text:
Guest Column: Standing up for the rights of the adoptedWritten by Guest Author | | email@example.com
By Kate Oatis
As the birth/first mother of an adult daughter adopted in Ohio after Jan. 1, 1964, I am grateful for the people who've worked hard to restore the right of adopted people to their original birth certificates. That right was restored Dec. 19, when Ohio Gov. John Kasich signed the Adoptee Access to Records Bill.
The State of Ohio sealed — or closed — adoption records in 1964, which meant that anyone adopted after Jan. 1, 1964, had no legal access to his or her original birth certificate while all those adopted before that date simply had to request their birth certificates to receive them. The picture for those with no access started to change about 25 years ago when adoptee Betsie Norris, executive director of Adoption Network Cleveland, began to advocate for adoption reform.
The bill affects people whose adoptions were finalized from Jan. 1, 1964, through Sept. 18, 1996 — at least 400,000 people in Ohio, Norris said, "the most in any state." These individuals may begin to receive their records March 20, 2015. There had already been a law in place saying that people adopted after that date had access to their records, unless their birth/first parents stipulated otherwise. Fortunately, according to Norris, "the Ohio Department of Health says very few birthparents have said no."
The Adoptee Access to Records Bill seems to have given adopted people the inner freedom to search for their birth/first families. Just as birth/first parents often feel searching for their surrendered children is wrong or selfish, it is usual for adopted people to consider it selfish to search for their birth/first parents. According to Norris, since the bill was signed in December, there's been an increase in the number of people doing searches.
The State of Ohio's Adoptee Access to Records Bill is good news for birth/first parents who, at the time they signed the papers, likely had no idea the state would, years later, prevent their children from finding them. Indeed, the papers that my daughter's father and I signed included the promise that we would not interfere with her or try to find her. The papers that we signed included no language about preventing our child from finding us.
What reasonable person would disagree that adopted people deserve access to their birth certificates and to the people who brought them into the world? As birthparents' lives unfolded and our understanding of the nature of things evolved, many of us realized, at the very least, how naïve we'd been to send our children to people we did not know.
Our babies were not property. They weren't gifts to people who couldn't have children. They were — and are — human beings with rights and needs. And, they grew up; they're no longer adopted children. We can't go back to change the decisions we made. We can, however, stand up for our adult children to ensure they have access to information and to us.
The decision to request an original birth certificate or to search for a birth/first family is a personal one. Having said that, those of us whose lives are forever touched by adoption are grateful to Gov. Kasich for his support in changing a law that should never have been passed.
A twist some might find interesting: Norris' late adoptive father was an attorney and was instrumental in having the records closed in the State of Ohio back in 1964. Years later, having experienced an evolution in understanding of the nature of things, he supported Norris in her work to unmake the law he'd helped create.
For more information on the Ohio Bill and other news on adoption, please visit adoptionnetwork.org or find Adoption Network Cleveland on Facebook.
Kate Oatis lives in Maumee and is willing to speak with adoptees, birth/first parents and prospective adoptive parents from her perspective as a birth/first mother. She can be reached at email@example.com.
Tags: Kate Oatis


text:
A Watchdog Record of San Diego & Related CA Topics Past and Present:
ABC 10 NEWS: San Diego City Council approves Ocean Beach Community Plan Update—City News Service, Jul 29, 2014 SAN DIEGO - The San Diego City Council Tuesday approved a long-awaited update to the Ocean Beach Community Plan, which addresses issues like zoning and neighborhood character for the offbeat beach town. Read
ABC 10 NEWS:Petition: Lack of development restrictions could wipe out the character of Ocean Beach— Michael Chen, Jun 13, 2014 Excerpt: OCEAN BEACH - A proposed tweak in the Ocean Beach community plan has led to what some are calling an all-out fight over OB's soul. At Dog Beach Dog Wash in Ocean Beach, there are signs of a building fight. For several days, owner and former OB planning board chair Mindy Pellissier has been busy collecting signatures."What's at stake is the character and heart of Ocean Beach," said Pellissier. Read
OB is Different! ... And that is a GOOD THING! Early O.B. resident Capt. Thomas came to OB lived in a shack on the beach, drank brackish spring water and lived to be 94. Since then many beach cottages with cute yards have be the hallmark of O.B. Some people still have a dream of owning a cottage with a white picket fence where they know their neighbors. OB has worked hard to retain that character in their community. But there is a second reason for keeping the home sizes down and that is the small lot sizes. That is why the community is adamant about keeping their .7 F.A.R. (Floor Area Ratio). The OB RAG explains why this is so important to keep. Read: How OB Stayed "OB" and Avoided Over Development Like Mission Beach
READ— CITY PROVES ONCE AGAIN IT IS IN THE POCKETS OF DEVELOPERS— Trying to Gut years of work on the plan ALL Ocean Beach Organzations Supported! —Planning Commission Approves OB Plan Update But With New Language that Guts its Teeth on Variances
Excerpt: By Frank Gormlie, OB RAG— On Thursday, May 29, for nearly two hours, the Ocean Beach Community Plan Update was before the San Diego Planning Commission sitting in the City Council chambers. After having a staff presentation, listening to public comments pro and con, and their own questions and issues, the Planning Commission unanimously approved the Update. However, they approved the Plan with two modifications whose ramifications are not clear.
Despite proclamations of support from OB community groups, and a "united front" of the OB Town Council with the veteran OB planners who sat on the sub-committee and who worked with the City staff for years, the manner in which a single property owner was seemingly coddled by the Commission was actually downright embarrassing to observers, as he was treated with deference as the "leader" of the "opposition" compared to how the planning leaders were treated. Full Article and Comments
Don't let failed San Onfre's Nuclear Plant Stick Us Ratepayers with the Bill for Their Mistakes! —4/14/14The Public Utilities Commission is ordering ratepayers to pay Southern California Edison $3,298,000,000 for the failed San Onofre nuclear power plan without even an investigation into whether the utility executives acted unreasonably in deploying the four defective steam generators that lasted only 2 of the 18 years they were supposed to last. Those expert made a conscious decision not to go through a required safety review after discovering serious design flaws. Instead they recklessly installed the defective steam generators and within two years they failed (January 2012). All SDG&E ratepayers will be burdened with $700,000,000 in new rates. The utility executives cash in some of their stock just after the "settlement" was announced and made a profit of $8,000,000 profit. Investors welcomed the good news for the utilities when their stock prices shut up after the settlement was announced. We need all ratepayers to demand their assembly and senate members tell the PUC not to approve the settlement.
Warning- Will California Revive Redevelopment Agencies?
Institute for Justice 3/24/14—11 Things You Need to Know ABOUT...Redevelopment and the California Jobs and Education Development Initiative (JEDI) Act return-of-the-empire cover
The San Diego Coastal Alliance pays tribute to three legends whose lives and decades activism inspired and touch so many of us — March 2014, Al Strohlein, Abbe Wolfsheimer-Stutz and Tanja Winter all had a class and elegance. They showed us the importance of doing the right thing! All three were intelligent people with endless talents, passions, and life experiences. They had integrity, were driven and fearless. They made our lives and town better in ways many will never know. We honor these heroes.
The City's Code Monitoring Team: Foxes guard the henhouse: San Diego Reader, CITY LIGHTS—By Dorian Hargrove, Dec. 18, 2013
But this isn't a work of fiction; it occurs once a month at City Hall when a group of developers, lobbyists, and architects meet to reshape San Diego's land-development code. Their suggestions appear on the front page of staff reports to council committees and planning-commission dockets.
