For the past few months, we’ve been rounding up different discussions in our comments sections, like these on school finances, roads, redevelopment, the Chargers, and more.

Now we’re going to start highlighting five comments from the week so you can catch up on the discussion:

Jacqueline Mary on “AG Sues Over San Diego’s Transportation Future”:

There is no excuse for sticking to a plan that advocates just using cars. There is no planet B. The American excessive use of personal vehicles is more costly, more of a hassle, more unhealthy, and endangers the planet’s future.

We need a MODERN transit system that is more efficient and lessens our environmental impact. That would include a decent local public transit system.

I support the lawsuit. SANDAG should be forced to be progressive enough to be in line with state laws. SANDAG is not representing the people of San Diego because you can’t trust most politicians and bureaucrats.

We also need decent public transit to serve the poor and the tourism industry. How are people supposed to get and keep jobs without access to decent and affordable transportation? How is our tourism industry going to remain competitive without decent public transit?

Geoff Page on “Convention Expansion Inertia Lurches Forward”:

Two parts of this story make shake my head. if you’ve ever stayed in a hotel room and looked at your bill, the “taxes” part of the bill is getting bigger every day. Everyone keeps looking at this as a bottomless well. One day, the tourists are going to rebel and go to cities where they won’t see this big tax item on their bill.

But what really gets to me is that the City Council has moved forward with this and has apparently made no attempt to protect the taxpayers of this city on the risk of their investment. Carl DeMaio tried but voted for it anyway, which I find sad. If Carl had expressed his concerns in the form of his vote, I would have admired that, but, in the end, he and the majority went ahead anyway.

I think it’s time to pull the plug on all of them and put this expansion up to a public vote. Years ago, the public voted down the original convention center three times and the Port had to step in, dip into its overflowing coffers, and pay for the construction. The Port was rich because it owned the airport, which has since been taken from that agency. No one is that rich anymore. This expansion plan looks like the cruise ship terminal sitting there with 50% less business than expected. This Convention Center expansion will be sitting there wondering where all the conventions have gone and we will be paying for it and grousing about it as we bounce over yet another pothole in our streets.

Omar Passons on “The U-T’s Half Baked Waterfront — 5 Questions”:

A couple of the responses above suggest that anyone critical of a stadium plan is a narrow-minded obstructionist. Some day soon I hope we have the resources sufficient to think big again. I will fall in line with Papa Doug, the next Mayor, or whomever comes up with the plan that best serves our city and our region on these stadium/convention center issues. But as long as we have pipes bursting and in need of repair, wastewater problems, roads, sidewalks and public buildings in the rest of San Diego that need attention it is patently offensive to dismiss honest public debate as reactionary rhetoric. Even if we made a concerted effort to address every one of the areas I just mentioned, we would still need a significant increase in resource allocation to allow General Services and Code Enforcement enough people power to keep those same items clean and operational. Present a plan that pays for infrastructure, deferred maintenance and, well, maintenance, and then let’s talk about the pretty shiny things.

Kerri De Rosier on “Sold on a Christmas Dream, Left in the Lurch”:

My family went because we got a free pass. There is NO WAY we would have paid the entrance fee. That, in my opinion, was the major flaw. Otherwise, it would have cost our family of three $48? That’s insane! The idea was to spend money on the vendors when you got there. Sutton got it all wrong.

Cal Hobbin on “Is the New Library Surrounded by Schools? Fact Check”:

Barely true is a bit harsh. Sounds more like mostly true to me. Preschools are places kids learn in myy book, at least the good ones. And, just because Sanders focused on schools for older kids in his statement doesn’t make the statement about 57 untrue–he was talking about all the students who will go to the library–young and old.

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

Dagny Salas is the web editor at You can contact her directly at or 619.550.5669.

Like VOSD on Facebook.

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

We expect all commenters to be constructive and civil. We reserve the right to delete comments without explanation. You are welcome to flag comments to us. You are welcome to submit an opinion piece for our editors to review.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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