).

While PHR residents may be prepared to tax themselves specifically for schools and libraries, anything paid to the City must also be contingent on going to exactly and only those project or you are just helping to cover all of San Diego's budget shortfall, especially if D does not pass. If it is the DEVELOPER who informed you that PHR projects will not cost the City of San Diego anything, then ask if the City of San Diego has already sealed the deal by passing an ordinance directing that all revenue from any PHR tax assessment district go only to that district's infrastructure projects and bypass the general fund; otherwise, PHR debt is only going to help cover the city-wide budget shortfall, again especially of D does not pass.


a2zresource Oct. 25, 2010 @ 8:25 p.m.

In adition, PHR is small compared to the City of San Diego, another potentially negative bond rating factor. PHR has no sizable commercial tax base, another negative factor. The entire proposed tax base is residential, and there will be a percentage foreclosure transfer of debt responsibility to all residents remaining after all foreclosures are completed in PHR.

PHR may need to establish a pre-collected reserve of sufficient size to show both willingness and the ability to repay GO debt.

Any GO debt will have to actually be sold in a market that grows increasingly leery of possible municipal defaults in the country, anticipated to occur with increasing frequency in the next 2-5 years. If there is a default, then Fitch Ratings may be forced to downgrade all municipal GO debt nationally to compensate for their April 2010 "recalibration" upgrade based on no municipal defaults up to then since the Crash of 2008.

All of these factors mentioned in these two comment posts relate to concepts presented and discussed from the Fitch Ratings documents found in the October 11 city council debt servicing training sessions.


a2zresource Oct. 25, 2010 @ 8:57 p.m.

RE "Four different comments from four different identities, this being the only comment they've ever left in the Reader":

Nice catch. Any odds on all of those identities sharing the same birthday, like today?

At wikipedia, there's special recognition for the best sockpuppet hunters, where a sockpuppet is a second, third or other account of the same editor/vandal, usually leading to a banned account and enshrinement on "The List".

Like MsGrant and Surfpuppy say, the Refried One does damn fine work!


Founder Oct. 26, 2010 @ 8:29 a.m.

Idea! It would be cool if the Reader highlighted User Names if they were new and had less than say 50 comments posted, that way readers could spot new Bloggers fast!

Also from Urban Dictionary:


A Phony Blogger, someone that is getting paid and or promoting Spin to disrupt a blog discussion.


BTW: I'd like to know how many units of Low and Low Mod. Housing have been built in this area; the Owners are asking the City to support their neighborhood but are they helping to support all levels of those San Diegans that need housing equally or are they like Liberty Station and building NONE?

No more Money for BAD $D Leadership!


a2zresource Oct. 27, 2010 @ 8:35 a.m.

RE "The analysis of Prop C performed by the League of Women Voters says in part, '[Prop C] would provide that development of more than 1,900 dwelling units can proceed once the City Council approves a program to phase development in PHR and revises the Public Facilities Financing Plan for the community. Phased development would restrict building permits from being issued until the completion of community amenities and public facilities consistent with thresholds established in the City’s General Plan.'":

I'm not knocking LWV -- they did their job on the analysis as seen above -- but thinking people have to wonder what the purchasers of those 1900 dwelling units are going to do for the rest of us by forcing us to use even less water and electricity for their sake while we get billed at higher rates for being "neighborly."

With bond-issuance authority, they better plan on something big for the rest of us.

It seems that via passage of Proposition C, PHR is set to become the sugar-daddy neighborhood of San Diego!


sdgal78 Oct. 29, 2010 @ 10:39 a.m.

The developer already paid for these amentities through FBA fees that were paid when the permits were issued. And of course these fees were passed along to the buyers in the sales price of their homes.


sdgal78 Oct. 29, 2010 @ 10:42 a.m.

BTW: I'd like to know how many units of Low and Low Mod. Housing have been built in this area; the Owners are asking the City to support their neighborhood but are they helping to support all levels of those San Diegans that need housing equally or are they like Liberty Station and building NONE?

No more Money for BAD $D Leadership!

By Founder 8:29 a.m., Oct 26, 2010 >

Low income housing in PHR is part of the planned community and is being built in 2011.


SDMaggie Oct. 29, 2010 @ 12:50 p.m.