The Code Monitoring Team, established in 1998, is an 18-person team responsible for finding holes in San Diego's code and offering ideas on how to fill them.
But over the years, the team has become policy-driven, concerned more with crafting ordinances than drafting fixes to the current code.
Some residents are beginning to voice concerns about what they feel is an autonomous and largely unregulated group.
Unlike any other city committees, subcommittees, or even community-planning groups, the Code Monitoring Team is not required to follow even the most basic provisions from the Brown Act or other public meeting laws, such as posting agendas or documenting votes at meetings. Members are not required to file economic interest disclosures, as is the case with volunteer planners and city officials. Full Article and Comments
San Diego Free Press: Virtual Mayoral Forum— Gives you some idea of where they stand and their statagies in solving problems.
S.D. Free Press put together a series of 8 questions they felt were unique, not too open ended and not trite. They published one response from the candidates per day (Mon.-Fri.) so readers can see the verbatim responses side by side. Kevin Faulconer's campaign is refused to participate. They assume after trying to get them involved– their non-response sends a message about their openness to the citizens in this city. You can decide what that message is.
Topics they were asked about: Managed competition, Looking back on the Plaza de Panama controversy, The Building Permit Process is a Hot Mess and Plans for the Planning Department, Walkable/Bikeable Neighborhoods and Public Transit, here, Fixing the Infrastructure, What About the Homeless? Click: Virtual Mayoral Forum
Numbers Runner: http://numbersrunner.blogspot.com
With another round of Mayoral Elections undewrway we thought it might be a good time to remind people about one of San Diego's most important laws that has lasted 40 Years!
That Time Kevin Faulconer's Own Community Plan Threatened a Manufacturer Voice of San Diego 10/11/13- Excerpt: The mailer this week claims Faulconer "helped bring leaders together from the community and nearly every level of government to keep Solar Turbines in San Diego."
That may be. But five years earlier, Faulconer and a crucial majority of his colleagues did not heed Solar Turbines' pleas not let this happen in the first place. full article
(SD Coastal Comment: Kevin did a similar thing with O.B.s Librarary soon after its 80th Anniversary Celebration, he and Sanders tried to close it. After major community protest they turned around with lots of press fanfare as saviors! They should never have put it on the closure list in the first place!
Also, In UT 9/12/13 "Mayor's Race 2013: On Neighborhoods" the second paragraph on the Methane Trucking which Faulconer originally voted for. It only took 2 years and 700 signatures to change his mind !!!!!!)
READ: Fly on the Wall: Tense Confab to Rally Behind Faulconer
A group of about 30 of the city's most influential conservatives and right-of-center business representatives assembled at developer Tom Sudberry's La Jolla estate. Link t:o: Article (We ask who were the others of the 30 at this gig? ...Gorton, Goldsmith, any elected or past politicians?)
Warning Stop this NOW!— The CA Assembly Appropriations Committee is scheduled to hear a bill TOMORROW, Wed., August 21, 2013, that would bring back redevelopment to the state of California.
Senate Bill 1 and Bill 273: Redevelopment with New Name and Gutting of CEQA— CA Assembly Committee meetings, on TV, Weds Aug, 13th., showed a new form of Redevelopment is being pushed! Senate Bill 1 would allow eminent domain for private use— without even having to prove"blight". It includes tax increment once again going to development projects to be decided by local Government. This with the gutting of major CEQA protections in Senate Bill 273 is sad news that could bring us back into the horrors of Redevelopment, more debt and massive development running amuck!
Excerpt: Steinberg told committee members that he's particularly interested in making it much easier for developers of high-density, transit-friendly "infill" projects to win environmental clearance. He is the author of legislation that requires local governments to favor projects of that ilk to reduce sprawl and pollution.
Steinberg said he wants new provisions on infill projects that are "much less prescriptive, much less specific" to "jumpstart economic development." He also tied CEQA reform to another bill he's carrying this year, Senate Bill 1, which would re-create a form of redevelopment aimed at "sustainable development." The Local Government Committee approved that measure. Full Article
July 4th, 2013 Launches Independent Radio
Political Commentary: Belly-whopping from the deep end: You look for professional standards from your dentist, don't you? the butcher at Vons? Does it make sense to accept anything less from your elected politicians? So how come we countenance moronic decisions that purport to be in the best interests of San Diego's 1.3 million residents but, in reality, stick a thumb in the public eye? Click: http://numbersrunner.blogspot.com
U-T Political Ads Don't Ad Up
Most San Diegans and Historians are happy about this case: Adios, Plaza de Panama project? Judge tentatively rules that City Council approval broke municipal law—By John R. Lamb
Love Our Coast... LOVE the 30 Foot Coastal Height Limit Law!Celebrating the 30 Foot Height Limit As It Turns 40
REAL CONCERN: Despite disturbing finding, Edison seeks to restart trouble-prone nuclear facility: Hearing Nov. 30 in Laguna Hills as nine cities voice concerns over safety issues- By Miriam Raftery November 30, 2012 (San Diego)—Southern California Edison has notified the Nuclear Regulatory Commission of possible sabotage at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating facility, after finding coolant poured in the oil reservoir of an emergency backup generator at Unit 3, Energy News reports.
The FBI is taking over the investigation and criminal charges are possible, according to a plant employee who spoke under condition of anonymity, fearing reprisals, Huffington Post reports tonight. Previous news stories have speculated that a disgruntled employee could be the culprit due to recent layoff announcements, though the NRC and FBI have not ruled out terrorism.
Failure of emergency generators at Fukushima were key factors in that plant's meltdown last year. A meltdown at San Onofre would force evacuation of San Diego, portions of East County and also parts of Orange and Riverside counties and could potentially leave the region contaminated for generations.
If the coolant had not been found at San Onofre and the generators activated, Edison indicated that a control that prevents the generator from running too fast would have failed, John Reynosa, a Nuclear Regulatory Commission Inspector at San Onofre, said, Energy News reported on November 9 when the discovery was initially made. READ THE FULL STORY
EVANS INSIDER DEAL...Sander's going away present?— Oddities Surrounding the Bahia Resort's Lease Extension, Voice of San Diego, By ANDREW KEATTSFROM THE REPORTER: What Happened? The City Council voted to give an uncommon, perhaps unprecedented, 21-year lease extension to the owner of the Bahia Resort Hotel on Mission Bay. How Does it Work? The owner isn't required to make any improvements to the property, but if he gets a major redevelopment project approved, he's rewarded with a new, 50-year lease to help finance it. The city says this is all to encourage a major redevelopment. Why Is it Odd? Most lease extensions require redevelopment of city property. The lease was also rushed through the City Council a week before Mayor Bob Filner's inauguration. Full Article
Looks like our NEW MAYOR FILNER is going to be a "SMART Mayor" along with being a "STRONG Mayor": Filner's first and only hire so far — former City Councilwoman Donna Frye — reflected his top priority. She'll be his director of open government and tasked with ensuring the public has prompt access to information and city officials.
