By John McNab, San Diego

As a Democrat and Liberty Station resident, I think you are full of garbage, Mr. McNab. People are beholden to the "power structure" or "downtown establishment" because they want this city to move forward? What was your big plan for the crumbling NTC? Liberty Station is a huge asset for San Diego, with loads of free community benefits (parks, promenades) and tax revenues as well. The place is absolutely beautiful, and now everyone knows it. Your old vendetta against McMillin is so 2004. They followed through on their promises -- anyone can see that. Get over it! People like you are an embarrassment to realistic Democrats who embrace great ideas and follow-through instead of sitting on the sidelines whining and bellyaching about how someone (heaven forbid!) might make a profit while doing something for the community. Crawl back into your spiderhole and pout there.

Posted by Get real! | reply to this comment
June 16, 2008 11:39 am

Mr. McNab's letter hit a bullseye. I'm willing to jump party lines and vote for a Democrat. But, after witnessing the insider representative behavior of Peters and Atkins, why would I? I like the apparent progressive alliance of Frye/DeMaio. Could be something new there. Each party's head honchos love to use the word REFORM. In reality, they are the worst proponents of the status quo.

Posted by Dale Peterson | reply to this comment
June 16, 2008 1:01 pm

I pretty much have toagree with EVERYTHING John has written in his letter. Special interest money runs politics today. The Democrats used to be a party (a party I USED to be affiliated with) that would stick up for the little guy, but the fact is when the Democrats vote for these public pension/pay give aways they are destroying the poor and what is left of the middle class.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
June 16, 2008 1:06 pm

Hard to take it too seriously when you get the council district wrong (2, not 1).

Posted by Hank | reply to this comment
June 16, 2008 2:24 pm

Great letter Mr. McNab! I hope more of the City Council (and the candidates) will step forward to join Frye and DeMaio in their quest to clean up the mess we are in. Our problems are clearly the result of many years of mayors and councilmembers listening to special interests and developers instead of the voters. We can help Frye and DeMaio by voting for candidates who will truly serve the voters, regardless of their party affiliation.

Posted by Linda J. Wilson | reply to this comment
June 16, 2008 4:37 pm

The Democratic Activists never seem to leave their collective bubble to see most San Diegans don't buy into their ultra left beliefs. Jess Durfee, SD County Democratic Party Chair, was bounced out of the Democratic committee in the June election. Rather than believing the wishes of his fellow Democrats, he is lobbying to overturn his own election defeat and be appointed back to the Committee. Nobody finds that peculiar. I think Democrats recruit many of their candidates outside the offices of King Stahlman Bail Bonds. The discredited names of Jess Haro, Ulvado Martinez, Valerie Stallings, Michael Zucchet, Charles Lewis, Steve Padilla, and Ralph Inzunsa come to mind. If you are not an athiest, union toadie, and a militant "pro choice" Democrat, you won't get the party support one needs to win elections. Ask Juan Vargas, probably one of the most talented and decent Democrats in San Diego.

Posted by Duh? Maybe no leadership? | reply to this comment
June 16, 2008 4:41 pm

What's worse than a Republican majority in local San Diego politics? A Democratic one. And I'm pretty far left, kind of located out there on the back stretch reaching out to the Libertarians from the right. // In general, San Diego democrats are the most spineless, naive, leaderless and corruptible bunch of ignoramuses I have ever seen, except, for Donna Frye. Just look at the list John McNab presented -- it could go on for days! First, local democrats can't even throw a party much less build one that's an effective political organization. In general, most of the San Diego left wing appears lazy and whiny and willing to supplicate to any bigwig, no matter how much it is not in their interest. // Suffice it to say San Diego democrat politicians perpetuate the worst stereotypes attached to the term 'good for nothing.'

Posted by Christopher Hall | reply to this comment
June 16, 2008 4:55 pm

Hats off to John McNab who really has guts to go on the record with this unvarnished opinion. He certainly seems to have struck a nerve with "Get Real," to whom I would say that San Diego has too many "realistic Democrats" who sadly become indistinguishable from their Republican brothers and sisters the minute they take elective (or appointive) office. What we need from both political parties are people with some future grand vision for the community (as opposed to acting as lackeys for narrow special interests), a sense for following the law (as opposed to circumventing it), and a commitment to openness and good government (as opposed to secrecy, spin and puppets for candidates.) You can slice and dice David Washburn's interesting story many ways, but maybe it all comes down to John Kern's earthy assessment: lousy candidates are lousy candidates, Dems or Reps.

