SD COASTAL ALLIANCE

MISSION

POLITICS

ETHICS QUESTIONS?

SCORECARDS
How did Council Vote?

ISSUES

NEWS

SCHOOLS

REDEVELOPMENT
ABUSE

ENVIRONMENTAL "Fs"

AIRPORT

STRIP CLUB TRIAL

COMMENTARY

LINKS/CONTACTS

Archives:
PENSION
COVER-UP

MAYOR RACE '05"

PAST POLITICS

REDEVELOPMENT ABUSE:
SAN DIEGO...America’s Finest BLIGHTED City?
North Bay- Point Loma, Midway/Sports Arena, Old Town, Linda Vista, City Hieghts, Barrio Logan, College Grove, Center Coty/Little Italy, Crossroads/College Community, Grantville, San Ysidro, Naval Training Center, North Park
Time to End Eminent Domain Abuse in California ... Restore Public Money to Public Services and Control Corporate Welfare
Activist DVD:  "Not for Sale:  
A Comprehensive Guide to Fighting Eminent Domain Abuse"
Not for Sale:  A Comprehensive Guide to Fighting Eminent Domain Abuse” is a live-action DVD and companion to the Castle Coalition’s popular Eminent Domain Abuse Survival Guide.  Both can be purchased together at www.ij.org/freedommarket.  
  Featuring interviews with property owners and activists from across the nation who have successfully battled eminent domain abuse, “Not for Sale” provides tips, tactics and practical advice for anyone waging their own grassroots battle to save their home or small business.  
  The 1-hour DVD employs cutting-edge graphics and illustrations along with interviews to explain to viewers how to gather information, build a coalition and engage in local activism.  The DVD instructs homeowners on how to hold a rally, create a website, work toward legislative reform and file a Freedom of Information Act request, among other topics.

Redevelopment is based on the concept of blight and attracting capital into a blighted area.
Tom Mullaney, Friends of San Diego
Here's what the Supreme Court has said about the meaning of the term blight: We recognize the statutory definition of blight has evolved over the years. However, as stated just two years ago in County of Riverside, supra, 65 Cal.App.4th at pages 627-628, "True blight is expressed by the kind of dire inner-city slum conditions described in the Bunker Hill case: unacceptable living conditions of 82 percent; unacceptable building conditions of 76 percent; crime rate of double the city's average; arrest rate of eight times the city's average; fire rate of nine times the city's average; and the cost of city services more than seven times the cost of tax revenues."
 So far as I am aware, no physical area of any appreciable size in the City of San Diego has ever suffered from blight. So all redevelopment in the City is a fraud.
  When you commence a government program based on falsehoods, economic resources tend to be misappropriated and the community as a whole suffers accordingly. Moreover, falsehoods breed corrupt practices. Developers characterize the enhanced revenue stream as money that is supposed to be earmarked to promote new development, otherwise known as a government subsidy. Developers look elected officials in the eye and tell them that if subsidies aren't granted that the development will build in other areas of the community, e.g., the Golden Triangle. Therefore, developers argue, a refusal to grant subsidies equates to a support of continuing blight.
 It sounds great and provides just the cover many elected officials need to divert scare public resources to those who constitute their contributors.
  The press promotes the concept of fighting blight. A bureaucracy (e.g., CCDC) is created. It hires PR firms. It paints rosy pictures of what central planning can accomplish. (See CCDC promotions of 10 years ago regarding the salutary effect that redevelopment would have on C St.)
 It all constitutes a vicious downward spiral. See the editorial Jan. 2 in Voice of San Diego regarding the practical result: a downtown that is functionally unlivable. 

A Better Way for Grantville
By Brian T. Peterson, Voice of San Diego, 3/10/09
Excerpt: When Marti Emerald took the reins of the District 7 San Diego City Council office, she asked the Grantville Action Group for the community's top three priorities. Here they are:"For some owners, the uncertainty of the ongoing threat of eminent domain has forced them to put off expansion plans or capital improvements. This is the reason Grantville businesses oppose Grantville redevelopment." Full Article

Redevelopment bond scheme floated again
By Dan Walters, Sacramento Bee dwalters@sacbee.com Jan. 06, 2009
Excerpt: A convoluted and highly questionable scheme to generate billions of dollars for the state via local redevelopment agencies is being revived as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders race with the calendar to close an enormous budget deficit.
 The proposal first surfaced during last summer's budget negotiations, pushed by a squad of lobbyists ˆ most of them ex- legislators ˆ for the City of Industry amid indications, which city officials denied, that it was aimed at building a new professional football stadium.
 It was not part of the budget enacted in September. But since then the deficit has ballooned to an estimated $40 billion over the next 18 months, and now some Republican legislators and those around the governor are intrigued by its potential for easing the need for tax increases and/or spending cuts.
 Under the deal now being weighed, the state would allow city redevelopment agencies to extend local redevelopment projects now scheduled to expire, without having to meet recently enacted reforms, including proving the existence of blight. In return, the redevelopment agencies would float bonds secured by property taxes on those extended projects and share the borrowed money with the state.
 In effect, the state would be borrowing against itself, because it now is on the hook for about $2 billion a year in reimbursements to schools for the property taxes that redevelopment agencies retain ˆ a state burden that would decrease slowly were the older projects to expire. But the deal would effectively allow the state to recapture some school money up-front. Full Article: http://www.sacbee.com/342/index.html

The Blight Fight
By Vladimir Kogan, Voice of San Diego, Aug. 20, 2008
Excerpt: The recent media coverage and ensuing commentary about the city's efforts to turn Grantville into a designated redevelopment project area have raised important questions about the needs of the city, its Redevelopment Agency, other local governments, and -- of course -- the Grantville community. The problem is that the discussion has not allowed us to address these interrelated questions one at a time, in a rational way that allows all of us to understand the many complicated tradeoffs involved. READ: www.voiceofsandiego.org/articles/2008/08/20/opinion/kogan082008.txt

Read Tenuous Connection
Voice of San Diego columnist Scott Lewis wrote this editorial about the Grantville Settlement Agreement.  He makes the point that if Grantville is part of downtown because of the trolley connection, then San Diego is part of L.A. because of the Amtrak link. READ: http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/opinion/slop/