NUMBER RUNNER: Doug Manchester's high-flying plan to convert the entire San Diego region to a super-conservative privately-held corporation is highlighted by his latest acquisition of the North County Times….Now he's ready for the kill. Aside from ownership of prime properties, newspapers of record and the airwaves, Manchester's most strategic acquisition occurred this past season with his official and financial sponsorship (purchase?) of Carl DeMaio for mayor…. READ MORE
UT Failings in NY Times! — THE MEDIA EQUATION
CA LEAGUE OF CITIES Uses Very Questionable Tactics! - League of California Cities Touts Openness but Shuns Disclosure Requirements
NAVY BROADWAY LITIGATION: Court Accepts Friends of the Court Brief in Navy Broadway Litigation
The Destuctive Balboa Park Plan 6-1 vote July 9 by City Council
SD Planning Commission blantantly ignored facts and historical preservation to kowtow to Jacobs, then Council followed! Both meets were embaracements and a slap in the face to a majority of San Dieagans! We need your help in defeating the destructive, ill-conceived and costly redevelopment plan for Balboa Park by supporting SOHO's lawsuits. Wehave a groundswell of opposition to the Plaza de Panama Committee's plan that would irreparably harm the Cabrillo Bridge, Alcazar Garden, Palm Canyon and other parts of the park. The House of Pacific Relations and the Spreckels Organ Society voted for an alternative plan to the proposed project, joining over 30 other community organizations, planning boards, and institutions. And both the Park and Recreation Board and the Historical Resources Board sent a recommendation to Council to deny the project.
Even South Park Nails San Diego and our "bought 'n paid for" Mayor Sanders in Jackin' It In San Diego: NumbersRunner, a political commentary on decision-making and ethics in San Diego government- It's hard to deny: jackin-it-in-san-diego nails us on our sunburned heads with its spot-on depiction of our city as a picturesque, feel-good, simple-minded, trivial-pursuit vacation mecca -- exactly the branding painstakingly promoted by our high-powered hotel (aka "hospitality") industry and ConVis (Convention and Visitors Bureau). Think San Diego and up pops the zoo…palm trees…del Coronado (OK, not officially SD)…Gaslamp Quarter…yachts and sail boats on an azure bay…Sea World…the clearest blue skies this side of heaven. read more
Redevelopment Pigs Want Back at the Trough
"It's not clear to me how much staff the Department of Finance has to verify these lists," says former councilmember Donna Frye, warning that cities padding those lists might suffer some unforeseen consequences.
The pro-development forces are saying that redevelopment can come back in some modified form for such do-good purposes as affordable housing. But that's just a stalking horse. Frye, for instance, would like to see money go to public projects such as affordable housing, but she is realistic. "I would like to believe that private projects would be less likely to be approved," she says, "but I can't say that, given the politics and cronyism" in state and local government.
"There will be public-private resources that flow to [private sector] developments," says Bruvold. Those subsidized private deals, such as for a pro sports stadium and hotels "have a big megaphone with local media," he notes. He even believes that a new Chargers stadium will be built.
Mayor Jerry Sanders wants Centre City Development Corporation, which has spearheaded the downtown money hogging, to be in charge of planning throughout the city. full article
Congratulations a GOOD GUY WINS!!! Mel Shapiro, a longtime activist, civil watchdog and "major thorn in the side of government officials" was honored with this year's Sunshine Award from the San Diego chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists. The ceremony took place Friday in the San Diego City Clerk's Office."It is fitting that Mr. Shapiro returns to the scene of his 'crimes' to be honored for his efforts at transparency in government," the organization said in a statement. "We are sure some government officials wish he would go away."Shapiro, 84, was featured in a front-page report in The Wall Street Journal. Recently, he sued the City Attorney's Office to force disclosure of details about calls to the city's whistle-blower hotline.The organization's two previous winners were former San Diego City Councilwoman Donna Frye and state Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco. U-T staff writer Christopher Cadelago serves on the board. NOTE: Mel has been a pitbull going after city abuse and illegal activities including: CCDC and Redevelopment, political non-profits, transparency, illegal contributions/conflicts of interests, land scams and other misdeeds by San Diego Government and baddies. Thank You Mel!
Supervisors Back Off, CalAware Drops Legal Challenge
A government watchdog group has dropped a lawsuit saying San Diego County officials deceived the public and violated an open meeting law in Dec., the group's attorney said on Tues..
In a related move, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors agreed Tues. to withdraw its Dec. 7 vote at the center of the lawsuit. The vote streamlined several county development rules. "If we find something like this again … we will file an action and stay with it to final judgement," said Terry Francke, attorney for Californians Aware, the Sacramento-area group that filed and then withdrew the suit.
The board's Dec. 7 agenda indicated supervisors would send streamlining proposals —- made by a board-appointed "red tape reduction" panel —- back to county planners for further evaluation.
Instead, supervisors approved many of the proposals moments after consulting a list of staff recommendations not made public.... The board violated the state's Brown Act, which governs public meetings.
He said supervisors heeded secret staff advice on the proposals, while the public was given contradictory information about what county staff members advised.
The county, without admitting any wrongdoing, said earlier this month that the board would vacate the vote but not challenge the lawsuit, to save taxpayers the cost of defending the suit. Supervisors will again consider the vote and take public testimony on Feb. 29.
Tom Montgomery, the county's top attorney, said ...supervisors are not required to act on staff recommendations listed on the public agendas —- to avoid the confusion some members of the public said they had with the Dec. 7 vote.
Francke said Montgomery's statement was "quite beside the point." He said the county's violation was providing secret advice to the board, not the board straying from advice printed on the agenda.
'Orange County Supervisor Shawn Nelson talks redevelopment':
A sampling of S.D. comments sent to us on the court RDA ruling:"I can't stand the low income housing B.S., when a mass amount of house are in forclosure and cheap properties availble in SD and CA way below what can be built for".; Watch out for the games played with the RDA properties and money...insiders still feel they are entitled to scew the public. Yes! Finally!!!!!!!!!!: COOL!: It's about time!: It is terrific: though I am sure there will be challenges; Yay!; Once in a while we win one...HIP HIP HOORAY! Now we have to see Sanders wiggle around trying to get out of emptying those posh rental quarters of the agency personnel. Then there is the cessation of his theft of redevelopment money for his pet downtown projects which will now go back towards schools. Congratulations Redevelopment Fighters! I feel sooo sad for the greedy bastards.
Thank Governor Brown for helping END Redevelopment and its TAX DRAIN and Eminent Domain Abuses!
California's Redevelopment Nightmare Coming To An End.
Redevelopment. US Tracking news of redevelopment abuse in California and across the nations! December 29, 2011 by MORR- California Supreme Court set to rule on redevelopment money tomorrow
San Diego is threatening schools!!! For years Redevelopment has robbed them tax funding. Info: "Redevelopment derives 40% of its funding from property tax revenue that should have gone to local schools. The SDUSD should file an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in defense of the state's recent maneuvers to defund redevelopment. The LA Unified School District did. This was information presented at the MORR conference." The same developers that pushed Redevelopment are looking to get School properties at firesale prices! Voice your concernes with the SD School District, City Council and Mayor. Don't let our children and teachers be cheated by the greedy selfserving who have suck this town dry from the use of Redevelopment!
Read: De-development nightmare haunts California business
The Voice of San Diego article New Governor to Eliminate Redevelopment? Here's the link to Governor Brown's office: http://gov.ca.gov/m_contact.php Please contact him and tell him what a terrific ideas this is!
OB ALERT! —City Prepared a Draft EIR O.B. Community Plan Update, Mad residents turned up at Scoping Meeting AUG. 9, 2011at OB Rec. Center, Reports: OB Residents Unhappy With Increased Density, Reader, By Dave Rice
"Public Hearing" on Ocean Beach Proposed Density Increase Falls Flat, OB RAG
SAVE FAT CITY/TOP's NIGHTCLUB—Add your voice to save this San Diego landmark -A beloved San Diego Landmark, Fat City, is in the cross hair of demolition. Help save this Streamline Art Deco building. Express your concern and opposition to demolition of this iconic building. See YouTube Video
IMPORTANT OB RAG REPORT: How the City Is Gentrifying Ocean Beach – the Saga of the Cox Residence on West Pt. Loma.
