I would too, but I like the weather better up there. :D

You're a braver man than I. ;)

I'm spending up until July in Honolulu (for work), but after that I'm heading to Europe for at least a couple of years. If I come back to the US, San Diego will be on my short list of places to live despite the crazy nimbys. Pardon the pun, but it is one fine city. Finest? Only if you work in marketing.

Oh yeah Mr "San Diegan for Life"?

What happened to Chicago? Did it have to do with losing the 2016 Olympics in the 1st round?:haha:

:P



Things changed. Hell, I'm from New York! I'm just looking from a little bit of change. :)

Parking Lots
 

Does anybody know of some new parking lots going in?

Downtown Hotel Acquired For Affordable Housing
 

The City Council Tuesday unanimously authorized the San Diego Housing Commission to acquire a 130-room downtown hotel to be preserved as affordable housing for low-income seniors.

The San Diego Housing Commission will purchase the Sandford Hotel, at 1301 Fifth Ave., for about $6.8 million and spend an estimated $5.3 million on renovations.

"It makes sense to preserve much-needed affordable housing for low-income seniors in our urban core, where there is public transit as well as access to health care and other social services," said Richard Gentry, head of the Housing Commission.

The Centre City Development Corp., San Diego's downtown redevelopment arm, will lend $6 million to the Housing Commission to purchase the building.

Rehabilitating the Sandford, which was built in 1914, will take about nine months, according to the Housing Commission. The project will include a seismic retrofit, repairs to exterior walls and windows and new carpet, paint and bathroom fixtures inside the single-room occupancy hotel.

http://www.10news.com/news/22651668/detail.html

Just checking in, haven't logged onto this site in a long time...

http://voiceofsandiego.org/opinion/a...cc4c002e0.html

With the arrival of well-paid consultants, it appears that a publicly financed football stadium for the Chargers is closer to becoming a reality than ever. Regardless of where you stand on the question of building a stadium, it is important for all San Diegans to realize that using downtown redevelopment money is the wrong way to do it.

Unlike regular taxes collected by the city from residents, which can be used at the discretion of local elected officials, redevelopment dollars are governed by state law. The law makes clear that the "fundamental purpose of redevelopment is to expand the supply of low- and moderate-income housing, to expand employment opportunities for jobless, underemployed, and low-income persons, and to provide an environment for the social, economic, and psychological growth and well-being of all citizens."

One of the few things that pointy-headed academics agree on is that building sports stadiums is an incredibly ineffective way to achieve these redevelopment goals. One expert has written that "most academic studies measuring economic impact of sports facilities (not teams or sporting events) fail to find enough net gain to a community to justify the often large public outlays." A book on the subject, titled appropriately Major League Losers, begins:

Too many community leaders do not understand -- or they choose to ignore -- the reams of information describing the minuscule impact of teams on local economics and the ways in which the four major leagues control the number of teams and manipulate revenue-sharing programs to victimize taxpayers and sports fans.

Proponents of a new football stadium point to the gentrification that followed Petco Park as evidence for the redevelopment potential of sports facilities. Yet we should remember that what transformed downtown wasn't Petco Park -- it was $1 billion in ancillary development that Padres owner John Moores agreed to invest in the East Village as a condition for getting public money for his stadium. Given the small area available for a football stadium, city officials and Chargers executives have ruled out a similar deal this time around.

Mayor Jerry Sanders has endorsed the use of redevelopment dollars to build a stadium because, he has claimed, doing so would spare the city's General Fund, the account that pays for police, firefighters, parks and libraries. The mayor is wrong.

Funding a stadium would require the city to extend the life of its downtown redevelopment project areas, allowing downtown property taxes -- known as tax increment -- to go into a separate account reserved for large capital projects. If the project areas were allowed to expire, 22 cents of every tax increment dollar would go straight into the city's general fund, totaling hundreds of millions of dollars over the life of the extension.

A similar amount would go to the county, to pay for important social programs, the Sheriff's Department, and other public services. The rest of the money would be shared by other local governments and the state, to help fund education and public safety, among many other important programs.

Unless you think a football stadium is a worthier use of taxpayer money than the services funded by the city, county, and the state, redevelopment money is the wrong financing route.