What CCDC spends isn't its money 
By Mel Shapiro, Union Tribune, February 9, 2008
LOCAL PERSPECTIVE: CITY EDITION
  There is a long-standing misconception in San Diego about who finances downtown redevelopment. The general public seems to think it's the Centre City Development Corp., known as CCDC. It isn't. CCDC, a city-owned corporation, has only a small administrative budget. It has never funded any redevelopment. It only advises the City Council on funding.
  CCDC officials and the unquestioning media help perpetuate the myth. But the millions of dollars spent on downtown were all approved by the San Diego City Council acting as the Redevelopment Agency.
  The “Redevelopment Agency” is seldom mentioned in articles or the many CCDC publications.
  It is a little-known corporation, created under Section 33110 of the Health and Safety Code of California. A redevelopment agency is created for a city or a county, not for a neighborhood. Since a city can have only one redevelopment agency, the term “downtown redevelopment agency” is a confusing misuse.
  The top brass of CCDC is well aware of that. But it hasn't stopped them from claiming that CCDC is a redevelopment agency and funds the hundreds of millions spent downtown.
  Here are some examples: From the CCDC budget for fiscal 2008' “$82.3 million for projects ... total revenue $217.5 million.”
  In fact, the revenue and the project money are part of the Redevelopment Agency's budget, not of CCDC's.
  Nevertheless, the council approved both the Agency budget and the CCDC budget. From the CCDC publication Downtown San Diego Affordable Housing: “To date, CCDC has provided over $150 million in downtown tax-increment funds to help create affordable housing within and outside of downtown.”
  In fact, CCDC spent zero dollars on housing. All the money came from the Redevelopment Agency and was voted on by the City Council. An entire page of this publication is titled “CCDC funds,” which don't exist since its funds are entirely Redevelopment Agency funds. From the CCDC magazine Downtown Today, page 3: “CCDC has purchased a 19,000 square foot site...” Page 6: “CCDC is in the process of acquiring land...” Page 10: “CCDC board of directors has committed more money than ever before...” In fact, CCDC purchased no land and made no financial commitments. The Redevelopment Agency made the decisions and financed the projects.
  The City Council, sitting as the Redevelopment Agency, voted the money for them. In August I sent a memo to CCDC's chief financial officer about such misinformation. He then sent the following memo to all of CCDC staff: “I have received several concerns raised by Mel Shapiro that we are referring to funds in our staff reports that “CCDC funds” are being used to fund projects.  
  However, (Redevelopment) Agency funds are actually being used. Where appropriate, we should use “Agency” funds and or reference as we typically do in our Fiscal Impact statement that “funds are available from a certain district in the Centre City Redevelopment Project.” Unfortunately, the CFO's advice is being ignored. A second outrageous raise for Graham who helped overbuild Downtown (unsellable condos) and promote the giveaway earthquake ridden Navy Broadway Complex property

Redevelopment, San Diego style
By Michael Jenkins and Norma Damashek, Union-Tribune, 10/12/07 
Excerpt: San Diego's redevelopment agency – established to eliminate blight and revitalize older neighborhoods – is in crisis. Unless city leaders take decisive action to reform redevelopment, voters will take matters into their own hands.
  Under California law, a city can form a redevelopment agency to revitalize areas that meet state definitions of blight. A redevelopment agency has broad powers to use “eminent domain” authority to force private owners to sell property to the agency and then resell it for different private purposes.
  Anyone who remembers downtown 30 years ago, where new investment had shriveled and junkyards, crack houses, strip joints and incompatible uses were the norm, can attest to redevelopment's benefits. In North Park, City Heights, Southcrest and other neighborhoods, redevelopment has promoted homeownership, new jobs, preservation of historic properties and affordable housing.So what's the problem? When the U.S. Supreme Court in 2005 allowed New London, Conn., to use eminent domain to force a widow to sell her old but well-maintained home so the city could build an industrial campus, the public was outraged. In several states, initiatives were placed on the ballot to restrict eminent domain. California's initiative was rejected by voters as overbroad, but anger over eminent domain continues. Local critics are working to place a measure on San Diego's 2008 ballot to put an end to city redevelopment.
  But eminent domain is not the only flash point. Critics charge that redevelopment lacks public accountability and benefits influential private interests more than the public. They cite the Naval Training Center (Liberty Station) as a sweetheart deal for a politically connected developer. They condemn the selection process, project changes, nepotism for company employees, reneging on public improvements, lack of affordable housing and few new jobs. Other city redevelopment projects receive similar criticism. FULL ARTICLE

Berkeley Study on Infill Development. Heads Up.....
Berkeley study on infill development.  This study has an online database of properties  that would be "ideal" for infill.... and guess what.... most of our properties are on that list!
 The authors of the study say that this database is to help owners, developers, etc decide how to go about building infill.  In today's climate, its more of a tool to use the threat of Eminant Domain to "redevelop" an ecomically underutilized property.http://infill.gisc.berkeley.edu/

Redevelopment Abuse
Voice of San Diego, CAFÉ, August 20, 2007 
 Redevelopment done right is a good thing, a really good thing. It helps to revitalize communities by creating jobs and affordable housing and becoming a catalyst for beneficial economic activity. I'm a fan of such redevelopment.
But "redevelopment done right" in my book doesn't just focus on the end results. In fact, putting too much emphasis on the results of redevelopment leads to serious problems along the way and keeps redevelopment agencies from achieving their maximum potential in the public interest.
  Here are some problems going on right here in the city of San Diego.
1) Until recently, the San Diego Redevelopment Agency had not audited its finances for fiscal years 2003 through 2006. In July, one of my clients (through me) asked for copies of the audit reports for these periods and was told that they had not been completed, despite a statute requiring them to be completed not more than six months after the end of the fiscal year. Two days after my client sued, the SDRA provided copies of the audit reports for 2003 and 2004 -- both of which had been completed, it turns out, before my client asked for them. The SDRA‚s position is that the audits were -- and for 2005 and 2006 still are -- being held up by the city‚s audits. What‚s so astonishing about that position is the fact that the SDRA and the city are separate legal entities; the SDRA is technically a state agency run locally. What financial mismanagement is the SDRA and the city hoping to cover up by issuing a consolidated audit that treats two separate entities‚ finances as one? (Here's a fun fact in light of recent events at city hall: The first signature on the two audit reports belongs to Jim Waring. For those of you who didn‚t know, until last week Jim was also the SDRA‚s Assistant Executive Director, immediately under Executive Director Jerry "I'm-laying-here-on-a-beach-in-Hawaii" and "I-soon-will-be-throwing-Jim-under-the-bus" Sanders.)
2) The SDRA owes the city roughly $250 million in loans. Nobody knows the repayment terms for the loans -- a flaw noted by the Independent Budget Analyst last May as the Southeastern Economic Development Corporation was seeking approval of a $42 million bond. The last time I checked, the city could use a quarter-billion bucks to help it with its own debts.
3) The SDRA has not rendered a formal accounting on its affordable housing trust fund for at least the last five years. Further, the SDRA is supposed to take 20 percent of the gross additional property-tax dollars generated through redevelopment and use that money to provide affordable housing, but the 2003 and 2004 audits both noted that the SDRA was taking 20 percent of the net amount -- after tons of administrative and other charges -- and blamed the bad math on the lack of a written policy for calculating 20 percent of the gross additional property-tax dollars. (Honest, that was the excuse!) The note caught my attention for two reasons. On the one hand, the miscalculation was important enough to mention and yet the auditors expressly said that the amount wasn‚t big enough to be worth reporting. If the amount of the miscalculation wasn‚t a big deal--apart from violating the law, of course -- then why did the auditor note the miscalculation in the first place? On the other hand, nothing in the audit report indicates that the shortage has been put back into the trust fund. If the problem had been corrected, there would have been a note saying as much.
(To prevent future miscalculations, perhaps Carl DeMaio‚s Performance Institute could help the SDRA amend its procedures manual to state: "The amount to be deposited into the affordable housing trust fund is 0.2 multiplied by X, where X represents the gross additional property-tax dollars received for each fiscal year." Given Carl's reputation, he'll probably recommend that the SDRA outsource the task; government will save a bundle that way.)
4) The Centre City Development Corporation is living large, while SEDC wanes. SEDC has so few people working for it that it has a formal arrangement with the SDRA for staff support, but CCDC doesn't have such an arrangement. So, either SEDC needs more resources in order to do its job, or CCDC has too many people on staff and should be cut back and instead use SDRA‚s staff. (I suppose that one answer to the disparity could be that CCDC's success is more important than SEDC‚s success, but I‚m not prepared to accuse anyone of discriminating against SEDC (District 4) in favor of CCDC (District 2). If anything's certain, it‚s that the people and businesses in District 2 and District 4 are treated with equal fairness and concern by the leaders at city hall.)
5) Fred Sainz, the mayor‚s propagandist, is rubbing off on Carolyn Smith, SEDC's director. FULL ARTICLE/

