Funding for Grantville

By Brian T. Peterson, Birdland

Federal income levels for CDBG eligibility are so low that most San Diego neighborhoods (most of California for that matter) are not eligible. That doesn't mean Grantville isn't blighted (doesn't mean it is either), but to hook your blight argument around CDBG eligibility is a bit misleading, don't you think? But then again, your entire GAG platform is based on misleading information, downright falsehoods and scare tactics - which tend to capture the attention of the mostly elderly population of Grantville and Allied Gardens.

Posted by sdsouthcoast | reply to this comment
April 3, 2008 12:54 pm

The sooner the Weapon of Mass Construction, Jim Madaffer leaves the 7th district in peace, the better. Let's hope the distict has the good sense not to elect another Murphy/McCarty/Madaf wannabe.

Posted by Larry | reply to this comment
April 3, 2008 1:05 pm

The comments made by sdsouthcoast caused me to check my calander to be sure it's not still April Fools Day. The Grantville Action Group can back up everything it says. They don't need scare tactics. The truth about the Grantville Redevelopment is scary enough.

Posted by Linda J. Wilson | reply to this comment
April 3, 2008 1:09 pm

If you would like to read about the GAG agenda, please go to link Please be sure to check out the links, especially those to articles about Transit Oriented Development and the Platinum Triangle.

Posted by Brian T. Peterson | reply to this comment
April 3, 2008 1:43 pm

The plight of Grantville is well known and documented. Even though the majority of the citizens of Grantville don't fully understand the real reasons behind this redevelopment grab, it is no different than any other of the present day. The reason behind it all is the Tax Shift, which takes the property tax percentage that was originally to go to a city and county and reverses the tax percentages, so that the city itself makes bundles of money - the county loses. They DO NOT CARE about the lives that they ruin with their destruction of neighborhoods, they just want the money. Also, when they do build NEW, most cities have their redevelopment fees and tack on that messy Mello-Roos on top of it. Grantville - hold that line and elect someone who really does care about the people. Good luck to you

Posted by San Marcos says, | reply to this comment
April 3, 2008 2:26 pm

I am sick and tired of the Madaf groupies referring to Grantville as blight. And the comments from sdsouthcoast are totally out of line. Wake up and listen to the residents of Grantville and Allied Gardens - LEAVE US ALONE and STOP the destruction of my neighborhood.

Posted by Cynthia Steed | reply to this comment
April 3, 2008 3:41 pm

Could someone tell me--what is blighted about Grantville? It's a bustling community full of business, small industry, and bordered by a nice middle class neighborhood. Why should the city and county taxpayers give up property tax revenue to subsidize development in this area?

Posted by Steve K | reply to this comment
April 3, 2008 3:48 pm

Dr. Peterson: Help me out. I went to the G.A.G. website to read what you had on there about Transit-Oriented Development, but I could not find it...

Posted by www.robert-lee.org | reply to this comment
April 3, 2008 4:07 pm

How are my comments out of line? I am long-time homeowner in Allied Gardens and active in the community...long before GAG came about. Why do you support the exportation of local property tax dollars to the county, which provides little to no benefit to Grantville, instead of capturing those existing tax dollars for infrastructure improvements desperately needed in the community? Leaves me scratching my head. Even Supervisor Jacob acknowledged at a public meeting that Grantville businesses and residents should be supportive of the redevelopment area to preserve the tax dollars in their local neighborhood instead of subsidizing County expenses in the unincorporated area. Supporting redevelopment for Grantville doesn't equal support of current proposals by the Councilman or large property owners.

Posted by sdsouthcoast | reply to this comment
April 3, 2008 4:21 pm

Sdsouthcoast seems to be ignorant of the services the county provides to ALL of us: Air Quality, Animal Control, County Veterinarian, Disease Control, Pathology, Birth Records, Death Records, Real Estate Records, Registrar of Voters, Health & Human Services (Child Services, Mental Health,Alcohol & Drug Abuse), Senior Services-Disabled, Public Health, Sheriff, County Jail, Juvenile Hall, District Attorney-Felonies/Co Fraud, Dept. of Environmental Health-Food Handlers/Restaurants Medical Examiner, County Parks, Passports...and this is only a partial list. We need the county to receive it's full share of our tax dollars and not have it siphoned off by the efforts those involved in the Redevelopment Industrial Complex. Sdsouthcoast should quit hiding in the shadows like a coward and use his/her real name.

