The Port Commission and its staff want to keep on treating publicly owned tideland property as their own private land, to use as they see fit. Unfortunately their idea of highest and best use of this public property is to lease it out to highrise hotel and convention center expansion developers to maximize their own lease revenue and to hell with San Diego residents who want to enjoy their own waterfront and preserve some modicum of open space and public plazas for our children and grandchildren to enjoy in the future. Boss Cushman and his allies on the Port board are treating our waterfront as their own little feifdom. Its high time the real owners of our waterfront pass an initiative requiring a public vote on all future proposals to pave over and develop anymore of our bayfront.

Posted by Watcher | reply to this comment
January 7, 2009 9:22 am

As I read it, the land is owned by ALL of the citizens of California, not just those here. Then, the vote would have to be state wide, as was suggested in SLOP's piece. Direct democracy, which is what Watcher is calling for, is not the cornerstone of our system of government. It is something called representative democracy where representatives, elected or appointed, are given the responsibility to conduct the business of government. To try to get all decisions made through a vote, would grind everything to a halt, which is what I gather Watcher would want--to stop ANY development on the bayfront. To take the view that NOTHING should be developed or built is overly simplistic and ignores the fact that LOTS of people earn a living from the businesses there. Also, personal attacks aren't welcome.

Posted by southbayguy | reply to this comment
January 8, 2009 7:47 am

I'm so glad someone else see's the same things I do. Not much more to add but kudos [to Watcher and SouthBayGuy] for spot on remarks.

Posted by Sara | reply to this comment
January 29, 2009 10:23 pm

Wonder if sobayguy works for the Port District. One reason the Port went nuts over Prop B was because the courts found that a local vote could override the Port's land use planning and zoning powers, and also because the initiative would have subjected all future major projects on public tidelands to a public vote, after the TAMT developers got their project underway. I didn't agree with the TAMT proposal, but feel that after decades of the Port Commission and its staff ignoring the residents of downtown and the rest of the region when it comes to bayfront redevelopment, a public vote mandate on proposed future large waterfront developments like Lane Field, the Port staff's proposal to build a cruise ship terminal on Broadway Pier and the proposal to expand the already too big convention center onto more public tidelands should be subject to a vote, just like Prop B.

Posted by Watcher | reply to this comment
January 8, 2009 2:32 pm

• 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.