Mr. Mayor, your credit card has just been declined.
by Pat Flannery, Blog of san Diego, 07/31/07   
 Today, Attorney Cory J. Briggs of the Briggs Law Corporation filed this complaint in the San Diego County Superior Court, alleging that the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) of the City of San Diego has failed to prepare and file its "annual report" for fiscal years 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 as required by California Health & Safety Code § 33080.1(a).
 Mr. Briggs is asking the court for a writ of mandate prohibiting the RDA from receiving or expending any funds and incurring any debt unless and until it fully complies with Redevelopment Law.
  He had made a Public Records Act request for these reports but the RDA was unable to produce them. He assumed they did not have them. He was right.
Then Briggs sent this letter to Mr. Christopher Cox, Chairman of the SEC, advising him of his complaint. Mr. Cox made a speech last week in Los Angeles in which he referred to the fact that the SEC had sanctioned San Diego for having committed securities fraud.
 According to Cox in LA: "San Diego's new procedures will cover disclosures it makes in its financial statements, its continuing disclosure agreements, and its disclosures to rating agencies." But how can it comply if its Redevelopment Agency has not filed financial reports for 2003 thru 2006? FULL ARTICLE

SI Comes to Gym’s Defense
Voice of San Diego, August 9, 2007 http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/articles/2007/08/10/this_just_in/184reilly080907.txt> There are no doubts about whose corner Sports Illustrated columnist Rick Reilly is in."You know what, Mayor?" Reilly writes in his column

Don't Think Twice, It's All Blight Blight,
which used to be reserved for seedy, dilapidated areas of the city, is beingincreasingly attached to places that may be profitable, just not profitable enough.
By NINA PETERSEN-PERLMAN, Voice Staff Writer, July 18, 2007 
  Grantville's Friars Road Pet Hospital and National City's Community Youth Athletic Center, while not gleaming edifices of commercial might, don't fit the traditional definition of an eyesore.
 The windows aren't cracked, the plaster isn't peeling and they attract concerned pet owners and kids wanting to learn how to box, not a rough crowd looking to cause trouble.
Yet, according to local officials, they're blight.
 Blight for Your Right: FULL ARTICLE

The Budget with an Extra Pay Boost
By ANDREW DONOHUE Voice Staff Writer, July 27, 2007
Excerpt: When staff from the Independent Budget Analyst's Office combed through the San Diego Redevelopment Agency's budget proposals in May, it found something that raised a red flag: a reported 30 percent increase in salaries at the Southeastern Economic Development Corp."
This increase in salaries appears to be excessive," wrote fiscal analyst Lisa Celaya in a report to the City Council, which was set to consider SEDC's budget.But, days after the report was released, SEDC President Carolyn Smith testified to the council that the IBA report was incorrect. The salary increase was only 4 percent, she said, ticking off a long list of other increased costs that had incorrectly been counted toward that 30 percent: added positions, unused employee vacation hours that are cashed out; a wellness policy that allows employees who aren't sick all year to take one week of paid sick leave; and funds for unanticipated payments of separation agreements with employees.
  The council seemed satisfied. It shook off concerns about the raises and approved the redevelopment group's budget.
  However, SEDC's pay increase wasn't so simple. FULL ARTICLE