Posted by Linda J. Wilson | reply to this comment
April 3, 2008 4:36 pm

Please leave Grantville alone. I have used more than 25 businesses there and appreciated them all. So it is not blighted. There is no way to build more roads there without destroying other things. San Diego should have a moratorium on building as opposed to Jerry Sander's statement that we have to provide housing for everyone's children. The posted messages favoring exploiting Grantville relating to this article can't prove they aren't after lots of taxpayer and profit money in their greedy exploits.

Posted by larry92108 | reply to this comment
April 3, 2008 4:40 pm

Robert E. Lee: Here is how to get to articles about TOD, from link Click Links, then Redevelopment Information, then Land Use Info. Enjoy!

Posted by Brian T. Peterson | reply to this comment
April 3, 2008 4:50 pm

I attended this council meeting, and it was clear that the ONLY reason this passed was to get the money allocated before Madaffer leaves office. There was NO good explanation from staff why more than half our remaining RESERVES should be urgently tapped for this enormous expense -- outside the normal rules. That's why Frye voted against it. Nobody seriously believes Grantville is "blighted", but plenty of insiders look forward to lucrative contracts from this "planning". I predict Madaffer will be first line to line his pockets.

Posted by Fred Williams | reply to this comment
April 4, 2008 5:55 am

I'm well aware of the services provided by the County and where they receive the funding for those services. Property tax dollars currently only provide minimal funding for DA, Sheriff - those are funded by Prop 172 which the County receives 93% of all receipts while the other 18 cities have to share the remaining 7% (despite the voters expectation that the funds would be used for fire protection). County Jails charge local jurisdictions for incarcerations and bookings - not fully funded by the County. The County woefully underfunds health and human services, neglects fire protection, mental health, homeless services, etc. We simply disagree on where our valuable tax increment dollars (County will still receive existing share of property taxes, they won't be cut off) should be allocated. I want them in my neighborhood (where I live and shop), not subsidizing the County.

Posted by sdsouthcoast | reply to this comment
April 4, 2008 6:11 am

When it comes to Eminent Domain and blighted conditions/areas, I find no guidelines that allow a business, city or individual to make the claim. If the same "blighted" condition were applied to a home/business insurance claim, would that claim be valid, honored and paid? As for any comments about housing "everyone's children," I cannot believe that anyone would agree that building multi-family dwellings in Grantville/Allied Gardens will solve the problem. Families who need the housing the most could not afford the cost of housing in this area. There are few homesapartments in this area which house more than one family. However, there are many homes in the southern part of San Diego City where there are multiple families living in crowded conditions and would be grateful for the redevelopment. This situation is redolent of downtown ballpark redevelopment. John Moores or Jim Madaffer. Coincidence?

Posted by Donna Nuss-Rick | reply to this comment
April 4, 2008 9:27 am

San Marcos, get a clue..in older areas, they never 'upgrade the area' ONLY amenities for the 'new developments' WITH Mello-roos! The developers don't pay anything for their 'cheap properties' bot by RA funds! See NTC,where they've stolen not only the land for promised 'balboa park by the bay' but the general fund taxes that the 'old areas' are paying to 'upkeep' their new amenities! They give the taxes to 'redevelopment agency(stealing all from the state, too),to 'leverage for more redevelopment bond $' to 'give away more land' (eminent domained if need be!). Like Santee, developers 'bail' when they don't get exhorbitant profits..CA soon bankrupt because of it. When folks can't pay taxes, like Camden Yd.MD, who 'owns' SD? CA? The M.O. IS draining the public's reserves to get 'Short-term profits only,' they've learned. see: sdcoastal.org. Educate thyself as to REALITY, let's band together or is Pt. Loma, 'blighted', too?

Posted by Wake Up Call | reply to this comment
April 5, 2008 7:40 am

To "Wake Up Call", Redevelopment is pretty to look at, but the real truths behind it are ugly, and the tactics questionable at best. I agree that the tax shift is hurting everyone else but the particular Redevelopment Agencies bank accounts. Some of us have had to educate ourselves because of the Redevelopment Land Grab. While referencing the NCT, did you happen to read the expose from September 2006 that David Sterrett did on redevelopment in our city. Eminent domain is being used to the Redevelopment Agencies advantage too, without independent APPRAISALS, allowing for the highest and best use of the properties. Too bad that government is subverted and is no longer "For the people, by the people, and of the people". Do not tell a Redevelopment groupie "They never upgrade the area" because they THINK they do. Strenght in numbers !

Posted by San Marcos says II | reply to this comment
April 7, 2008 7:36 am

• 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.