No Sympathy for De Anza Plight

By Hank Cunningham, Encinitas

Right on Hank. Although you neglected to mention that this issue is a classic example of how our elected officials have failed us. Moreover, it may be a classic example of how district elections inhibits weak politicians from doing what's in the WHOLE city's best interest. Other councilmembers defer to councilmembers from the district and the councilmember from the district is dealing with such a small constituency that they won't take issues like DeAnza head on. As a consequence, a small group of people fleece the rest of the taxpayers, utilizing a valuable resource for a fraction of its value. The pension costs aren't the issue, it's the lack of intestinal fortitude of our elected officials to make the right decisions in everyone's best interests.

Posted by Get A Clue | reply to this comment
October 30, 2009 8:45 pm

Get A Clue - "As a consequence, a small group of people fleece the rest of the taxpayers, utilizing a valuable resource for a fraction of its value." - Are you talking about the Chargers? Padres? Convention Center? Boy Scouts? $1.00 a year city leasees? Mission Bay leases? Soledad Cross land sale? Torrey Pines Golf Course?

Posted by T.Tanaka | reply to this comment
October 31, 2009 2:30 pm

Thank you for reinforcing my point!

Posted by Get A Clue | reply to this comment
November 4, 2009 9:21 pm

"The city needs to manage the assets it already possesses before even considering reneging on legal contracts with its employees." ==================== Ahh, Hank - spoken like a true city employee. Did you use a work computer to post this?

Posted by SanDiegoParrothead | reply to this comment
October 31, 2009 7:49 pm

Everybody was suppose to be out in 1984. That when their entire park ground lease expired. Sacramento gave them an extra twenty years. Its time that parkland went back for total public use. I will take a wild guess that those people who moved into the trailer park in 1980 knew that they were suppose to leave in 1984. The amount people pay to live a five minute walk to the bay is unbelievable below going market rates. The city should have never let anybody move into the park after 1984. There would probably be less than fifty trailer left today if that requirement had been met.

Posted by worm | reply to this comment
October 31, 2009 8:57 pm

If I recall correctly, the soon to be termed out Donna Frye responded to the plight of the older residents and gummed up the legal process. She also accepted campaign contributions from the then developer (probably long departed) for the site. I see one of the residents pictured tooling around town in a BMW convertible. I hope that tugs at everyone's heartstrings and makes them want these squatters to remain on our city parkland for $600 per month plus a water view. Why not set up next year's winter shelter tent at De Anza Cove ?

Posted by grasca | reply to this comment
November 2, 2009 8:13 am

I have no sympathy, at all, for the DeAnza squatters, but it is kind of refreshing to see the small guys ripping off the city and taxpayers; usually, it's the same old special interests-developers tourist industry, pro sports team owners, city employee unions and elected officials and their friends and supporters.

Posted by Steve K | reply to this comment
November 2, 2009 1:40 pm

When this matter has come to City Council in the past, a 90 year woman resident has been used to underscore why the residents should not be moved. Since a lot of the squatters have aged along with the trailers, I really do see why anyone should feel much sympathy for them. The non resolution of the De Anza issue is a good example of real estate assets in San Diego not being managed correctly. I doubt if other renters in privately owned properties would be afforded all of this special treatment.

Posted by grasca | reply to this comment
November 2, 2009 5:32 pm

This is not privately-owned property. It is our publicly-owned parkland that the City allowed to be used for private residential purposes. Once that was made an issue, 1979-81, residents managed to obtain state legislation that allowed them to remain until Nov. 23, 2003. Many of those residents sold and moved out. Everyone who bought subsequent to 1981 was informed, as part of real estate disclosure requirements, that the ground leases would expire in 2003. While I feel some sympathy for a handful of residents who truly cannot afford more, and there is public assistance for those who qualify, they are not the ones who filed suit against the City. Take a look at some of the waterfront homes - you have to hunt to find the wheels and license plate (still required because they're "mobile" homes) underneath the substantial modifications into waterfront cottages.

Posted by JS | reply to this comment
November 4, 2009 12:39 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.