Cigar Store Owner Receives Compensation for His Property
Developers of the Marriott Renaissance hotel said they would pay Gran Havana cigar shop owner Ahmad Mesdaq the nearly $7.8 million a court awarded him in November 2005 for the land taken from him by eminent domain, said Mesdaq's lawyer Vincent Bartolotta.The city used the power in 2004, originally offering Mesdaq $3 million for the Gaslamp site. The shop was razed and has been a parking lot since.
  Cindy Eldred, a land-use lawyer representing developers GRH, LLC., said last month the legal battle with Mesdaq pushed the hotel behind schedule, to a projected opening in 2010. She said today the settlement was offered in attempts to move the project forward.
  "We need to move the project as quickly as we can," she said. "This will give us a certainty we otherwise don't have.
  "The Centre City Development Corp. was scheduled to vote on giving the developers an extension at yesterday's meeting, but the item was taken off the calendar due to the settlement, said CCDC's David Allsbrook.Bartolotta said while his client would have preferred to have kept his property, he is pleased to be compensated for it. "This isn't a happy situation, but it's a practical solution to protect his family."The settlement is pending city approval.
--NINA PETERSEN-PERLMAN, Voice of San Diego, July 12 -- 1:42 pm
CCDC used a false allegation of toxic waste to seize Gran Havana.
by Pat Flannery, 06/25/07, http://www.blogofsandiego.com/
 Mayor Sanders must deal with the emerging Gran Havana scandal before he has another Sunroad on his hands, maybe even worse.
 Eli Sanchez, the CCDC project manager for Ramin Samimi's hotel project, admitted under oath blogofsandiego.com/GranHavana/CityAbusePolancoAct.pdf  at trial that he knew there was no contamination on the Gran Havana site and that he knew Samimi was using CCDC's false charge of toxic waste as a negotiating tool against Gran Havana. Isn't that corruption? A City employee lying for a developer?
 Here's the unfolding story:
 According to Cynthia Eldred's letter (pages 17-26) blogofsandiego.com/GranHavana/CCDC_Staff_Report.pdf to CCDC (she is the lawyer for the developer who seized Gran Havana) the developer, Ramin Simimi, has to date spent $23 million on this project. Now he is in default on his contract with the City. Read the draft Notice of Default (pages 15-16) blogofsandiego.com/GranHavana/CCDC_Staff_Report.pdf  prepared for the CCDC Board meeting tomorrow. They must decide between extending and changing his contract or pulling the rug on him.
 Simimi was contracted to close escrow (on the purchase from the now City-condemned Gran Havana property) by December 15, 2006 and to commence construction of a hotel by January 16, 2006. He has done neither. That escrow was due to close over 6 months ago! Try that one in the real world of private real estate.
 Mr. Simimi now has $23 million riding on the toss of a coin at  tomorrow's CCDC meeting. He is truly a risk-taker. Or is he? Somehow I don't think so. I suspect the fix has been in for a long time. We know he has friends in high places.
 Remember the  Iranian immigrant, Kourosh Hangafarin, Dick Murphy controversially appointed to the Port Commission, widely believed to be because of his extraordinary ability to raise big bucks for Republican Party causes from the deep-pocketed San Diego Iranian-American community? I am told Hangafarin is Samini's cousin. Read this CityBeat article <http://www.sdcitybeat.com/article.php?id=2957>  about Hangafarin's bizarre trip to Cuba that got him fired from the Port.
 So, Simimi has $10,165,000 on deposit with CCDC for the acquisition of the 5,000 square feet Gran Havana lot (which the City now owns) and according to Cynthia Eldred, he spent $8 million on consulting and legal fees. This means that he spent only $4,835,000 to acquire the other 35,000 square feet. He offered Mesdaq a mere pittance for the Gran Havana property, boasting that he would use CCDC to get it for him.
In her letter to CCDC (page 25) blogofsandiego.com/GranHavana/CCDC_Staff_Report.pdf, Ms. Eldred cites as evidence of Mr. Simimi's "good faith effort to develop the project" the fact that he has spent $23 million to date. To expend such money without a guarantee of success, she points out, would be "folly". I agree. Who then is Mr. Simimi's friend at CCDC? The Project Manager Eli Sanchez? His boss Mr. Allsbrook? Both? The whole CCDC Board?
 Why did CCDC appeal Mr. Mesdaq's successful court case? The Agency had nothing to gain. Simimi had contracted with CCDC to pay all the expenses, including acquisition costs and litigation expenses. CCDC is not at risk for a penny. And Simimi had already put the $10,165,000 on deposit with CCDC. There must be a reason why CCDC appealed.
 I suspect that CCDC knew all along that Simimi was no hotel developer, that he needed to find somebody to do what he was contracted to do. He needed time. Did they cover for him until he finally located such a hotel developer? Read the email (page 33) <http://www.blogofsandiego.com/GranHavana/CCDC_Staff_Report.pdf>  everybody was waiting for. It didn't take Eli Sanchez long to get things rolling after that.
 This vital June 5, 2007 email confirmed for Eli Sanchez and CCDC that Simimi's proposed lessee, Hansji Hotels Inc., had finally secured its contract with Marriott and everything was a go. Sanchez got it docketed for the CCDC Real Estate Committee June 13. They passed the buck to a full CCDC Board meeting tomorrow.
 Why would CCDC spend public money to help a private developer when they had no monetary interest in the case? It screams to high heaven of corruption!
 Project Manager Eli Sanchez's staff report to the CCDC Board tomorrow is taken almost word for word from Cynthia Eldred's letter. Sanchez is a City-paid advocate for Simimi.
 David Allsbrook, Eli Sanchez' boss, is a long time staffer with CCDC. He was CCDC's manager of contracting and acquisitions and managed the agency's "land assembly" efforts in the East Village. He knows all the tricks. He is an expert on the use of eminent domain and the use (and abuse?) of  the Polanco Act , the legal tool used by Redevelopment Agencies to clean up toxic waste sites.
 This extract from attorney Vince Bartolotta's court brief <http://www.blogofsandiego.com/GranHavana/CityAbusePolancoAct.pdf>  makes it very clear that CCDC, acting on behalf of a private developer, forced Ahmed Mesdaq, owner of Gran Havana, to spend $100,000 to defend himself against a trumped up charge of toxic waste. Read the whole brief <http://www.granhavana.com/pdf/Appeal.DOC> .
 Who is going to stop this corruption from being confirmed by the CCDC Board tomorrow? It is not too late. Nancy Graham, President of CCDC, should intervene and at least ask for a continuance until the matter can be investigated. If not, the false toxic waste charge is enough to launch an FBI investigation. The Feds don't like their laws being abused.
 If Nancy Graham does not act in time to save this scandal from becoming validated by the whole CCDC Board tomorrow, Mayor Sanders should intervene. Does he want another Sunroad, maybe much worse, on his hands? The smell of corruption is already starting to stick to this city. If Sanders does not act he may never be able to convince the credit agencies to reinstate our credit rating, this side of a Chapter 9 Municipal bankruptcy.

Redevelopment: Public? Private?
By Joe Deegan, San Diego Reader City lights, June 28, 2007
http://www.sdreader.com/php/cityshow.php?id=1648
  As if Grantville didn't have enough traffic problems, local developer Leon Parma wants to build 588 new condominiums, plus new restaurant and office space, on land he owns in the area. The property sits on the block bordered by Mission Gorge Road and Fairmount, Twain, and Vandever avenues. At its May 15 meeting, the San Diego City Council approved the project, called Centerpointe at Grantville, rezoning the block from industrial and commercial designations to mixed use.
  Opposing the project in the council chambers was Brian Peterson, president of the Grantville Action Group (GAG). Peterson noted the eventual traffic problems but argued that Centerpointe's main damage will be a depletion of money from the City's general fund, which pays for basic services such as fire and police protection. True, Centerpointe will be more valuable than the light industrial and commercial businesses that are on the site now. And that will result in greater tax increments in the future. But those new dollars will not go into the general fund but to the Grantville Redevelopment Project Area. Meanwhile, the greater population density caused by Centerpointe in Grantville will demand more services from a City that has fewer resources to provide them.
  Centerpointe and the Grantville Redevelopment Project are two different ventures, one private and one public. For clarification of the connection between them that Peterson worries about, I visit his Friars Road Pet Hospital. Across the table he uses to examine the animals, Peterson and I talk. The veterinarian remains standing on crutches, as he recently broke his hip in a bicycle accident. "I've got three pins in my leg holding it together right now," he says."One angle on this whole scheme," Peterson tells me, "is that even if the Redevelopment Agency does nothing to promote development in Grantville, the Redevelopment Agency will collect tax increments from every building that sells or is built in the project area. Personally, I would not be opposed to Centerpointe -- which looks now to be a done deal -- if it weren't for the redevelopment zone. After all, it does not violate property rights. And I don't live in [nearby] Allied Gardens, although residents there are very upset about the increased traffic Centerpointe will bring.
  "Peterson supports a lawsuit that the County of San Diego filed against the City last year to stop the Grantville Redevelopment Project. The County argues that it will lose as much as $200 million in taxes over the 45-year life of the project. "The County needs its money, too," says Peterson, "to pay for health and other services it provides San Diego residents." A superior court trial to hear the County's suit is set to begin in November. FULL ARTICLE

