• News Ticker alerts

The California Coastal Commission this afternoon (Oct. 10) approved the proposed expansion of the convention center. The commission's staff had recommended the project be turned down, greatly because it would block access to the bay. But the commission decided that a park atop the center would ameliorate that concern.

Two lawsuits are at the appellate level. If they lose there, they will likely go to the state Supreme Court. So construction is some time off.

  • News Ticker alerts


aardvark Oct. 10, 2013 @ 6:13 p.m.

I eagerly await Mark Fabiani's response to this.


Don Bauder Oct. 10, 2013 @ 6:21 p.m.

aardvark: Fabiani will probably root for the appellate or Supreme Court agreeing with Shapiro and Briggs. On that, he will be right. Then he will make another pitch for a combined football stadium/convention center, which would be asinine because of the huge glut of convention center space around the nation. Best, Don Bauder


aardvark Oct. 10, 2013 @ 6:31 p.m.

Don: Not to mention the also asinine idea of building anything resembling a stadium with a retractable roof in an area such as San Diego. Also, can you be so sure that either the appellate or Supreme Court will decide on the side of reason in this case? Stranger things have happened...


Don Bauder Oct. 10, 2013 @ 8:49 p.m.

aardvark: Agreed. Building a covered football stadium in a Mediterranean climate is not only effete, it is nuts. Best, Don Bauder


Don Bauder Oct. 10, 2013 @ 8:53 p.m.

viewer: Valentine is very astutely pointing out that world-class cities have an infrastructure and services that are up-to-date. A subsidized football stadium hardly makes a city world- class. It's more like the reverse. Best, Don Bauder


Visduh Oct. 10, 2013 @ 8:30 p.m.

Oh, (Bleep), they said yes. This is a sad day, not unlike many others that have befallen the sick, slobbering city of San Diego. Another round of wasted treasure and opportunity, and in this case, one where nobody will actually profit from it. Will the courts stop this folly? I don't think so. Only the voters can, and they will not.


Don Bauder Oct. 10, 2013 @ 8:55 p.m.

Visduh: This is utter financial folly, as you point out. But that's not a question before the appellate court, or would not be before the Supreme Court if it gets that far. Those courts would be asked to consider whether the method of not allowing citizens to vote on a tax increase was legal. Best, Don Bauder


aardvark Oct. 10, 2013 @ 9:43 p.m.

Don: If the method of financing is ruled illegal, will the "powers that be" attempt some other end-run around the electorate, or will they choose to spend millions trying to convince the electorate what a "great" thing this would be for the taxpayer? Oops, I mean the region.


Don Bauder Oct. 11, 2013 @ 7:16 a.m.

aardvark: If the higher court(s) rule the financing plan illegal, the corporate welfare crowd would probably first try to figure out some other financing method that doesn't involve a public vote. That could be tough, depending on the wording of the decision(s). So they might go to the voters.

The U-T this morning rejoiced and said the next objective should be a stadium for the Chargers. It would certainly be 70% to 80% funded by taxpayers. This means that the infrastructure and neighborhoods will continue to rot. Best, Don Bauder


Ponzi Oct. 12, 2013 @ 11:50 p.m.

The city behaves like Comic Con is a National Treasure. In fact it could move, collapse or divide into multiple subgroups at any time. Comic Con is being used as a ruse to spend money like drunken sailors. If there is any comedy, the joke is on us.


Don Bauder Oct. 13, 2013 @ 7:57 a.m.

Ponzi: Precisely. The convention center has already cut the charge to Comic-Con from $300,000 to $150,000 because of the national convention space glut that San Diego leadership denies exists. But San Diego's leadership thinks that the slicing of price is OK because the local hotels will benefit. However, San Diego won't benefit that much from the higher revenue of hotel corporations that are based elsewhere. It's all a big lie...corporate welfare at its very worst, and economic idiocy at its worst. Best, Don Bauder


GHJohn Oct. 15, 2013 @ 9:17 a.m.

The convention center expansion is not about Comic-Con. It is about building visitor volume that will make financially viable the walling-off of virtually the entire North Embarcadero with high rise hotels. Those hotels which would sit on public tidelands (which otherwise would be unusable for highly profitable commercial development, leaving the option of a great park viable) are far more lucrative than building hotels to serve the convention on private land downtown. It's how the inter-generational power structure who run this city think. One piece of a long term strategy is taken without giving the reason to the public of the true motive of the move. That way the public is kept focused on individual trees instead of ever seeing the forest.


Don Bauder Oct. 15, 2013 @ 4:20 p.m.

GHJohn: It's the mainstream media that keep the people focused on the trees and not the forest. On issue after issue, the people hear only one story -- the side of the story that the corporate welfare crowd wants told. Best, Don Bauder


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!