Jerry Brown's Good Deeds Get Punished
The roots of this story go back to 1945, when the California legislature allowed cities and counties to form these redevelopment agencies. Their purpose, at least in theory, was to fight urban blight. Once public officials deem an area blighted, redevelopment agencies can use eminent domain to clear old properties and sell bonds to pay for improvements.
To pay off the bonds, the agencies gobble up any subsequent increase in tax revenue—what the state calls the "tax increment." In addition, a portion of the sales taxes generated by the new retail and commercial centers go into city, not state, coffers. That's the main reason redevelopment agencies are popular among local politicians, Republican and Democratic alike. (Plus, they allow pols to reward favored corporations and developers.)
But in the last 60-some years, redevelopment agencies have become fiefdoms that run up enormous debt and abuse eminent domain by transferring private property to large developers promising to build tax-generating bonanzas. Today, there are 749 such projects. In the late 1950s, there were only nine. According to the state controller, redevelopment agencies consume about 12% of all state-wide property taxes—money that would otherwise go to critical public services. Full Articlel$4 Billion of Redevelopment Projects Approved at a San Diego Special Council on Feb. 28, 2011
March 1, 2011- The San Diego City Council fast-track approval of 4 billion in future redevelopment projects was a move to protect the projects in case redevelopment agencies are closed under Gov. Jerry Brown's budget plan.
A spokeswoman for the governor, criticized cities' efforts to shield redevelopment funds while they are making cuts to local schools and services.
Each project will eventually have to be approved individually before construction begins, but the council on a 5-2 vote approved a cooperation agreement with the agency that provides a roadmap of future redevelopment in the city.
Critics noted little details were privided about the projects and in the case of the Sports Arena the new name change wasn't used.
Councilmembers David Alvarez and Sherri Lightner, who represents La Jolla, cast the dissenting votes. Councilwoman Marti Emerald was not present.
The planned projects include lan expensive cleaning up of pollution on a downtown site under consideration for the new Chargers' stadium. Why are they spending this money when there is NO project, NO money to build a stadium? Seems Sander's and his buddies in council are still pushing for a subsidised stadium for a billionaire owner? Smells of future "Bait n' Switch" deals with the publics money!
The City, like the "Back Room Raising of the cap", is once again is trying to force these deals through. There is debate as to whether projects approved now for completion later would still be able to move forward if redevelopment agencies, funded by local property tax dollars, are eliminated through Brown's budget proposal.
Alvarez said city officials have lost sight of the original purpose of redevelopment: to remove blight. "The truth is, redevelopment is going to be eliminated and we have to accept it," Alvarez said.
A spokesman for Brown said cities don't need redevelopment to continue these projects.
"It's a shame that local elected officials are rushing to shift billions of taxpayer dollars into redevelopment projects while simultaneously proposing major cuts to education, public safety and other core services," Evan Westrup said.
San Diego Stuck State With Schools' Big Bill- Reported by Voice of San Diego, In the chaotic moments before San Diego redevelopment deal passed the state assembly, documents show that San Diego leaders opted to force the state to pay a multi-million-dollar tab for school funding, to the benefit of downtown. READ FULL STORY: http://vosd.org/hN2jym Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher sent a draft version of the bill to San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders' then chief of staff. It included language that put the city's downtown redevelopment agency on the hook for school funding. The city balked. The final bill made school funding the state's responsibility -- a decision that could mean hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Still, a chief opponent of the legislation, Assemblyman Chris Norby, though he had enough votes to defeat the legislation. As budget talks continued through the night, he took a nap. He awoke to find it had passed at 3 a.m. The state Senate approved the bill soon afterward without debate. If you have any questions about it, you can contact government reporter Liam Dillon directly at firstname.lastname@example.com
Daniel Borenstein: Brown is right to disband redevelopment agenciesrn
READ! Don Bauder on his Reader blog, "Scam Diego," wrote about the recent ruling by Judge Joan Lewis. Essentially, in ruling that it is permissible to transfer over $31 million of Grantville's property tax to pay for downtown improvements, she ruled that the government may do something illegal, as long as it takes multiple, small, technically-legal steps to do so. Please go to: Financial-Crime-Grantville-Redevelopment
The TRUE story behind raising the CCDC cap.
Outrageous: Sanders and Dumanus "Smell" when it comes to a 2-Year FBI Bribery, fraud and conflict of interest Investigation! Now 10 News is investigating them!
Mayor Questioned In Video Over Whistleblower's Firing.... Video Of SD Mayor Jerry Sanders Released As Part Of Wrongful Termination Suit November 10, 2010, SAN DIEGO -- 10News has obtained a video showing San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders as many have not seen him before: under oath and on the defensive. See full story and clip: http://www.10news.com/news/25754469/detail.html
Low-income residents suing over cap increase
Redevlopment is out of control! This proves it has to GO!
The City of San Diego's hugest PUBLIC land and Accests GIVEAWAY IS About TO MAKE ANOTHER FINAL BAIT 'N SWITCH of the NTC DDA and what was promoised to the citezens!...Planning Board About To Give LIBERTY STATION Growth Plan A Larger Look
San Diego Coastal Alliance ask ... How Bad Does A Project Have to Smell? ISN'T IT TIME FOR THE MAYOR, The PORT COMMISSIONERS and DISTRICT 2 COUNCILMAN TO RESIGN(and Jail Time)?Port District Chief Wurster Resigns Suddenly
No reasons given for quick departure from $200,000-a-year post after just 21 months
By Pat Flynn, U-T, Sept. 25, 2010, updated Sept. 24, 2010
Excerpt: Charles Wurster resigned Friday as the president and CEO of the San Diego Unified Port District.
Charles Wurster, who was named president and CEO of the San Diego Unified Port District just 21 months ago, resigned abruptly Friday.
Wurster, a 62-year-old retired Coast Guard vice admiral, declined through a spokesman to be interviewed.
"He didn't give any reasons," said port spokesman Ron Powell. "He said it was time to move on." (See following article and http://www.blogofsandiego.com/)
In a statement posted on the port's website, Wurster said: "I am proud to have been associated with such a talented and dedicated group of public servants. You have shown your dedication to the missions of the Port District, and persevered through challenging economic times."
Robert "Dukie" Valderrama, chairman of the seven-member Board of Port Commissioners, declined to discuss the resignation details.
"He submitted his resignation," Valderrama said Friday afternoon. "He did a great job for us. We thank him very much for all the good work. We wish him the best in his future endeavors."
Scott Peters, vice chairman of the board, said: "It's appropriate for all of us to move on."
Powell said Wurster will stay on for at least a week. No decisions on an interim successor or a search for a permanent replacement have been made, he said. Wurster earned about $200,000 in salary, plus a car allowance and other benefits. FULL ARTICLE: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/sep/25/port-chief-resigns-suddenly/
Two Piers and a Park
"We put the oval park in [the Port Master Plan]," Cushman said. "Whether we like it or not, it's history. But we did do it. I don't care what anybody says—we printed it, we published it, we can show it to you."