So what would be a better way to pay for a new stadium? If San Diego voters believe that the Chargers are an important city asset, one that deserves public investment, they could pass a general obligation bond to fund stadium construction, in the same way that they pass bonds to pay for new school facilities.

Because bonds are repaid through separate property taxes, this is the only route that both protects the city's General Fund and preserves existing redevelopment dollars for use on what the state law has intended.

Vladimir Kogan is a Ph.D. candidate at UCSD's Department of Political Science and a research fellow at Stanford University's Bill Lane Center for the American West. He can be reached at vkogan@ucsd.edu.

Hmm...well...I love the Chargers more than my money, so let's do this thing! :jester:

Keeping the Chargers in San Diego is a worthwhile investment, financially and also for the city's morale. If downtown redevelopment money is what is going to fund this venture, then I am perfectly fine with it.

I love the Chargers along with all of you but I fall in line with the op-ed writer. Moving the Padres resulted in a huge net gain for the city, moving the Chargers will not have the same long term economic benefit, at least in my opinion. I feel this way only looking at the relative cost. The value from the padres redevelopment was enormous, i dont think we can realize the same effect through subsidizing the chargers development. Rather, it simply uses up a ton of capital for very little gain. I mean there'd be no net job growth created by building a new stadium downtown for them. We'd be moving mission valley jobs into downtown. So what? I know we want to keep the team, but I don't want the city to become the sucker in Mark Fabiani's shell game. If they want to produce a study that proves me wrong, then great, but I'd rather be sure its worth the investment.

http://media.signonsandiego.com/img/...34634cbc5420f3
City Hall project will get public vote
Four San Diego council members now support that step before moving forward
BY CRAIG GUSTAFSON, UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2010 AT 12:56 P.M.

No matter what negotiations over a new San Diego City Hall yield, it will go before voters for final approval.

Four City Council members — Carl DeMaio, Kevin Faulconer, Donna Frye and Sherri Lightner — have all committed to a public vote on the project. That means it can’t get the five votes needed to move forward unless it includes a requirement that it must appear on the ballot in a future election, possibly as soon as November.

Faulconer, who had previously voted to move forward with the project without a public vote requirement, provides the swing vote on the issue. Mayor Jerry Sanders also supports a public vote but has limited power to force one.

The City Council entered into exclusive negotiations with Portland, Ore.-based Gerding Edlen for the $432 million project in October. DeMaio, Frye and Lightner voted against the negotiations because it didn’t include a public vote.

In a joint statement Wednesday, the council members explained their decision.

“Put simply, we will not vote to move forward with any project resulting from negotiations with Gerding Edlen for building a new City Hall unless the project is put to voters for approval,” the statement said. “It should be noted that our requirement for a public vote on the project does not indicate our support for, or opposition to, the project itself, but simply states one necessary condition for our support.”

The developer negotiations are expected to finish by April at a cost of nearly $705,000. The money pays for environmental experts, construction consultants and financial gurus.

The project calls for a 34-story City Hall with an underground garage at C Street and First Avenue, just west of the current building. It would consolidate city offices now spread throughout downtown and eliminate several city leases. The city is negotiating to ensure that building a new structure would save money over maintaining the current City Hall and paying leases on offices that don’t fit in it.

After constructing the City Hall, Gerding Edlen hopes to build retail, housing and a parking structure around it to generate profits.

I recommend linoleum throughout and drains at the low point in each room. just saying.

Though there are clear economic benefits to building a stadium and keeping the Chargers (several articles have been posted here), my contention is that the benefits of doing so go beyond just the economic (e.g., emotional, morale, national relevance).

Ok so what does you guys think the chances of the new city hall ballot initiative passing? And do other major cities put everything up to a vote? If Chicago, Minneapolis, Miami, Houston etc. put issues like this on a ballot for the citizens to decide or do they just go ahead and build things without voter consent?

:previous:
The councilmembers who recommended to put this on the ballot (Frye, DeMaio among others) are the ones originally opposed to it. They're pretty confident that it won't get past the voters.

I'm not so confident that it would pass. Too many uninformed idiots in this town who'll shoot down anything within their reach.

That is funny I saw you on the comments section of the tribune battling it out with the nimbys on the new city hall article. So I wonder what happens if it doesn't pass, that just means the development is dead?

