voiceofsandiego.org: Slop... Story No. 4: Redevelopment
an independent nonprofit |
Support This Service

Story No. 4: Redevelopment

Published: Tuesday, January 8, 2008 2:42 PM PST



Back to the Top Ten stories to look for in 2008. Bear in mind that this list may reflect not only what I, in my best judgment and research, believe will become big stories in the coming year but also what I want to become big stories. So there's that.

With that disclosure in mind, let's take it to No. 4 in the list of stories that I think will be big in local politics and policy in 2008.

4. Redevelopment
If you didn't see this story, which ran Jan. 2, give it a look. The story by Will Carless and Andrew Donohue further documents the questionable sequence of events that have led to the current development plan for the Valencia Business Park in Southeast San Diego.

Commercial or Industrial? Whatever the developer wants.
Here's a brief backgrounder for those who haven't followed this saga: The Southeastern Economic Development Corp., or SEDC, originally planned to make Valencia a plot of industrial land. They chose a developer based on that firm's plan for an industrial park. But since then, SEDC has allowed the developer to essentially rewrite the terms. And the agency's leader went to bizarre lengths to help the developer, a well-connected Beverly Hills-based firm, clear obstacles in the way of its plans for the area.

Now though, the developer wants to go a different route. Although demand for industrial land exists and there's no indication that they ever marketed it to potential tenants who might want to build industrial facilities, the agency and the developer threw up their hands and declared that nobody was interested in it as industrial land.

They decided to zone it for commercial. That approval is making its way to the City Council, which has ultimate authority over SEDC actions. If the developer gets its way, the value of its investment in the property will likely skyrocket as the commercial zoning will allow for a much more lucrative grocery store and surrounding amenities. Yet the city has no plans to make the developer pay more for the land it received at a dirt cheap rate.

Many say a grocery store is what is needed for the area. But the path SEDC has taken to get it there and to direct such a well-connected developer to a potential boon is characteristically suspicious.

This is one of the many strange stories to emerge from SEDC after reporting in voiceofsandiego.org. The agency has failed to ensure that people who purchased government-subsidized affordable housing weren't able to immediately flip the properties for substantial profits. And it has been less than truthful about its employee salaries in explanations to the City Council.

Redevelopment agencies in San Diego have long pretended that they were somehow independent of City Hall and therefore somehow removed from scrutiny. They have argued that the money they spend is not the city's it's the "redevelopment agency's" and so $80 million, for instance, on a downtown library is not tax dollars, it's a contribution from a downtown "corporation."

Redevelopment can be a good thing. What has happened downtown is, in many ways, spectacular. But the city's redevelopment agencies perform a basic task: they give away government money and land in order to stimulate development. This process can easily be abused or mismanaged and it demands intense scrutiny.

SEDC's intense secrecy, however, has only generated suspicion. The mayor has promised a thorough audit. The City Council has unenthusiastically done so as well.

Any results of efforts to open SEDC up will surely provide important stories for 2008. And as SEDC's counterpart downtown, the Centre City Development Corp., sets its priorities for a post condo-boom reality, it will make news. Its leaders say they are planning for a new phase: Building the infrastructure and quality-of-life amenities that will fill in the canyons between the massive condo towers they built first.

We'll see this process formalized in coming months. How San Diego spends its redevelopment dollars must continue to become a public exercise -- not the private process many have counted on it being.

As long as people keep shining a light on how that money is spent, we have a chance of spending it well.

-- SCOTT LEWIS




7 Comments so far on this story...

...and don't forget developer-driven rezoning efforts, either! Between Otay Mesa and Barrio Logan, you can expect great give-aways to developers that will promise affordable housing, and that end up getting great deals on property the City rezones and makes the developers even richer (but harms the community in the meantime). It's not just redevelopment agencies, its the Planning Department that's supposed to work for the good of the people in San Diego too (yeah, right).

Posted by OtayWatcher | reply to this comment
January 8, 2008 3:43 pm

Redevelopment was originally intended to improve EXISTING by providing the financial vehicle to do so. Instead, the developers, planners, consultants, and real estate brokers have all jumped onto the band-wagon and decided that this was the best way to make money while basically doing nothing other than that the original property owners would have liked to do - if given the opportunity. The zone changes, GPA's, and preferential treatments go on and on. One of the down sides to the redevelopment tidal wave is that the majority of tax increment is diverted from the county services and others while at the same time transferring that majority of tax increment income to the dities redevelopment agencies. It is too bad that property owners cannot remove themselves from a redevelopment area that was created without their vote. This is one of the largest areas for wrongdoing.

Posted by San Marcos says | reply to this comment
January 8, 2008 3:52 pm

Valencia Business Park and SEDC? You're talking about the daughter of a well-connected african american minister in southeast San Diego. Don't hold your breath that anybody is held accountable on this one.

Posted by Larry | reply to this comment
January 8, 2008 5:23 pm

The investigation of SEDC is well worthwhile and has legs. The deals that have been cut with Artie Owen and others reflect badly on the political leadership that is responsible for the SEDC redevelopment area. It may take a criminal investigation to understand who is involved in giving public funds, including funds for affordable housing to well-connected developers.

Posted by Ian Trowbridge | reply to this comment
January 9, 2008 6:21 am

As with everything else in our city, it's all about the money. I say fire everyone at SEDC that had anything to do with this project since they don't know what they are doing. Next, this chosen BH developer should get their money returned, and the land now should go to the highest bidder ...if in fact a grocery store is what the area needs. You mean to tell me it doesn't need industry/jobs???? The voice reports on 1/2.. Tony Young, said he has yet to come to a final decision on whether to support the project change. He said there are many balancing community needs that he will have to consider, but that while his district needs industrial development, it needs commercial development even more. Sounds like he already made his decision. I wonder if BH will donate to his campaign?

Posted by Norman | reply to this comment
January 9, 2008 6:39 am

City Council decided they don't beieve in the free market. They know better.

Posted by mel | reply to this comment
January 9, 2008 9:09 am

Scott you said 'redevelopment agencies perform a basic task: they give away government money and land in order to stimulate development. ' But this is not technically correct: redevelopment agencies get the property tax back from the state and use that money to pay off expenses related to eminent domain, purchase of land to resell to others, infrastructure improvements, affordable housing, libraries, ballparks, theatres, other public amenities and so on. The redevelopment agencies do not per se give away money, they fund public projects and play a reverse Robin Hood game. CCDC, for example, is not supposed to give away land to developers, but you may think so since the corruption downtown looks like that. Example: CCDC made a community plan the developers designed where land and development potential skyrocketed, increasing tax increment for the city and profits for the developers.

Posted by Christopher Hall | reply to this comment
January 11, 2008 10:49 am


Reader feedback
  • 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.
Post a comment
Name:
Email:
Comments:
Current Word Count: Verification Code
921844c

Scott Lewis on Politics

The Scott Lewis on Politics blog, abbreviated cleverly as SLOP, is a collection of observations, insights and the occasional scoop on public affairs in San Diego. Please feel free to e-mail Scott at scott.lewis@voiceofsandiego.org.


Listen to voiceofsandiego.org's radio program on AM 600 KOGO: Latest Episode (November 8): Scott Lewis and Michael Zucchet talk about the city's budget

Subscribe to the Podcast Feed



MOST POPULAR STORIES:



MOST POPULAR STORIES:


Copyright © 2009 voiceofsandiego.org. All Rights Reserved.