Posted by Frances O'Neill Zimmerman | reply to this comment
June 16, 2008 5:01 pm

Hats off to John McNab who really has guts to go on the record with this unvarnished opinion. He certainly seems to have struck a nerve with "Get Real," to whom I would say that San Diego has too many "realistic Democrats" who sadly become indistinguishable from their Republican brothers and sisters the minute they take elective (or appointive) office. What we need from both political parties are people with some future grand vision for the community (as opposed to acting as lackeys for narrow special interests), a sense for following the law (as opposed to circumventing it), and a commitment to openness and good government (as opposed to secrecy, spin and puppets for candidates.) You can slice and dice David Washburn's interesting story many ways, but maybe it all comes down to John Kern's earthy assessment: lousy candidates are lousy candidates, Dems or Reps.

Posted by Frances O'Neill Zimmerman | reply to this comment
June 16, 2008 5:01 pm

BUT...there are many good non-profit organizations run by very intelligent people working not for their self interest but for the public good, and these people are modern day saints. Many organizations are working for good land use and transit planning, community building, improvements to local business districts, adult & early childhood education, improvements to the greater health of the community through substance abuse programs, environmental preservation and habitat management, public safety, improving the health of communities where industry and development erode the quality of life, to operate after school arts programs enriching the lives of at-risk youths, to enrich the cultural heritage of San Diego through the arts, --- oh, the list goes on and on! // Yet, it's not all democrats who do this good work, but I bet you they are the majority of those who are doing it.

Posted by Christopher Hall | reply to this comment
June 16, 2008 5:06 pm

WOW I can't believe how many people believe the hogwash spewed by Carl Demaio!! Talk about special interests!!! The guy who still maintains an address in VA and was moved into a district just to get a seat on the council to continue the give aways to special interest developers!!! Who paid for him to get elected??? A who's who of developers and special interests!!I am all for growth within reason but they need to pay their fair share for the infrastructure they are creating. Carl is no friend of San Diego. This is just a stepping stone for him on his way to a higher office. San Diego will just be left in the wake of his destruction.

Posted by concerned resident | reply to this comment
June 16, 2008 5:45 pm

Even when the FONZie doesn't mention his name, her obsession with Alan Bersin is so overriding, it screams forth from her comments like a banshee in the night. Get over him lady. We have all moved on. Well, all but one of us.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
June 16, 2008 7:46 pm

re Get Real: you should have a look at Corky's promises before you say he fulfilled them. Some quick history for you: 1. A different (out of state) developer submitted the best bid, and won the process. 2. They gave it to Corky anyway. 3. Corky changed the details of his bid so that there was a lot LESS of the public space you are oohing and ahhing over. 4. The council said sure, fine. Or rather, "Then Zucchet pushed through every deal change, with the help of every other Democrat on council save for Frye.", for those that RTFA. Anyway, try doing the math. How much would the city have made selling off that property by auctioning it off as several parcels? More than enough to build a few parks, to say the least.

Posted by hibob | reply to this comment
June 16, 2008 9:14 pm

Your letter brought back my childhood to me. I believed in a country of the people, by the people, and for the people. My father taught me that the Democrats cared about us. Our parks, libraries, and swimming pools existed because of them. When I first heard Michael Aguirre speak, he said "I want to give San Diego back to the people of San Diego." I didn't know that perhaps that wasn't the city attorney's job, and I voted for him. You have reminded us all that government is about more more than development and budgets. Thank you.

Posted by Nostalgic | reply to this comment
June 17, 2008 5:39 am

Thank you to John for illustrating the symmetry between Atkins and Madaffer. This first came to our attention when Atkins rubberstamped Madaffer’s redevelopment project in Grantville. In recounting her endless agony over making the decision, she admitted she didn’t think the area was blighted, giving us hope of a No vote. But then, she flipped, said Madaffer knows his district best, and voted Yes. Nothing else better illustrates the endemic parochialism on the City Council than when the members authorize bad projects in another member’s district. Let’s hope that this type of conduct ends when these two are termed out.