I wouldn't doubt it. :(


God help this city...

In normal times I think this would have been passed by the voters, but given the state's economic crisis and the political bickering across the nation I think most people are hell bent on voting against all incumbents and voting down measures like this out of emotion, instead of thinking rationally.

New Chargers Stadium
 

http://tinyurl.com/ChargersStadium

Hi All, Linked above is our Amended Ballot Proposal for a New Chargers Stadium and Event Center. Please read and review. If you would like this Ballot measures to be part of the November 2, 2010 election, please email the City of San Diego with your comments.

jerrysanders@sandiego.gov, donnafrye@sandiego.gov, carldemaio@sandiego.gov, cdemaio@sandiego.gov, sherrilightner@sandiego.gov, martiemerald@sandiego.gov, kevinfaulconer@sandiego.gov, benhueso@sandiego.gov, toddgloria@sandiego.gov, anthonyyoung@sandiego.gov, Cityattorney@sandiego.gov, jgoldsmith@sandiego.gov, atevlin@sandiego.gov, cityclerk@sandiego.gov, emaland@sandiego.gov, gbraun@sandiego.gov

Well my campus has gone to shit rather quickly...

I'm praying that the protests dont turn violent like the ones in Berkeley.

I am stunned with what has occurred. It's quite embarassing for UCSD, San Diego, and California.

The word "responsibility" comes to mind when giving the events some thought... and specically, where and how did these people learn responsibility for their actions.

Their parents? Society as a whole?

In other events, something San Diegans can learn from.... Florida is back on track to implement HSR (high speed rail).

A tv station traveled to Spain to report on what HSR is and how it works there. The Florida system would be very similar to the one in Spain. Relative to San Diego.... the same is true with the California version... it would be very very similar.

I viewed a short video provided by that news station and found it portraying the system very accurately. Here it is:

http://www.wftv.com/rail/22662547/detail.html

If this gets built using redevelopment funds (governed by state laws) I hope that all the fans enjoy heading to the games on crumbling roads and infrastructure that rival Baghdad.

I can't even feel potholes on my gas-guzzling Hummer!:cool:

Now now I don't recall the ones in Berkeley being about racist bullshit, I can't believe those idiots were provoking people so publicly with that show.

FYI - I received an email from the Empowering Spirits Foundation about the UCSD issue. There is an upcoming press conference to address hate crimes in SD. Here is the event link: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?ei...928649&index=1

Ugh. You're beginning to sound like a typical San diego NIMBY. Potholes this potholes that. Fact of the matter is that the infrastructure will always need fine-tuning. The city's streets will never be in 100% pristine condition.

Didn't someone earlier post a number for people to contact to repave a specific pothole they're obsessing over?

Just fill out the request online - http://apps.sandiego.gov/streetdiv/

I've lived in 7 cities across 3 countries, SD has the best roads of all the cities I've lived in.

Dubious Stadium Building
 

Burress, the whole idea of the stadium going downtown i would argue doesn't have an emotional benefit but rather that emotions are partially what drives people to support things of this nature. Strong emotions would surely not want the Chargers to leave SD, but are they threatening to leave the city if they don't get a new stadium? And the national relevance of the stadium move? That I don't understand- you'd have to elaborate.

Its like a corporation that you want in your city, but jeez, should a city really be saddled with building the equivalent of Qualcommom's corporate HQ?

Interesting. It's true the hate has to end.

And I'm for the Chargers staying, but if the city has to cover more than a third the bill (just a number I feel is the max) then the Chargers lost points with me. Despite their success, they still haven't brought us a Super Bowl and I've followed the team since '92 (that's the earliest I understood what I was watching on the games).

I don't know that Spanos has publicly threatened to leave if he/the Chargers don't receive a new stadium, but I believe the assumption is that he would rather move the Chargers to the new LA stadium but is first giving San Diego the opportunity to attempt to get something done. If they are unable to do so, then he's taking the Chargers to LA.

Assuming that this is the case, the national relevance of San Diego losing the Chargers would be, among other things, lost attention or notoriety (e.g., no more Super Bowls), decreased opinion (San Diego is seen nationally as a "can't do" city), and appeal (e.g., businesses moving to a region often site sports teams as an compelling factor).