It was seen as pretty big news, and it buoyed a group of activists who've sued the Port over a large cruise-ship terminal nearing completion on Broadway Pier, a building that has been plopped smack in the way of the proposed park and potential year-round enjoyment of the pier itself. Port officials say a park isn't possible because large supply trucks need that land to get to the terminal. But the activists have dug in their heels and, through a successful appeal this past April to the state Coastal Commission, have stalled a larger campaign to spruce up the waterfront. FULL ATRICLE
Navy Broadway Sander's Dirty Deal? If So, With Whom? Aug. 31, 2010, Pat Flannery, BLOG OF SAN DIEGO
Downtown redevelopment has not benefited the rest of the city!
LETTERS TO THE Union-Tribune EDITOR Mon., June 14, 2010 Put redevelopment cap to a public vote Your June 6 Opinion piece, "Continued development downtown crucial," was quite a contrast to your news article June 2 that the county grand jury recommends "convening a panel of bankruptcy experts." Obviously, downtown redevelopment has not benefited the rest of the city. I would gladly trade a less developed downtown to get back our browned-out fire engines, our closed libraries, our laid-off lifeguards and our closed bathrooms in Mission Bay Park. We should be told why a new downtown football stadium is more important than public safety. The question of raising the cap on the dollar limit of redevelopment should be put to a vote of the public.—MELVIN SHAPIRO, San Diego
What a Tangled Web We Weave
$TRONG MAYOR WAS BOUGHT AND PAID FOR BY THE WHEALER DEALERS... Watch as the citizens lose their power and tax dollars!
Jerry Sanders' idea of lifting the cap is nuts
by Pat Flannery, Blog of San Diego
One of the biggest mistakes Mayor Sanders made in his two four-year terms was to fall for whatever slick sales talk Steve Cushman used to cajole him into backing a used-car salesman (himself) for a third term as Port Commissioner, despite its term limits.
Sanders' strange fascination with Cushman raised eyebrows at the time; it may now cost him his legacy.
Their North Embarcadero Visionary Plan (NEVP) lies in ruins. All the spinning in the world by the Mayor's communications team, cannot hide this embarrassing fact. The Mayor must now distance himself from the NEVP and Cushman.
I have a suggestion: adopt what was the the real "visionary" plan all along - move the cruise ships to the 10th Avenue Marine Terminal and give the people back their signature waterfront park.
That is not only a win-win political strategy, it is also a win-win economic strategy. The city would not only get a world-class hospitality/gathering-place park on its beautiful Embarcadero, but also a world-class cruise ship destination at 10th Avenue, next to the Hilton, within walking distance of the Convention Center, with military-class security against any possible terrorist attack. Now that would put us back in contention for America's Finest City!
Are we up to it? Of course we are.
The Cushman plan was crass and demeaning. We can do better than a second-hand car lot on our front door, run by a second-class car salesman. Cruise ships are the used cars of the tourist industry. Our Embarcadero deserves better than that. Read Full Articl
READ: Blog of San Diego:
SAVE OUR BAYFRONT PARKS --Stop the Carnival Terminal
Mayor Sanders Opposes Historic Preservation
Jim Waring still hasn't figured out what the word "PUBLIC" means!
Two very import issues that greatly degrade the quality of life for many residents were heard at the: California Coastal Commission in
SADLY Coastal Commission voted in favor of App. No. 6-09-15
Save Our Heritage Organization Magazine, 2009 - Volume 40, Issue 1/2
This complex adjacent to Lindbergh Field is eligible for the National Register yet the Port of San Diego wants to demolish it with no project planned for the site!
Ryan Aeronautics Complex
T. Claude Ryan founded the first commercial airline to operate out of San Diego and developed our aerospace industries from the Ryan Aeronautical Company. He convinced city leaders to support the establishment of Lindbergh Field. Ryan built the first buildings at Lindbergh Field, including the terminal and his first manufacturing plant in 1932, which still stands at the Ryan complex. This complex is among the most historic in San Diego and could be named a National Historic District.
From the first passenger flight from San Diego and the construction of the Spirit of St. Louis to World War II aircraft production to the Lunar Lander and, finally, the Tomahawk cruise missile, Ryan was there.We could honor Ryan's legacy by using some of these buildings to house large aircraft that the San Diego Air and Space Museum has no place to exhibit. These buildings are so large they could also be used for parking, eliminating the need for the much-opposed new parking structure at Lindbergh Field
San Diego Coastal Alliance has been flooded with stories of threats of Eminent Domain, NTC and Redevelopment abuses, corruption, harassment of seniors and minorities involving redevelopment in Sand Diego. Huell may want to think twice and do some research before doing another infomercial style pro- redevelopment piece on San Diego! Huell doesn't learn, he followed up with another fluff piece on notorious CCDC downtown San Diego Redevelopment.
Grand Jury: Revelopment agencies 'opaque' at best
Frye: Consolidate CCDC, SEDC
Judge Thomas McKnew's ruling (below) is right! Community height limit laws must be followed. Developer schemes to run around community laws need to be stopped. In San Diego many coastal resident have watched this issue carefully as the developers try to end-run around the publicly voted in 30 ft. height limit law that has been the saving grace of our coastline for over 35 years.
He's Back!
STOP the Governator from Selling Off or State Parks and Land!
Sierra Club Wants to Save Our Parks http://action.sierraclub.org/site/R?i=kNRwPRSzKY9iaCIMI7gWDQ.
"It's great that you heard us about our library, Mayor Sanders, just don't pit us against the unions."
The last paragraph sounds quite familiar to all that have had to deal with this city's Developer Services Department over the years.
ALERT: Mayor Diverts Library $$$ to Donor
Protect the Mills Act
Budget Cutting Decision will again be at City Council
Searching for the 'Why' in Mayor's Cuts
Mayor announces deep budget cuts
The San Diego taxpayers are paying twice for schools. 08/09/08 by Pat Flannery, Blog of San Diego
The Redevelopment Agency is stealing from the schools. 08/08/08
Feds Investigate Millions in City Redevelopment Loans
Save the Mills Act program and historical designation in the City of San Diego. The Mills Act should be available to everyone in any location in the City
City continues to support eminent domain by not allowing voters to votes by rejecting San Diegans' propsal to limit eminent domain .
Densty Bonus Ordinance
Then consider the latest official SANDAG forecast, which projects that the City of SD will need an average of 4390 new homes per year between 2004 and 2030. So the City of SD has a 28 year supply of housing sites, compared to the state requirement for a 5 year supply. It becomes evident that the City of SD has ZERO CHANCE of falling out of compliance with state law regarding housing capacity-- not in the next 5, 10, 15 or 20 years. Any claim by City staff to the contrary in the draft General Plan is patently false, and should be removed from the plan.
OB ENTRANCE —Developers tried to Gentrified…the Two single story craftsman style homes, built in 1912 and 1914 at 4824 & 4836 W. Point Loma Blvd. (Seen from Sunset Cliffs)
City to Pay $450K
Appeal Denied
The arrogance of "San Diego Insiders," (as seen in the following UT article) feeling they are entitled to everything, including being the only ones with access to government officials is appalling.
Don't be surprised... PRESENTATION: STATE DENSITY BONUSSadly the City's implementation of the Density Bonus Ordinance was approved by San Diego City Council
Remaining in the Mayor's proposal is the ability to:
- super-size a development without public/communities review.
- City granting illegal concessions over-the-counter. These concessions under state law must be reviewed under CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act). This ordinance seeks to break CEQA law.
- reduce off-street parking requirements is an automatic right. Less parking will have major negative effects at the beach and other stressed neighborhoods.