Property seizure measure moves ahead
News from the Union-Tribune's newsroom, July 03, 2007
SACRAMENTO --  Ahmad Mesdaq's Gran Havana Coffee and Cigar Lounge was booted out of San Diego's historic Gaslamp Quarter to make way for a hotel, which so far has not risen from the temporary parking lot where his business was located.
 Years later, California lawmakers are attempting to respond to horror stories told by business people like Mesdaq, proposing to weaken the powers of cities to seize private property through eminent domain.
 But the response, crafted in a constitutional amendment that passed its first test Tuesday in the Assembly Judiciary Committee, has not satisfied most Republican lawmakers, private property rights advocates -- and Mesdaq.
 "My dream was shattered," Mesdaq told the committee. "The city of San Diego used the law as a tool -- a weapon -- to evict me."
 Mesdaq supports tougher limits contained in a separate initiative that private property rights advocates plan to circulate to qualify for the ballot. It would bar local governments from seizing private property in most cases, with exceptions for public uses such as schools, highways and hospitals. Full Article We owe Ahmad Mesdaq (Gran Havana coffee shop) our support.
by Pat Flannery, 06/25/07  
  This is a video interview with Ahmad Mesdaq, former owner of the Gran Havana cigar and coffee shop downtown.
  Ahmad had his property taken from him by the City of San Diego using eminent domain.
  The City gave it to Ramin Samimi. The case has attracted national attention. It is now a parking lot. The Castle Coalition released these exciting new projects:
50 State Report Card
The Castle Coalition examined and graded eminent domain laws for each of the 50 states over the past two years - since the Kelo decision allowing eminent domain for private gain.  “This report finds that your right to own your home free from the specter of eminent domain abuse depends on which state you live in,” said Steven Anderson, director of the Castle Coalition.  “States in the Northeast as well as California remain some of the biggest abusers of eminent domain and legislators in those states have so far refused to pass meaningful eminent domain reform despite the public’s overwhelming desire to be protected from eminent domain for private gain.”  The report is available at:  www.CastleCoalition.org/publications/report_card

SD Watchdogs say AB1162 is no protection (below)
State Senate OKs bill to trim eminent domain
By Michael Gardner, San Diego Union-Tribune, Aug. 31, 2005
 SACRAMENTO ˆ Jarred by stories of shattered dreams, California lawmakers took a first step yesterday to temporarily harness the power of local governments to seize private homes through eminent domain.
 However, tales of mom and pop shops shuttered by public agencies to make way for larger tax-generating retailers failed to persuade senators to extend the same protection to businesses.
 Their reluctance could ignite an initiative tapping into what appears to be a growing public backlash to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that affirmed the broad eminent-domain powers in Connecticut.
 In the first crucial test of the California Legislature's response, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved a measure that would impose a two-year moratorium on taking homes for private projects, giving the state time to study whether to impose new limits.
 Some Democrats conceded that they remain wary of wading in, but still provided the 5-2 majority vote to keep the bill moving to give supporters time to hammer out some outstanding issues that threaten to keep it from reaching the governor's desk.
 "We're asking for an extraordinary remedy, but do we have an extraordinary problem?" asked Sen. Gil Cedillo, D-Los Angeles, who nevertheless supported the moratorium in AB 1162.
 Taking stock of the outpouring of reports of businesses, churches and homes being seized to make way for big-box stores and hotels, Cedillo urged caution. "Too often we legislate by hysteria," he said.
 Majority Democrats derailed SCA 15, a broader constitutional amendment that would have barred all seizure of private property unless it was for a public use, such as roads or schools. Sen. Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego, and others agreed to shelve a narrower version protecting homeowners, SCA 12, until hearings can be held this fall.
 San Diegan Jody Carey, who was ensnared in a high-profile eminent-domain proceeding, argued in vain for a broad ban on seizures.
 "They answer to no one," said Carey, whose nearly half-million-dollar City Heights home has been coveted by an obscure redevelopment authority pursuing a large housing project.
 The San Diego Model School Development Agency has retreated for now, but Carey says a blanket ban, not a moratorium, is the only way to save his home from being bulldozed.
 "The bill will give them two years to lick their wounds and come right back," he said.
 But officials with redevelopment agencies that use eminent domain sparingly say problems are overblown and that overreacting could eliminate a valuable tool to chase out drug dealers, remove toxic waste and revitalize neighborhoods.
 "It's a nuclear blast," said John Shirey, who represents redevelopment agencies, generally an arm of city or county governments.
 But that blast still may be leveled at redevelopment agencies at the ballot box.
 Orange County Supervisor Chris Norby, a strident critic of eminent domain, said influential supporters are ready to begin collecting nearly 600,000 signatures to place a constitutional amendment before voters that would restrict the use of eminent domain to public needs, such as freeways and hospitals.

County sues city over Grantville plan
By Doug Sherwin,San Diego Daily Transcript , July 21, 2005
 The county of San Diego is suing the city of San Diego over the proposed redevelopment of the Grantville area near Mission Gorge.
 County officials are hoping to prevent the project from starting, saying it could cost the county approximately $200 million in tax revenues over the life of the project.
 "It's a misuse of the (California) Community Redevelopment Law to keep tax revenues in that area, which we feel do not need them," said Laurie Orange, senior deputy of the County Counsel.
 Once a project has been claimed under the redevelopment law, all tax revenues must remain in that particular area.
 The redevelopment statute requires the areas to be blighted, in an urban setting and causing a serious physical and economic burden to that area, which can't otherwise be resolved by private or government action.
 The San Diego City Council and the city's community redevelopment agency was also named in the suit, which was filed July 8.
 "We believe that the evidence does not show it's physically and economically blighted," Orange said. "The county put in a number of objections that introduce other evidence showing that this area is actually thriving. It enjoys a low vacancy rate, and it has quite a bit of new development going on without the need for redevelopment.
 "What we saw was the area had a greater property value increase than the remainder of the city."
 The suit cites figures showing the property values in the Grantville area have risen 54.29 percent during the last five years.
 "That's not indicative of blight," Orange said. "The redevelopment law sets out factors that need to be met. The facts the city put forward either are incomplete, sometimes incorrect or if they were correct, they did not actually show blight."
 The complaint also notes a Grantville "sand and gravel operation" that is thriving and a "multimillion dollar development" occurring on property that the city identified as vacant.
 A spokesman for the city's redevelopment agency said he could not address pending litigation, and calls to the city attorney's office were unsuccessful.
 On the redevelopment group's Web site, a report claimed that 90 percent of the parcels in the project area exhibited one or more physical blighting characteristics, including 25 percent having exposed wiring.
 The report also claims that during the last two years, Grantville's "assessed values have risen 40 percent to 42 percent less than the city and county respectively."
 The city's findings also assert that the crime rate in the area, based on a 2003 survey, was 37 percent above the county average.
 The city's stated five-year implementation plan says it "strives to eliminate blight in the Project Area by assisting with rehabilitation and new construction of commercial and industrial areas and upgrading of public infrastructure, facilities, open space and parks."
 The county's lawsuit, however, alleges "the proposed redevelopment plan would actually exacerbate rather than relieve existing traffic problems. Rather than eliminating any burden on the community, creating a redevelopment project here would burden the entire city by redirecting property tax revenues away from the city's general fund where they could be used for badly needed services, such as police, fire and infrastructure throughout the city."
 The lawsuit also claims that a council member stated there "are no planned redevelopment activities" and that the project presented the only method to "capture the additional tax increment." Senator McClintock has introduced the Homeowners & Property Protection Act as SCA 15.  
 We start with the bi-partisan support of 45 other members of the Legislature who have signed on as co-authors, but it requires a two-thirds vote of both houses to place this important measure on a statewide ballot for approval.  If the Legislature has the will it can be placed on the November 8th special election ballot with votes during the week of August 15th.  Failing such immediate action they will still have plenty of time to place it on the June primary ballot in 2006.
  What we need at this point is for concerned supporters to contact their local Senate and Assembly members and asking them to support SCA 15, if they are not signed on as co-authors.  
[Co-authors are listed here:  http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sca_15_bill_20050713_introduced.html ]
 There are currently over 6,000 government agencies that have the power of eminent domain and most do not want that power curtailed in any way and are aggressively opposing SCA 15.  It is important that we get as many letters of support for SCA 15 from individuals, small business, churches, organizations and any other groups that can be affected negatively by property seizures that are for the benefit of other private parties.  These letters of support can be addressed to Senator Tom McClintock, State Capitol, Sacramento CA, 95814 or faxed to 916-324-7544.  Or e-mailed to: tom.mcclintock@sen.ca.gov
 Thank you in advance of helping us spread the word and your support of this important measure.  Feel free to call our office at 916-445-8873 if you need any additional information or have questions about SCA 15.
1-page version of the language that amends the California State Constitution
 —John E. Stoos, Chief Consultant
—Senator Tom McClintock

