Want the news summarized?
Subscribe to The Morning Report.

San Diego’s long used redevelopment to pursue big projects. So the news from the state Supreme Court last week that the state can kill off redevelopment sparked plenty of reaction in our comments section and reading list including the court ruling, our June overview of the laws the court upheld and struck down, what redevelopment’s death means for San Diego and our page for all of our redevelopment coverage.)

Here are five of your comments from the discussion:

Fred Williams:

A victory for San Diegans who for too long have seen tax dollars squandered on politician’s vanity projects.

Yet watch the legislators scramble to take the developers’ cash and sponsor bills renewing redevelopment. Pathetic, and predictable…we haven’t seen the end of redevelopment yet.

Maybe there’s just a small chance some new ideas and models might be tried that might work better than the crooked mess we’ve seen in the last few decades in California.

Hopefully, the days of CCDC playing king maker in San Diego are coming to an end…and good riddance.

Devonnee Villegas:

While understand Education needs the boost, but isn’t revitalization part of getting an Education. This is sad for the Neighborhoods that need it.

Bob Spaulding:

“Redevelopment” sounds like such a nice thing to have. As does “affordable housing”. Put a nice label on it and voters will go for it…leading to a lot of projects and schemes that do not pass the cost vs. benefit test.

Much development that the politicians back with the public’s money would have occurred anyway. They might not be quite so gold-plated and elaborate, but private investment would still give us many of downtown’s condos and entrepreneur-started North Park eateries. They would develop without union-driven labor and silly government regulations that drive the real cost to over $400,000 per unit. Instead, go out and buy existing buildings at half the cost.

Michael Robertson:

This is an issue that has me torn. The reason the Gov shut down these agencies is because union driven compensation for schools, prisons and other state workers has exploded creating a budget crisis.

While redevelopment is clearly exploited by the politically well connected the question arises: Do San Diegans get more value from their tax money if it’s shuttled off to Sacramento and then given to union members OR left local to be given out as favors to those friends of politicians? Regardless, it doesn’t change the amount of money being taken by government.

Omar Passons:

There is no need to guess about the role of Redevelopment in places like North Park, the business owners are almost all still there we could just ask them. Was it Redevelopment or timing or both that convinced The Linkery to open and then move into Amistad Cristiana’s space? Did Urban Solace replace North Park Cafe or True North replace Shooter’s because of Redevelopment? All these owners are still around, maybe that’s a story Andrew can do. Ritual, Toronado, West Coast, URBN, Hunt and Gather, etc, etc. It would be easy enough–and probably fun–to ask them why they came and what role Redevelopment played.

Update: Just got an email from Urban Solace chef/owner Matt Gordon addressing Passons’ comment:

We at urban solace didn’t utilize any redevelopment dollars nor really know about it when we moved to town and chose the location. We did choose north park because we felt it was the right up and coming spot for our concept but utilized self financing and an SBA loan to open


Want to contribute to discussion? Submit a suggestion to Fix San Diego.

Dagny Salas is the web editor at voiceofsandiego.org. You can contact her directly at dagny.salas@voiceofsandiego.org or 619.550.5669.

Like VOSD on Facebook.

Dagny Salas

Dagny Salas was web editor at Voice of San Diego from 2010 to 2013. She was an investigative fellow at VOSD from 2009 to 2010.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.