- Infringing on your privacy by building:
The developer could choose 1 to 3 of these benefits depending on how much affordable housing is included.
For Insightful Watchdog Reports Click On: http://goodgovsandiego.blogspot.com for up-to-date reports on the future of San Diego's Mayor/Council form of government RoseCRAM?
Golden Hill residents sue city; allege illegal use of funds, ballot stuffing in creation of maintenance district
"Monster Building"
Marcela Escobar-Eck... Sanders Big Mistake
Sunroad E-mails Speak Volumes about a Missing Signature
'Fired in Iceland'
Approving San Diego's new general plan just first of many battles ahead
Real estate brokerage vote delayed
Council to look at business improvement fees, real estate brokers
Latest on Navy Broadway/CCDC Developer Giveaway Deal:
A California city may not legally plan higher density housing without minimizing impacts
Smells of Insiders Deals:
Mayor lied to the people of San Diego, Again?:
City's building inspector fired for not repealing Sunroad's Stop Work order, 06/15/07
City ends agreement with four developers
Coastal Threats:
Salk Institute finds itself on endangered-site list
Private brokers warn selling city land could be tough,
Density Bonus Alert
by Pat Flannery, 05/16/07, Blog of San Diego
Here we go again. DSD is coming back at us with another Density Bonus attack. This time they have done their homework. They have created a new slick Supplement to their original EIR. Bob Manis has been busy reworking the original, which correctly stated that the coastal 30 foot height limit is not protected by the Coastal Commission. Now all of sudden it is. Being the political hack that he is, Manis rewrote the original EIR as instructed by the developers. And we pay his salary! Or do we? Maybe that's the problem: we don't, they do. This is the same guy who wrote Doug Manchester's $50,000 EIR "finding" that the environment hasn't changed downtown in 15 years. Here is Manis' freshly minted lies, dated today. Soon they will be put before the Council.
A quick look at the Supplement makes it clear that DSD is recycling the same basic lie: "deviations from the 30 foot coastal height limit cannot be considered as incentives".
A deviation from the coastal height limit is available as a density bonus concession, the very same as a height limit concession outside the coastal zone. Being part of the LCP is not grounds for refusing a developer. The Coastal Commission does not enforce local height limits, voter approved or otherwise. And Manis knows it.
 Mike Aguirre has to come to terms with the fact that one of his deputy city attorneys, Shannon Thomas, wrote a lying MOL for DSD back in September 2006, while DSD and the developers were paying her salary. Her time was charged out to DSD. That is a remnant of the old Casey Gwinn "legal advice for sale" days.
But has it stopped? I've been told that it has.
Then who wrote this new Ordinance?
Does DSD have its own attorneys over there now? Who checked the EIR for legal issues? Manis? DSD or any City Department, should not be able to purchase the legal advice it likes from the same City Attorney we elect to ensure City staff obey the law. Yet that is exactly what has been happening for many years.
The problem still is: who does the City Attorney represent, the people or City staff? If he represents DSD staff, he effectively represents the developers. That must be clarifed. Shannon Thomas's lying September 8, 2006 MOL is a direct result of this dubious situation. Her salary was paid by DSD, which is an enterprise fund, not part of the General Fund. DSD relies entirely on developer fees for funding.
They are therefore its clients. The bigger the project the more it earns. They love the big developers. Developers' service staff actually meet with DSD staff every month to "advise" it on how to improve its services. It is called the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC).
So, not only do they get the service they require, they get the legal advice they require. Our City Council is little more than a rubber stamp for the legislation written by the developers through the DSD, using legal advice purchased from the City Attorney's office. The pending Density Bonus legislation is just an example.
The developers get to write the EIRs and the Municipal Code. The people have become mere spectators. I had hoped that by now the Shannon Thomas's September 8, 2006 MOL would have been withdrawn by Aguirre's office.
If it had, Bob Manis could never have written this Supplement to the Density Bonus EIR.
Nor could whoever wrote this new and improved developer-serving Density Bonus Ordinance have written it.
Jim Waring will once again quote the City Attorney as his authority that the 30 foot height limit is protected.
This new Ordinance is much the same as the one sent back to the Mayor's Office a few months ago. We have to fight the whole sordid fight all over again.
Why Council Item 333 needs to be opposed:
THEY CHANGED IT! The City Council cannot certify this changed version of the EIR as having been "reviewed and considered" by the public. EIR No. 96-0333, together with its Supplement, was "reviewed and considered" before being presented to the City Council on January 30, 2007. But it has been altered since, without any further "review or consideration" by the public. This is grounds for an automatic continuance tomorrow. You simply cannot do that. Not even Jim Waring.Major problems with From Option 1
Review this action taken by Councilwoman Donna Frye
READ: Councilmember Frye Memorandum 2/20/07 (7 pg PDF)
to ensure a full environmental assessment is done prior to any council vote.
When high-rise condos start going up on the beach, people will wake up 2/23/07, This site has the responses of Developmemnt Servies Department (DSD)'s and City's Planning Dept. response to Donna Frye's 20 questions regarding density bonuses. Nobody has signed it. Most of the questions are legal questions, yet no attorney would put their name to it. Was the City Attorney consulted? If not why not?
READ: Blog of San Diego, by Pat Flannery for the full information,
in-depth analysis, important updates and vital documents.
After the Union-Tribune wrote several development / pro-density spin pieces this last week, blaming all the woes of San Diego on high housing costs, a couple letter to the Union-Tribune editor told of many of real problems:
San Diego UT: Your editorial indicated that the current exodus from San Diego is due to economic factors alone. But there are considerations in addition to the economics involved, and they have to do with quality of life.
Miami Beach on the way for San Diego?
Debate over affordable housing bonus continues
A high price for affordable housing
By Lori Saldaña, Union-Tribute, February 27, 2007
Late last month, something almost slipped past the San Diego City Council that would have effectively changed the character of San Diego's neighborhoods for the foreseeable future. Docketed by the council president for the consent calendar – that is, for a vote with no deliberation – was a proposal by the Development Services Department that would strip the city of much of its power to enforce community planning standards.Included in this proposal is what amounts to a bill of rights for developers who would extract extraordinary concessions in exchange for the minimal numbers of "moderately" priced units for sale. These concessions would be provided ministerially, a term of art indicating that concessions would be granted by the city without input from elected officials or the community.
Possible concessions to developers for providing a nominal number of affordable housing units could include exemptions on the height limits, protection of natural and historical resources, parking, architectural detail and developers' impact fees. What that means is, if a developer argues that the Mission-style architecture requirement or a height-limit ordinance restricts profits, the developer can get a waiver on these requirements if only one unit out of 20 is set aside at below market rate. That is in addition to the four additional units the developer can sell or lease at market rate. Such a concession would be in addition to the extra units already approved for the development as a result of a density bonus.What is especially disturbing is that this kind of giveaway to developers has become the standard statewide as a result of recent changes to California's Density Bonus Law.
The law was enacted with the intent of addressing the state's housing affordability problem by providing incentives to developers to include low-and moderate-income housing in their projects. While not always popular with localities, this law was intended to increase the stock of the type of housing we need to support the state's work force.As originally written, these incentives included certain concessions to developers on design, setbacks, sidewalks and other design elements in exchange for the inclusion of 20 percent affordable units in their projects. The developer would agree to construct 20 units out of 100 and in exchange could get concessions on some design standards.
But over the last three years the Density Bonus Law has been tampered in a way that will be disastrous for California's efforts to increase affordable housing and local government's interest in maintaining quality of life in their communities.