@sdgal78 & @Founder - re Affordable Housing.

Affordable housing is being built today, with more to follow as the community develops in phases.

The plan for PHR was approved with the requirement to provide 20% of its housing as affordable - 65% AMI. When the community is built-out (est. 2030), something >750 of the total units will be affordable.

Affordable housing is on the ground today & is built as the rest of the market rate community builds. From the SD Housing Commission "2010 Affordable Housing Resources" publication, there are at least 255 affordable rental units in PHR today: --The Crossings - 108 units - 1,2,3 BR --Derby Terrace Apts - 24 units - 2 BR --Villa Andalucia Apts - 31 units - 1,2,3 BR --Winwood Village - 92 units - 1,2,3 BR

In addition to these affordable rental apartments, I believe there are some deed-restricted, owner-occupied condo units in the community.


a2zresource Oct. 29, 2010 @ 3:05 p.m.

RE "Expenses incurred to prepare a program of phased development and revisions to the Pacific Highlands Ranch Public Facilities Financing Plan will be borne by the Pacific Highlands Ranch Facilities Benefit Assessment, which is funded by builder/developer fees. There will be no costs to City taxpayers as a result of this ballot measure" at :

The costs referred to are limited to paperwork only, not to the actual construction of physical structure nor acquisition of land for those structures to sit on.

As for the funding, this will be done with debt issuance where lack of PHR industry AND the City of San Diego's current deficit inability to cover PHR will be debt rating factors in ratings agency decisions as to how those GO bonds will be viewed. Expect to see a PHR issuance rating by Firch Ratings to be lower than City of San Diego's current AA-, probably highest at A-, and that's with PHR's community facilities tax-assessment district having to build up a large enough cash reserve to convince investors that a community of such small size is capable of repayment. If PHR residents are saying "no way, we're part of San Diego" then that tells me PHR residents and the DEVELOPER are expecting a City Council bailout after construction starts.

Been there before...

Will future PHR residents pay a 15-20% current premium to live where schools and libraries will most likely be completed in the 2020s? The fee could be smaller, but then those PHR homes will be hisoric preservation sites by the time everything plus interest is paid off.

New PHR homes will include the added fees as part of the sale price, making older empty downtown condos look even more attractive because those amenities already exist downtown.

It appears that comments being made by some individuals are made to go in sequence, like adding houses on properties in the same color group while playing Monopoly...


SDMaggie Oct. 29, 2010 @ 5:27 p.m.

@a2zresource - You seem to have a grasp of common municipal finance methods used for large infrastructure projects, but community facility financing is different.

re "The costs referred to are limited to paperwork only, not to the actual construction of physical structure nor acquisition of land for those structures to sit on."

Public facilities in PHR are funded from two sources: 1. Facility Benefit Assessment (FBA) - a fee charged to the developer at time of building permit issuance. For the current FY2011, the FBA fee for a single family home permit is $83,090. The FBA program in PHR pays for the planned parks, library, rec center & fire station, which INCLUDES the cost of buying the land & building the facility. You can find the full PHR Public Facilities Financing Plan at

  1. Community Facilities District (CFD), a.k.a. Mello-Roos. The CFDs in PHR are set-up to pay for the schools. The school districts control them. These are bonds, but not G.O. bonds. The bonds are secured by liens on the properties in the CFD. The homeowners pay the bonds through an annual levy collected on behalf of the districts by the County tax collector.

Current residents ARE paying the Mello-Roos assessments, and the school districts are accumulating the funds for planned schools or are servicing the debt on the existing schools.

Of course, Mello-Roos fees are in addition to normal property taxes.

Hope this helps distinguish the PHR situation for you.


a2zresource Oct. 30, 2010 @ 6:26 a.m.

RE #19:

Thanks for the clarification. I had no idea that the assessment would increase regressively to over $100K by 2015... whether the value of a single family dwelling goes up or down by then.

Let's suppose that housing remains fairly flat between now and 2015. What are the odds that people will be flocking to buy up homes where the cost is automatically $100K above the comparable prices in neighborhoods where schools and libraries actually exist?

Whoever wrote up the PHR assessment schedule obviously didn't see the Crash of 2008 coming. This is the kind of marginal planning that will be a negative rating factor on all of San Diego's credit rating and individual GO issues, regardless of the legislature's willingness to bail out PHR with the authority to issue bonds or not.