Justices' ruling on property seizure ignites revolt
BY KENNETH HARNEY, July 24, 2005, WASHINGTON --
  To call it a backlash would hardly do it justice. Calling it an unprecedented uprising to nullify a decision of the highest court of the land would be more accurate.
  In the four weeks since the Supreme Court sanctioned the seizure of private homes by municipal governments for private economic development, a firestorm has broken out in dozens of state legislatures and in Congress.
  At the federal level, by a 365-33 vote the House adopted a highly unusual resolution deploring the court's ruling. The House also voted 231-189 for a bill that would prohibit expenditure of any federal housing, transportation or treasury funds "to enforce the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kelo v. City of New London." The court ruled that municipalities have the right to determine what constitutes a "public purpose" for eminent domain seizure purposes -- even if that means taking privately owned real estate away from citizens and handing it over to private developers who promise to increase the local tax revenue base or increase employment.
  In effect, the House told the court: You may have narrowly approved the Connecticut city's eminent domain seizures of homes for a privately developed and owned urban renewal project, but we have a weapon in this fight, too. If the appropriations amendment passes the Senate, the city of New London will not be able to use key federal funds in any way, directly or indirectly, to move that project forward. No transportation money, no housing subsidies, no assistance from the U.S. Treasury. Meanwhile, bipartisan support is building in the Senate for the broader-sweeping "Protection of Homes, Small Businesses and Private Property Act of 2005," authored by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas. That bill declares it is Congress' view that "the power of eminent domain should be exercised only for 'public use' as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment, and that this power to seize homes, small businesses and other private property should be reserved only for true public purposes."
  Under no circumstances, according to Cornyn, should local eminent domain powers "be used simply to further private economic development." If passed and signed into law, the bill would prohibit all uses of federal funds in connection with any eminent domain seizures for economic development purposes.
  At the state level, legislative moves are under way in more than two dozen states to rein in, or at least clarify, the powers of municipalities to condemn and seize homes. Eight states -- Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Montana, South Carolina and Washington -- already impose restrictions in some form.
 In Connecticut, Gov. Jodi Rell endorsed a moratorium on eminent domain seizures, and called the issue "the 21st Century equivalent of the Boston Tea Party: the government taking away the rights and liberties of property owners without giving them a voice. But this time it is not a monarch wearing robes in England we are fighting -- it is five robed justices at the Supreme Court in Washington."
  The outraged reaction to the Kelo decision erupted across the political and ideological spectrum and created momentary bedfellows out of legislators who rarely agree on anything. Name another issue on which House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., the House's lone self-described socialist, Rep. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., evangelical Christian groups, Rush Limbaugh and Ralph Nader all are on the same side.
 Waters denounced the decision as "the most un-American thing that can be done." She said it would weigh most heavily upon minority and poor neighborhoods. DeLay called the ruling "a travesty."
  A few opponents of the Kelo decision are looking to mount direct action -- sometimes tongue in cheek. A California group called Freestar Media LLC is organizing an effort to convince the town council of Weare, N.H., where Supreme Court Justice David Souter owns property, to condemn the land in order to give it to developers who promise to construct a hotel there and raise town revenue and employment.
 Souter voted with the majority in the case. The name of the proposed project: The Lost Liberty Hotel. It will house a restaurant called the Just Deserts Cafe.
  Logan Clements, chief executive of Freestar, insists "this is not a prank. The Town of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter, we can begin our hotel development."
  Just deserts indeed.