These changes are the product of a strange – and some would say unholy – coalition of lobbyists who sold the Legislature on a deal that turned the legislative intent of the original Density Bonus Law on its head.
On the pretext of attracting more developers to participate in the program, they persuaded the Legislature to pass changes that remove the incentive and made these waivers and concessions entitlements for developers by lowering the percentage of affordable units required from 20 percent to 5 percent of units.
That is as few as one affordable unit in 20 could entitle developers to major concessions that would significantly affect the design and character of communities.
It bears repeating that new development has serious impacts on communities. The construction of new development can put stress on existing infrastructure and require additional emergency services, affect the character and population of neighborhoods, increase traffic volume and increase the need for parking. New development frequently displaces affordable housing stock and decreases available land for development and open space.
Likewise, there are significant social and environmental costs associated with a lack of affordable housing. Employers cannot attract and retain qualified workers to San Diego when housing costs greatly outdistance average salaries. Families struggle to balance the costs of housing near their workplace instead of making long and expensive daily commutes from more affordable neighborhoods. Unfortunately, poor air quality coupled with congestion on our freeways tells us many more people are making these commutes.
Clearly, choices about infill and affordable housing are significant parts of long-term planning. However, density is only one public policy tool for addressing the problem. In the end, providing a few moderately priced housing units should not be used as cover for a developer to trump a community's right to maintain neighborhood design and character.
The Legislature will be revisiting these debilitating changes to the Density Bonus Law during the coming year. Meanwhile, the City Council should carefully scrutinize Development Services' recommendations regarding density with an eye to maintaining local involvement and design standards.
Saldaña, a Democrat from San Diego, is chair of the Assembly Committee on Housing and Community Development.
The Mayor and council tryed to changed city law to allow uncontrolled growth in all neighborhoods
This can lead to loss of residential property values and views, traffic and parking gridlock. What is the Density Bonus Ordinance?
The Density Bonus is a State Law- California Government Code Sections 65915 - 65918 http://ceres.ca.gov/planning/pzd/1997/plan_12.html
which aims to provide incentives to developers to build low to moderate-income housing. It does this by mandating that cities provide incentives to developers to build low to moderate-income housing.What is the problem with the Density Bonus Ordinance?
In 2004, the State decided that local governments were not providing enough incentives to developers to build affordable housing. Two bills were prepared, Senate Bill 435 and Senate Bill 1818 to address this.
These bills gave developers concessions that to break local zoning ordinances. These include, but are not limited to: the amount of units allowed, size, setbacks and height.
The developer would ask for a specific concession, and the local government would have to award it unless there was a health or safety finding.
In addition, it became easier to get a Density Bonus entitlement. Instead of being solely for low-income housing, it now could also be used for moderate income, which is relative personal income in a specific community.
For example, that means somebody living in a nice beach community, making over $70,000 per year can qualify for an affordable housing unit!
With this ordinance, more housing units can be built than zoning allows, and they can be built higher than the Prop D and other height limits.Why are the mayor and council taking action now?
The City has to rewrite their municipal code to be in compliance with the state ordinance.
Most cities have not yet rewritten their local code, but San Diego is in a hurry to get it done. That is why it is on the docket for Tues.,February 27.Is the city ordinance the same as the state ordinance?
The local ordinance will make it even more profitable for developers to build using this ordinance.At council, Councilmembers Faulconer and Peters said, "This will not affect Prop D." Is that true?
The amendment is not effective in the Coastal Zone until the Coastal Commission unconditionally certifies the amendment.
"The State Density Bonus Ordinance trumps the Prop D voter initiative. According to the City Attorney Office, that is because State passed initiatives trump State legislation. State legislation trumps Local voter initiatives. Local voter initiatives trump City Council passed ordinances.
According to the City Attorney Office, the Prop D local voter initiative that established the 30 foot coastal height limit is overridden by state legislation.
That is one example why developers keep a strong lobby in Sacramento.
What Faulconer and Peters must be referring to is the coastal zone, where the California Coastal Commission has jurisdiction.
"This section of City Council Item-335 if approved by the Council will then go to the Coastal Commission to seek approval...
"The proposed amendments to the Land Development Code would apply to the Coastal Zone, therefore the City Council's decision requires amending the City's Local Coastal Program. As a result, the final decision on the amendments to the Land Development Code and associated Local Coastal Program amendments will be with the California Coastal Commission."
The City of San Diego must submit the amendments to the Land Development Code as an amendment for certification to the Coastal.
Since the Coastal Commission was established by a voter initiative, the Coastal Act, the Coastal Commission does not have to follow all state laws.
For example, in the case of San Diego, the 30-foot height limit is part of what is called the Local Coastal Program (LCP). The LCP is a set of guidelines the Coastal Commission is supposed to follow in regard to development in San Diego's coastal zone.
Yet the Coastal Commission approved hundreds of buildings over 30 feet at Naval Training Center, which fell entirely inside the coastal zone. These included one hotel 60 feet tall and another 85 feet tall.
San Diego Coastal Commissioner, developer Pat Kruer (New Chair of the Coastal Commission), was upset that more buildings did not significantly exceed the 30 foot height limit at Naval Training Center.
Another problem with the Coastal Commissions' coastal zone is that it is smaller than the area that the Prop D 30 foot height limit covers.
The coastal zone winds along the coast while the "Prop D, 30ft. limit" extends from the coast inland to Interstate 5 from the northern Del Mar border south to Laurel Street as well as south of downtown.
Large areas such as the Sports Arena district are outside the coastal zone, yet today is subject to the 30 foot limit.
If this council item passes, areas outside of the coastal zone will not even have the discretionary protection of the Coastal Commission. Therefore, despite the assurances of Faulconer and Peters, Prop D would be effectively destroyed by passage of the Density Bonus Ordinance as presently drafted.
Developers could build as high as they wanted.Ok, so Prop D would be gone. Is that all that would happen?
Buildings can be built from lot line to lot line, and height limits anywhere in the city can be disregarded.
What makes this worse is that these changes can be approved without notifying neighbors or having public hearings.
The way the city statute is written, developers can get these concessions over-the-counter.
These changes are alarming. Is this the way all cities are implementing this state mandate?
No. Other cities are tightening zoning to ensure their quality of life. San Diego is the exception that is making the deal sweeter for the developers while showing no concern for the public.So what can I do?
First, call all of City Council and the Mayor.
Demand that councilmembers hold public hearings in every district neighborhood prior to any council action. The public has every right to have everyone understand how this proposal would radically change our city.
Second, call Assemblywoman Lori Saldana and State Senator Christine Kehoe and insist they change the State Density Bonus Ordinance so the enormous loopholes in this law do not destroy our quality of life.
Remember, this ordinance as written will provide no actual affordable housing.
Third, become informed.
A press conference was held with community leaders from around San Diego, and two of the original 30 foot height limit leaders. The location looks over cliffs that cost millions of dollars to build seawalls after caving away because of high density buildings were constructed before the Coastal 30 foot height limit was passed. The seawalls are once again falling apart, and the once popular sandy beach (that was promised to be put back the same) is full of boulders and rocks.