With the economic outlook not very good, I'd say by 2015 we could be seeing a political move to allow that kind of PHR bond-issuing authority since it would require another ballot initiative to change that assessment schedule, or I expect to see those future new homes to be auctioned by the developer later, as has been done in many developments in San Diego whether they had access to community facilities or not.

It becomes clear what the real agenda in PHR is: lack-of-developer-built-facilities misery enjoys company. No new houses means no new assessment fees on construction, and no GO bond issuance authority now means no new income for facilities that should have been ready and running when residents first started moving in years ago.

It doesn't help matters that Prop. C relies on unrevised future estimates of 5% inflation and 4% interest when a current 5-year certificate of deposit investor can expect... 1.5-2.5%?!? I smell a need for PHR bond-issuance. The City Treasurer's holdings for PHR are in no way generating the anticipated interest according to the unrevised overly optimistic developer's projections made before the Crash of 2008. Proposition C does depend on Proposition D, after all.

Maybe developer should delay any new construction to get the biggest development bang for the buck until 2021, when the community add-on assessment rises to $135,344 per single dwelling unit.

Maybe just building a new stadium there is not such a bad idea after all...


historymatters Nov. 2, 2010 @ 12:36 a.m.

@7: THANK YOU for your perception. I thought that immediately when I read those comments. If you look at the comments in the Voice and UT they have absurd names like "liberalforpropC" as if someone would really register that name as a legit citizen. These guys give themselves away as shills and no doubt Pardee pays employees to create fake names and post on C.

As for the "No organized Opposition"...of course there is NO organized OPPOSITION!!! No one has heard of this Proposition to organize against it.

Why did you guys wait til less than a week before the election to post your signs if you werent trying to hide anything?


historymatters Nov. 2, 2010 @ 12:48 a.m.

@ SDMaggie and the other fake 3 names on here as for your comments about how the plan will require "affordable housing"...

Read the recent LA Times article indicating how "affordable housing" is the biggest scam ever so spare us your buzz words. We know the truth. This is about GREED


Founder Nov. 2, 2010 @ 9:01 a.m.

Helping Reply #22 Here is that Housing Link:


I live in NP and we have a NP-PAC Redev. Proj. Area that has built lots of Low & LowMod housing using our 20% set aside money, on top of all the existing Low & LowMod housing! We are now so far ahead of other parts of SD in Low & LowMod housing, that we are starting to feel like "enough is enough," its time the other parts of SD to also added some Low & LowMod housing to they're housing mix!

Redevelopment can be great but those making the choices have to be Great also or if your Leadership is GREEDY, then you will sometimes get something like the Guacamole Bowl $tadium deal from CCDC as a great use of their Redev. money. If they do spend almost a BILLION dollars on it they should build a huge amount of Low & LowMod housing either under or around it, instead of shifting all "THOSE" folks to other parts of SD... Giving huge amounts of Public Money to Ultra Wealthy Developers (Pro Team Owners) is way out of line and is only a good deal for the Developers and the Public Officials that have "gifted them the deal, not for taxpayer or all those Low & LowMod folks needing housing!


historymatters Nov. 2, 2010 @ 2:06 p.m.

@ Founder, I agree that "redevelopment" and "affordable housing" can be great, however the money is not being used in the way that it was intended. In North Park for example, look at 30th and El Cajon, the Rennaisance Project, well they destroyed a gorgeous old building that should have been rehabbed and they built this "blight". They are using redevelopment dollars to build blight rather than to fix blight.

They should not be allowed to tear down perfectly good buildings that contribute to the historic character of these neighborhoods to build these tenement slums w/ a fresh paint job.

They also intend to demolish the block on El Cajon between Alabama and Florida Street. That is another excellent example of how we could take the 5 million dollars the developers were going to be given for that project and renovate and rehab all those buildings and small houses. Those building are solid. The homes are built w/ wood from the redwood forests. Just peel off some drywall and you will see the quality that these guys are throwing into landfill to replace w/ extremely low quality toxic new construction at 5 times the cost to tax payers.


Sign in to comment

Win a $25 Gift Card to
The Broken Yolk Cafe

Join our newsletter list

Each newsletter subscription means another chance to win!