Homeowners Ask U.S. Supreme Court: Rehear Eminent Domain
Case Homes, Small Businesses & Even VFW Post, Could be Condemned for Private Development , If Case is Not Reconsidered
INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE  www.ij.org , 7/18/05,Washington, D.C.-
 The U.S. Supreme Court has one final chance to correct one of its most-despised decisions in recent memory-its ruling in Kelo v. City of New London, which allows the use of eminent domain for private development.  Today the Institute for Justice will file a petition for rehearing on behalf of New London, Conn., homeowners asking the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider its 5-4 ruling from June 23 that has already opened up the floodgates to eminent domain abuse.
 "We will be the first to admit that our chances of success with this motion are extremely small, but if there is any case that deserves to reheard by the Supreme Court, it is the Kelo case," said Scott Bullock, senior attorney at the Washington, D.C.-based Institute for Justice.  æThis is the worst Supreme Court decision in years.  Hopefully the Court will see the abuse of power that it has unleashed and will reconsider its misguided and dangerous opinion." 
Forget Hypotheticals:  Floodgates are Opened With Ruling
 As the petition points out as the first basis for the rehearing, the floodgates to eminent domain abuse have already begun to swing open.  "Justice O‚Connor predicted a world in which a Motel 6 can be taken for a Ritz-Carlton, and homes for a shopping mall," said Dana Berliner, a senior attorney at the Institute and co-counsel in the Kelo case.  "The majority wrongly dismissed these as hypotheticals when in fact such takings are already occurring throughout the country."
 Among many other examples of lower-tax producing businesses being taken for higher-tax producing ones just since the Supreme Court‚s ruling, the Institute for Justice cited: Hours after the Kelo decision, officials in Freeport, Texas,  began legal filings to seize two family-owned seafood companies to make way  for a more upscale business: an $8 million private boat marina.
 Homes are already being taken for  shopping malls.  On July 12, 2005, Sunset Hills, Mo., voted to allow the  condemnation of 85 homes and small businesses.  This is the first step in  allowing the private Novus Development Corp. to use eminent domain against the  property owners to build a planned $165 million shopping center and office  complex.  Also in Missouri, the City of Arnold plans to take 30 homes and  15 small businesses, including the Arnold Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) post,  for a Lowe‚s and a strip mall.
The Poor & Middle Class Will Be Targets
 The Institute for Justice pointed out to the Court that because property owners must pay their own litigation costs in eminent domain, many eminent domain abuse cases will never make it to court because property owners will simply be unable to afford the legal and other costs associated with challenging an eminent domain action on public use grounds.
 For less wealthy individuals and businesses, the cost of litigation will very quickly exceed the value of the property, which is why nearly all appellate public use cases in the state courts involve challenges by larger business owners.  Homeowner and small business cases, when they are brought at all, typically involve rare pro bono or public interest litigation.  The Institute for Justice wrote in its petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, "As a result, eminent domain for economic development purposes directed at poorer individuals, minorities and the politically powerless will rarely make it to the courts for evaluation on a case-by-case basis [as the Court suggested in its Keloopinion] and those individuals and groups will in large part bear the brunt of these takings.  "Petitioners respectfully ask this Court to rehear this case so it may prohibit the use of eminent domain for private economic development or, at a minimum, provide greater protections to property owners."
"Rarely does a Supreme Court decision generate such uniform and nearly universal outrage," said Chip Mellor, president of Institute for Justice.  "Clearly, Americans understand just how threatening the Court‚s decision is for ordinary home and small business owners everywhere."
 "Short of actually rehearing the entire case, the property owners ask the Court as the second basis for the rehearing to at the very least "vacate" the judgment of the Connecticut Supreme Court and allow more evidence to be submitted about the takings in this case.  The Court announced new standards in the use of eminent domain for economic development in Keloand four years have passed since the trial in the case.  Petitioners ask the Supreme Court to allow for reexamination of facts in the trial court in light of the new standards it announced.
Hands Off My Home
 In addition to asking the U.S. Supreme Court to rehear the Kelo case, less than one week after the decision, IJ and its Castle Coalition announced a $3 million "Hands Off My Home" campaign-an unprecedented financial commitment-to halting eminent domain for private profit.  "Hands Off My Home" will focus the universal wave of opposition to the Kelo ruling to, among other actions, ask state courts to enforce the "public use" limitations found in every state constitution and to support citizen activists nationwide who are urging their state and local officials to set stricter standards for the use of eminent domain.  Already, legislators in 25 states have introduced or promised to introduce legislation reforming the use of eminent domain for private development, but unless all 50 states enact such legislation, homeowners could be left in jeopardy.  The U.S. Congress is also considering several bills to prohibit the use of federal funds for municipal projects that use eminent domain for private development.

The mayor of one town where eminent domain was being misused like this openly admitted that the term "blighted" had been used quite arbitrarily, to mean nothing more than that they don‚t want the place there any longer. So, words can be distorted for the sheer purpose of getting away with out-and-out robbery, to seize property that clearly belongs to someone, usually for some price the victim does not want. (Fortunately, the Institute of Justice, a vigilant organization in Washington, is going after these eminent domain abusers and standing up for their victims.)
  I am not sure if any of the politicians and bureaucrats Wallace managed to expose on the program realized just how vicious they are in their takings. But certainly it was a boost to liberty to have the vicious practice exposed on this venerable television magazine show. This may not atone for all the pro-statism "60 Minutes" has carried out over the years -- hailing government regulators of nearly all professions (other than journalists, of course) -- but it is a good start.

Builders Seek Restart of Sports Arena Redevelopment
BY MANDY JACKSON, San Diego Business Journal, Dec. 8, 2003
 Negotiations with the San Diego Chargers and other pressing city issues may be delaying a redevelopment project involving another city-owned sports venue.
 Just as the San Diego City Council was set to pick a developer to rebuild 95 acres between Sports Arena Boulevard and Interstate 8 around the San Diego Sports Arena, the council voted in closed session June 10 to end the process.
At that meeting, the council was scheduled to select a developer for the project. The city had asked developers to submit their qualifications for the project in October 2002.
 Bill Witte, principal of the Related Cos. in Orange County, said, “It was down to us and another team. The council directed staff to put us on ice.”
 Witte suspected the City Council put the project on hold for two reasons.
First, he said, 2nd District Councilman Michael Zucchet sought to avoid involvement in any court battles over the project since Zucchet and fellow councilmen Ralph Inzunza and Charles Lewis were already fighting allegations that they took money from owners and employees of the Cheetahs strip club in Kearny Mesa in exchange for loosening regulations on adult entertainment.
Witte also believes the council wants to avoid negotiating on another sports facility while in the middle of the controversy surrounding negotiations over the Chargers’ lease at Qualcomm Stadium and the team’s request for a new football stadium.
 Zucchet said the redevelopment was put on hold mainly because the process for seeking developers was misguided.“My predecessor (former Councilman Byron Wear) and the previous council used a request for qualifications for that site that was controversial. It was a confusing, odd process,” he said.
 Community members were concerned about the process as well as building heights that might be allowed.
 Future Of Sports Arena In Doubt
Ernie Hahn III, general manager of the Sports Arena, has suggested building a new arena as part of the Chargers’ plan to redevelop the 166-acre Qualcomm Stadium site in Mission Valley, but the football team has rebuffed that plan because of its cost.
 Arena Group 2000, the company that operates the Sports Arena, is part of North Bay Village Partners LLC, the other development group under consideration to redevelop the area.
 The City Council was concerned about what would happen to events if the Sports Arena was torn down, Hahn said.
“We could build a new arena on the Qualcomm site and then start redevelopment of the Sports Arena,” he said.
However, the arena may be excluded from the 95-acre redevelopment plan.
“It may not be up to a developer to decide what to do with it,” Zucchet said.
He thinks the city will probably seek proposals again early next year, but he didn’t know when the City Council and community members would be able to reach consensus on what kind of construction developers should be proposing.
When the city initially asked for proposals, it did not indicate whether the Sports Arena would be razed. It said a developer would be selected in March and the project’s design would begin in June.
 The city asked in vague terms for mixed-use, transit-oriented development with affordable housing and retail.
“We were more focused on a team to develop it, not what to develop there,” said Will Griffith, real estate assets director for the city.
 Witte said the Related Cos. still wants to be involved. The developer builds affordable housing as well as high-density luxury homes, including mixed-income and mixed-use projects.
“It’s embarrassing that a big project like this and the process was cut off at the knees,” Hahn said. “We control the lease (of the Sports Arena) for another 14 years. We would like to redevelop it over time.”
 Arena Group 2000 has invested at least $6 million in the Sports Arena. The company and its partners spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on their redevelopment plan, which included residential and retail components, according to Hahn.
Arena Group is in the middle of new construction in the arena’s parking lot. Krispy Kreme has opened, and another restaurant and a gas station are under construction.
Neighbors voice concerns over YMCA expansion
By Angela Lau UNION-TRIBUNE, Nov. 9, 2003
 As the Peninsula YMCA celebrates millions of dollars in donations for a long-awaited expansion, neighbors are expressing concerns about increased traffic and a lack of parking.
 Cynthia Conger, chairwoman of Peninsula Community Planning Board, said residents have been complaining about fears of YMCA patrons gobbling up parking on the streets. The board advises the San Diego City Council on planning and growth in Point Loma.
 Some residents also are concerned that an agreement between the YMCA and neighboring Correia Junior High School in Point Loma to use some of its parking spaces to accommodate the Y's increased membership would endanger students as they walk near traffic.
 The school has agreed to let YMCA patrons use 49 spaces, said Steven Baratte, spokesman for San Diego City Schools. In return, the school would use one-half of the gym for physical education.
 Alfredo Velasco, the Y's executive director, said his organization has been a good neighbor and will continue to be.
 For instance, the Y has moved its summer camp from the Valeta Street facility to nearby Cleator Community Park to reduce the traffic from children being dropped off and picked up at camp, Velasco said.
 He said the 6,600-square-foot YMCA, built in the 1970s, is overcrowded. Its hallways are used for teen gatherings, physical therapy and community meetings.
 The building is so much in demand that residents sometimes use Ocean Beach's recreation center, where people can have to wait in line to get on the basketball courts, said former San Diego City Councilman Byron Wear, whose district included Point Loma.