Commentary— The Peninsula Beacon, Feb. 22, 2007
The City's draft approach has fundamental flaws that go beyond the excessive zoning exceptions.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Unlocking the Key to Deep Sleep
By Sarah Fenske
Making the Ferguson Commission Matter
By Danny Wicentowski
My Fake Boyfriend Became a Real-Life Crush
By Lindsay Toler
Rep. Jeffrey Pogue Bill Would Ban Unisex Bathrooms
By Danny Wicentowski
Darren Wilson Gives Speech to Nonprofit
By Danny Wicentowski
Angel Stewart and Other Victims of Violence Ask for Mercy
By Jessica Lussenhop
Obama Praises St. Louis' LaunchCode
By Lindsay Toler
By Lindsay Toler
And for the moment, he is the star attraction here at the Central West End intersection of Maryland and Euclid. "Who wants you in this neighborhood?" he shouts while striding toward the crowd assembling on all four corners. "Who wants you here?"
A little more than 100 strong when they arrived a few minutes ago, the group, carrying signs and a bullhorn, had merited mostly brief glances as sidewalk diners looked up, then went right back to conversations, books and Saturday-afternoon soups and espressos. Now, no fewer than three television crews descend as the man begins a middle-of-the-street debate with one of the demonstrators. A cop shows up. Everyone's watching as microphones and lenses insert themselves into the finger-waving, cameramen circling less than a foot from the pair, capturing the action from every conceivable angle.
Two men arguing in the street. This is the biggest news from the city's biggest peace march since terror hit home 18 days earlier.
It's all over in three minutes. The man walks away. The cop herds demonstrators who've strayed a few feet past the curb back onto the sidewalk -- it takes little more than a wave of his hand and "please." A couple more cops show up, but there's nothing to do except stand there. A woman with the bullhorn reads a plea for peace from the spouse of a serviceman killed in the attack on the Pentagon. Just to make sure everyone hears, she crosses the street and reads it again. By the time she starts the second reading, the sidewalk diners are back to their business, the sound of everyday conversation blending with the bullhorn -- if anyone objects to having lunch interrupted, he doesn't say so. After 20 minutes of silence, it's off to the memorial for Jewish refugees in Forest Park, where the march concludes two hours after it began at the St. Louis University Islamic Center.
This looks more like America in limbo than America at war. Just one fleeting confrontation with one man. No counterdemonstrations, no profanity, no hollering, no chanting. Passersby nod, some smile, as they accept leaflets espousing peace. Motorists wait patiently through green lights as the procession crosses streets. A few honk horns and wave as they drive past, but mostly it's just quiet.
Other peace demonstrations around the country the same day drew little fanfare and little attention from the media. Perhaps the most raucous was in Washington, D.C., where an estimated 7,000 protesters -- many in town to demonstrate during meetings of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund that were canceled after the attacks -- marched through the streets and briefly clashed with police who arrested 11 and at one point used pepper spray. Meanwhile, about 100 counterdemonstrators called taunts and chanted, "It doesn't matter what you say, we're going to bomb them anyway." Late in the day, somone burned a flag, which turned to ashes amid silence, according to the Washington Times.
There have been no flag-burnings in St. Louis, where the Stars and Stripes and "God Bless America" written on bedsheet banners still hung from highway overpasses four weeks after the attacks. Despite the strong feelings, Bill Ramsey, a longtime peace activist who helped organize the Sept. 29 march, still saw a window. "People's minds are pretty much open right now," he said last week, before bombs started falling in Afghanistan. "The problem is, once we commit troops, we'll have a lapse back to mindless patriotism."
If Ramsey sounds fatalistic, it's because he saw it 10 years ago during the Gulf War, when America wrapped itself in the flag, pledged unwavering support to the commander in chief, then acted as if the whole thing hadn't happened once the troops came home. Of course, with more than 5,000 lives lost on American soil, this is different. Even a pacifist like Ramsey has his limits. In this case, he says, he wouldn't object to limited military action, so long as it is targeted at those responsible for the attacks and conducted under sanction of the United Nations. "I'd be willing to live with that," he says.
Others call it an act of war, but Ramsey sees the crashing of jetliners into skyscrapers as a crime against humanity. As such, he says, those responsible should be brought before an international court. "I'm not willing for the United States to decide for the world who's guilty here," Ramsey says. "I just don't trust the U.S. government, judging from past performance." With so many dead and so many comparisons to Pearl Harbor and so many warships on the way, does he honestly believe the U.S. government will step aside and let an international tribunal dispense justice? Ramsey allows that such a tack would be unprecedented. "But it's not the first time the peace movement has asked for something unprecedented," Ramsey observes. "That's our job."
It's a job that gets easier by increments. Two days after the attacks, Washington University barred the public from a peace demonstration by 50 or so students -- a Post-Dispatch reporter who showed up to cover the event was told to leave. M. Fredric Volkmann, vice chancellor for public affairs, says it was an unusual step taken amid unusual circumstances. "It had nothing to do with the event," Volkmann explains. "It had everything to do with the events of Sept. 11."
Sponsor Content


text:
The MTV Video Music Awards (and Beyonce's baby bump) might have been the big news of the weekend, but there was another musical event in Los Angeles this weekend that saw dozens of celebs come out in support of their industry: The Save The Music Foundation Benefit, sponsored by the Give Back Hollywood Foundation.
The event, held Friday at the SLS Hotel in L.A. was co-hosted by Tamar Braxton (hostess.org?) and Vanessa Simmons, and featured a performance from Luke James and appearances from Christina Milian, Kelly Rowland, and Carolina Liar. Check out our gallery below to see who was in attendance (our favorite pic might just be the one of Andrew W.K. and Cherie Lily. That guy might like to party, but he also knows how to crane kick on the red carpet.).
[Photos: Getty Images]


text:
LLM in Law, Science & Technology
The Law School's faculty includes talented teachers and scholars of issues at the intersection of law, science, and technology.
Mark A. Lemley, William H. Neukom Professor of Law; Director of the LLM Program in Law, Science & Technology; and Director of the Program in Law, Science & Technology.
Principal subjects: antitrust; intellectual property; patent law.
G. Marcus Cole, Professor of Law, Helen L. Crocker Faculty Scholar, and Associate Dean for Curriculum.
Principal subjects: bankruptcy; contracts.
Ronald J. Gilson, Charles J. Meyers Professor of Law and Business.
Principal subjects: corporate law; securities regulation; venture capital.
Paul Goldstein, Stella W. and Ira S. Lillick Professor of Law.
Principal subjects: copyright law; international and comparative law; intellectual property law.
Henry T. Greely, Deane F. and Kate Edelman Johnson Professor of Law and Director of the Stanford Center for Law and the Biosciences.
Principal subjects: health law and policy; biotechnology; law and the biosciences; the Food and Drug Administration.
Joseph A. Grundfest, W. A. Franke Professor of Law and Business.
Principal subjects: corporate law; securities regulation; mergers and acquisitions; venture capital.
Barbara van Schewick, Associate Professor of Law and Faculty Director pf the Center for Internet and Society.
Principal subjects: communication law; cyberlaw.
F. Daniel Siciliano, Senior Lecturer in Law, Associate Dean for Executive Education and Special Programs, and Faculty Director of the Arthur and Toni Rembe Rock Center for Corporate Governance.
Principal subject: venture capital.
Roland Vogl, Executive Director of the Stanford Program in Law, Science & Technology and Lecturer in Law.
Principal subjects: intellectual property; commerce; international and comparative law.
Jonathan Zittrain, Visiting Professor from Harvard Law School.
Principal subject: cyberlaw.
Contact Information
Graduate Admissions
Stanford Law School
Crown Quadrangle
559 Nathan Abbott Way
Stanford, CA 94305-8610
Phone: 650 723.4985
Fax: 650 723.0836