This is just another example of Mr. Madaffer playing fast and loose with other people's moneys and properties. Remember the Fox Canyon fiasco where a park was really a road where it was really a condo project? If any city project is worthwhile then the proponents should call what it is and make the case for the project in public view. Instead, these same city leaders continue to pass and hide the ball. I have a piece of property in the Grantville/Allied Gardens area. It isn't anywhere near downtown. I isn't near La Jolla. And, it isn't near the lost city of Atlantis. If this all prevails, I expect to be able to market this home as being harbor/embarcadero property. After all, local gov't is sanctioning this viewpoint, is it not?

Posted by Dale Peterson | reply to this comment
August 16, 2008 8:02 am

Scott - You say this is a legal settlement. Does that mean that the City Attorney signed off on it or led negotiations to settle? I thought he was protecting us against our elected officials?

Posted by Bevo | reply to this comment
August 15, 2008 4:51 pm

This boondoggle will become a lawyer’s full employment act with the taxpayers funding both sides of the argument, losing no matter who wins. I suspect our termed out District Councilmember is also coordinating some sort of employment related to this scheme. That's right, this scheme. Anytime government cooks up a lain brained idea like this one you know the taxpayers are ones getting screwed. Funny, this is like the idea floated a few years ago regarding the Qualcomm Stadium site. Supposedly that site was blighted too. Problem is the land was valued at more than a million dollars an acre. Will the scheming ever stop at City Hall?

Posted by JustWondering | reply to this comment
August 15, 2008 5:08 pm

The infrastructure improvements identified in the Plan for the Grantville Redevelopment Project are traffic and flooding. Sound familiar? These are the same issues Madaffer identified for spending a $400,000 state park grant on studying building a road through Fox Canyon. Anyway, the current plans for Grantville call for adding at least 6,000 residential units. How this would remedy traffic congestion is as mysterious as the Grantville/downtown symbiosis. At the recent Grantville Stakeholders Committee meeting the idea of creating a sub-committee to study flooding was proposed. The reaction of Madaffer’s hand-picked chair was, “Flooding?” The idea was nixed. It seems that reducing traffic congestion and preventing flooding are much less important, since the redevelopment designation has been validated by the settlement agreement.

Posted by Brian T. Peterson, DVM | reply to this comment
August 16, 2008 6:40 am

It appears that a major business here in San Diego is public relations (deception) and legal double talk. The funding of the connection of the station improvement required to merge the two trolley lines should be handled by a grant to the US Department of Transportation. It is really pathetic that presently, we have only one honest member of the City Council, Donna Fry. We desperately need to elect some council members, who will fight this corruption. Marti Emerald's dedication was proven when she stayed 8 hours with us and aided the fight against this geographic lie (sophism).

Posted by Robert C. Leif, Ph.D. | reply to this comment
August 16, 2008 7:37 am

Oh Scott, have you got a lot to learn. These complicated arrangements are as common as dirt and the way our local government works. Its nice to see you're finally catching on; by the time your hair is as white as Pat Flannery's, you will no doubt share more of his views.

Posted by jorgeelgato | reply to this comment
August 16, 2008 7:43 am

Editor´s Choice
This is just another example of Mr. Madaffer playing fast and loose with other people's moneys and properties. Remember the Fox Canyon fiasco where a park was really a road where it was really a condo project? If any city project is worthwhile then the proponents should call what it is and make the case for the project in public view. Instead, these same city leaders continue to pass and hide the ball. I have a piece of property in the Grantville/Allied Gardens area. It isn't anywhere near downtown. I isn't near La Jolla. And, it isn't near the lost city of Atlantis. If this all prevails, I expect to be able to market this home as being harbor/embarcadero property. After all, local gov't is sanctioning this viewpoint, is it not?

Posted by Dale Peterson | reply to this comment
August 16, 2008 8:02 am

Kroll reported that Jim Madaffer exclaimed, “Let “em sue us!” when he was informed that it was illegal to undercharge commercial sewer users, while overcharging residential users. What do you think he said when the City Attorney informed him that the money transfer portion of the Grantville Settlement Agreement may not be legal? We have heard rumor that this deal was consummated over the City Attorney’s objection. We have retained an attorney to investigate the case law concerning the various facets of the Grantville/downtown money transfer. If you would like to contribute to the legal fund to investigate this dubious, money-laundering carousel, please go to link

Posted by Brian T. Peterson, DVM | reply to this comment
August 16, 2008 10:16 am

I absolutely disagree with the article stating that Grantville needs a facelift. First, that's an arrogant statement about someone else's property. And its untrue. Most of the properties are successful businesses in this industrial or commercial zoned area along Mission Gorge Road. Market forces would determine if Grantville needs a facelift. Apparently, the owners like it just the way it is, and so do I. If someone wants to buy a parcel, they should contact the owner and make an offer. What the area can use is for the City Council and others to stop changing zoning and approving condo's in this desert.

Posted by Notgreedy | reply to this comment
August 16, 2008 5:58 pm

Notgreedy is spot on. The draconian powers of redevelopment should not be used for "facelifts." Once an area is subjected to redevelopment property owners and the market lose control over vast swaths of land and it is handed over to the "insiders" who get appointed to the redevelopment board. The Chip Bowens, Mike Madigans, Nancy Grahams, Carolyn Smiths. What a pretty picture. It will probably be great for journalists, like you Scott. Jim Madaffer will no doubt get a major role in the Grantville Redevelopment Corp and he will do for it what he has done for the rest of the city.

Posted by jorgeelgato | reply to this comment
August 17, 2008 6:45 am

• Users may post more than one comment, but should not pose as multiple users. Multiple posts from the same IP address but with a different user name on each will be reviewed to determine whether abuse has occurred.
• Posts with overly personal attacks or unsubstantiated allegations may be edited or deleted.
• Please be patient with the posts -- there may be a delay before they appear on the site -- and make sure to enter the code in the "image verification" box.