Bay-to-bay proposals presented, Price might be $250 billion-plus
By David E. Graham, Union Tribune, 9/11/03
 City officials and consultants last night described possible scenarios for an approximately $250 billion park to link Mission Bay to San Diego Bay. Many in attendance doubted the practicality and affordability of such a project.
 The City Council authorized a study in January 2002 that suggested three versions of such a park: one connecting the bays by a network of park lands; another with a canal loop that wouldn't link the bays; and a third that would include a deeper, more complicated, navigable canal that would connect the bays.
 The study was described last night at a Holiday Inn in the Midway area during the fifth public meeting on the subject. The recommendations will be given to the Community and Economic Development Department for possible consideration by City Council.
 The cost estimates for acquiring land and building the projects range from $215 million for the one having only a land link to $296 million for some version of the smaller canal and $455 million for the navigable link.
"Where's all the money coming from?" interjected one man in the audience.
 Some questioned whether a project of this kind would add to already congested traffic in the Midway area and Point Loma. Several people in the audience of about 40 said they thought the project showed "vision."
 It would probably take a minimum of nine years to acquire land and build it, a consultant said.
 The notion of connecting the bays has been pondered since the 1920s. The mayor and council in the mid-1990s resurrected the idea of establishing a recreational link. The council approved $250,000 for the study that was presented again last night.
 The presentation by consultant Laura Burnett of Wall Roberts & Todd Inc. was intended to give three possible scenarios for a so-called bay-to-bay park.
 She explained how a swath of land area parallel to Rosecrans Street could be a key feature. A more expensive park with the canal loop could allow for small boats while the avoiding potential environmental problems of linking the two bays. The linkage choice might pose a threat to indigenous habitats by introducing new species and by slicing through the San Diego River and perhaps precariously mix salt and fresh water and runoff water from land.
 The plans also would alter the directions of some streets, probably avoid the landfill at Mission Bay and take into account underground utilities, Burnett said.
 Some said they believe a project could hasten redevelopment and improve the area.
Qualcomm Stadium's bad? Gee, USA Today has it No. 1, DIANE BELL. Union TribuneSept.. 6, 2003
 Someone had better clue in USA Today  to San Diego's best-kept secret. Doesn't it know that Qualcomm Stadium is antiquated, lacking in amenities and substandard?
 Apparently not, because a photo of our stadium filled up most of the top of a page in the national newspaper's weekly Destinations travel section yesterday, accompanied by gushing commentary. The headline stripped across the page read: "10 Great Places to Get a Kick Out of Football." Qualcomm isn't relegated to low man on the top-10 totem pole. It ranks No: 1, the best  of our country's "modern-day cathedrals known as stadiums." The newspaper's listing was compiled with the help of ESPN sports analyst Chris Berman, who elaborated on his favorite places for watching gridiron grit. Qualcomm "boasts 52 concession stands, three restaurants and 113 executive suites. It has hosted the Super Bowl twice." (Three times, really.) Actually, says Berman, "The Super Bowl needs to be in San Diego every  year." A lot of San Diegans will agree – and, rest assured, some stadium backers will deliver framed copies to San Diego Chargers headquarters – and maybe to NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue's office as well.
Winning some, losing some on the bayfront
Union Tribune, By Welton Jones, (former UTcritic-at-large) 7/16/03
 They're coming at our waterfront like hustlers who smell rich suckers not paying attention.
Second only to the priceless climate, San Diego's beautiful and largely uncluttered bay is a treasure both spectacular and taken for granted. But just as the weather needs protecting against polluters, so must the water's edge be handled for the benefit of the majority, not the profit of the speculators.
 Right now, the score looks about even. There doesn't seem any way to rescue the priceless property given away to Corky McMillin when the city acquired the Naval Training Center. Given enough courage, the present City Council may be able to resist paying even more into McMillin's obscene profits. But the dream of a second Balboa Park is long lost in the fumes of bulldozers.
 And even though the Navy has finally bowed to political pressure and agreed that the dead hulk formerly called Midway can be propped up against a downtown pier as it continues to rust away, there remains some hope that the sheer expense of this fiasco may yet give the taxpayers protection not offered by its craven city establishment.
(The continuing irony of the Midway lunacy is the nearly universal contempt in political, museum and even Navy circles for the potential of this undistinguished, high-maintenance Cold War hybrid of a ship never fired upon in anger as some sort of tourist curiosity. Yet few feel it worth the effort to speak out. The Navy, actually, has been the most responsible party in the whole business, forcing the backers through hoops of reality.)
 There may still be hope for regaining reality instead of Seaport Village. Port commissioners have asked for a design competition to see what architects and planners think might be done with the area just north of Seaport Village, that plastic tourist trap with only 15 years left on its lease.
 The commissioners seem to agree that the historic San Diego Police Headquarters building should be left more or less intact and that there should be a generous proportion of public greenery. Maybe the winning plan will help turn the commercial area into something more California than New England. It's worth the delay.
And surely the city has enough gumption to resist the loony plan now being floated to build a waterfront fountain array featuring a heroic statue of the Greek god Neptune. Fortunately, schemes like this have a way of gently dissolving like the night-and-morning-coastal-low-clouds of summer.
 But if this motley scorecard suggests anything, it is that eternal vigilance is the price of the wise stewardship this era owes to future generations. Every decision every day is potentially crucial.
 After all, one day we will have to decide what to do with Lindbergh Field.Landmark Eminent Domain Abuse Decision Michigan Supreme Court Halts Eminent DomainFor "Economic Development"Court States Poletown Was "Erroneous