I think the corporation analogy is a very good one. Cities do go to great lengths and spend a lot of money to attract corporate headquarters, and the Chargers are a corporation San Diego can't afford to lose.

The Chargers are pretty much all that San Diego has besides it's weather. :P

But you hate the weather, Derek. ;)

eburress brings up a good point. Many corporations look at local sports teams (along with concert halls, art museums, etc.) as a way to entertain clients. I'm not saying that that is a major reason to build the chargers a new stadium, but certainly it's an important one to consider.

I DO hate the weather! But, for some reason, everybody else seems to love it...:shrug:

It's one of the reasons that cities like Dallas, Chicago, and Atlanta do so well in attracting corporate headquarters.

As far as National opinion or notoriety is concerned, cities' sports teams are definitely relevant. For example, the woes of cities' sports teams are sited repeatedly in Forbes' list of America's Most Miserable Cities.

My company recently moved its headquarters to Dallas from here. One of the items the exploratory committee was asked to take into account was local sport venues.

But the Rangers aren't any good... :P

Haha. We were instructed to rank each city based on the available sporting options for wining/dining clients in each city, not the level of the talent.

I personally was sad to see everyone move from CA, but the committee failed CA and SD on almost every other category as well - cost of housing, rent, taxes, cost of doing business, average commute times, etc.

I think our streets are "crumbling" in more ways than just potholes. I really don't care about potholes, they're annoying, but I really don't drive that much. Our INFRASTRUCTURE is horrible. Our streets lack life, humanity, trees, plants, bike lanes, decent sidewalks (not for just walking), activity, local shops, etc. PRISTINE is the last word I can think to describe the overall street/sidewalk/streetwall condition that exists in the Centre City.

I'm no NIMBY, but I hope that the Stadium does not get built in the East Village using money that's protected by state law. I don't see it as a viable investment to spur development in the EV. ALso, I don't think that building an enormous stadium is the type of development that best fits in that corner of the Centre City. I've always imagined it an expansive dense low rise/row home community with families. The scale just doesn't fit.

Hey, I am a Rangers fan. I even have a jersey... the only MLB in my closet. For football.. the Dallas Cowboys.

I knew I liked you!! :)

I never liked that guy anyways. :yuck:

Thought you guys would dig this story...a little jab in the face of those that cannot imagine innovative uses for traditional use buildings. In this case (libraries). The same goes for our other civic buildings, what a downtown stadium might entail, etc. Think outside the box, demand excellence and function above all, and good design can occur that makes all these types of projects very valuable to our city.

http://www.miller-mccune.com/culture...e-cities-8596/

You've obviously haven't been to many cities have you? Have you been to Phoenix? Houston? Dallas? Atlanta? Florida cities?:yuck: The lunar landscape is more vibrant and inviting than those places.

I'm not saying SD is perfect but trust me, we're better off than 90% of the cities out there and I'm not even counting foreign countries either. Our city center is the envy of most of the nation. Here's a recent East Coaster's photo thread on our city. I'm pretty sure he was impressed.
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...14#post4729714


You seem hellbent on hoping the stadium will never get built even if it were free. Even with the stadium's large footprint in the East Village there is still a lot of room to build those "dense lowrise row homes" you speak of. Core, Columbia, City College area, across the 5 into Sherman Heights, South Park, Barrio Logan etc. Not to mention there's still a lot of buildable lots in East Village remaining.

:dead:

Hey...YOO HOO...Diegans...even though we are both sharing in the best weather in the country, lets see some updates! I live in a desert. I want to see the ocean and palm trees and new development.

I miss SD. I used to go to Roosevelt Jr. High School (next to the zoo). Anything new in Hillcrest?

Well ThreeHundred to be honest, with the recession and everything, there's not much going on.

I guess the urban community project in Otay has a name and a website:

"Millenia" ~ http://www.milleniasd.com/

That is a very nice development. Very Urban feel to it, in the heart of sprawl cit out in east chula vista. I like it a lot and hope it gets built.

That was an awesome photo thread. The poster made a comment that there are no major squares downtown, which I have also noticed. Does anyone know why, besides a for a lack of planning, no public squares were built downtown? A place like Union Square in SF could be a great addition to our DT.