Posted by Brian T. Peterson | reply to this comment
June 17, 2008 9:43 am

"They are taking the money from and following the same orders ..." More corruption ! Call Aguirre to investigate ! NOONE can simply look at any situation, use a little common sense and come up with an opinion that would differ from the "correct" one !

Posted by SimplyCommonSense | reply to this comment
June 17, 2008 10:00 am

You had me until "When a public champion like Mike Aguirre comes along.." Ha ha ha ha ha ha. Good one. And I detected a hint of subliminal praise for Donna "they tricked me into voting for that" Frye. Other than being the lone No vote, or lone Yes vote on any matter, what exactly has she done?

Posted by D | reply to this comment
June 17, 2008 10:37 am

Yes, Fran, McNab struck a nerve. It's just really tiresome to see some very good things for San Diego be blamed for the problems. NTC is not taking a dime from the city's coffers. It is only adding through property tax, sales tax and TOT from the businesses, and it's also giving S.D. a beautiful, historically sensitive use of a place that was left in awful shape when the Navy left. What would the city have done with it had they not partnered with private interests who put up every single dime spent on repairing roads, remediation of pollution, renovation of historic buildings with all the accompanying restrictions, etc. Most of San Diego's public-private partnerships are not draining the coffers. The pension mess has nothing to do with developers or "special interests." It has to do with people being unwilling to pay for what they want. That means you, too.

Posted by Get Real! | reply to this comment
June 17, 2008 10:49 am

"Get Real"-The "huge asset for San Diego, with loads of free community benefits (parks, promenades)", PLANS to have 'Paid-Parking in almost every Lot! "All Tax Revenues" Don't Go to the General Fund, becoming the Redevelopment Agency's..the Council's,'who leverages them,' Eminent Domaining land to Give to DEVELOPERS-gaining US-HUGE PUBLIC DEBTS! It better be "beautiful,", they got it for FREE- and Tenants, shoppers & vendors PAY BIG for any 'amenities!!' Many Sold before 'experiencing Any!' They removed a Fire Station-where's it's Replacement, with "8+ min. resonses?" "Everyone knows" McMillin just 'Stole Back' their ONLY Contribution to the Community for new ones, after Selling PUBLIC Pools they PROFITED from! They've broken MANY of "their promises -- anyone can see that"! You must be a 'resident-sub'of the Developer, who did "make a profit?" Take it from one who has seen some of the Worst from Both 'Parties'. Research Each Candidate's Volunteerism!

Posted by Wide Awake | reply to this comment
June 17, 2008 1:12 pm

Get Real- ANY Developer must 'pay for roads' (brand new ones!) THEMSELVES, as well as lighting, parking, parks, gas, storm sewers, etc.! For $8 for 8 parcels, a $350-$500/square foot COST was REMOVED from McMillin, tripling or quadrupling HIS PROFITS! Again, NONE of the PROPERTY TAX goes to the General Fund!!! Read Redevelopment LAW! Remaining Residents in "non-redevelopment areas" FUND the New (NTC) Population's 'General services, Public facilities, parks & recreational programs, maintenance & personnel, throughout the City of San Diego.' TOT ONLY goes to "PROMOTE TOURISM"!! Tourists, without a Real AIRPORT, Make ZERO Contributions to Real "Mitigation" toward creation or maintenance of their use of Our 'natural and man-made amenities!' There is NOTHING to pay for their "EXCESSIVE WATER USE, Road, Park, Beach, Parking, Lighting, Fire, Police & Emergency facilities, Equipment & Personnel USE! ie. How much does one Emergency beach response cost?

Posted by Wide Awake | reply to this comment
June 17, 2008 1:35 pm

well, durfee gets elected to the DNC. it's clear what his payoff was for not running anyone against sanders. now fabian nunez has more than enough time to move to san diego (he'll run on being "from" here) to run for the open mayor's seat in 2012.

Posted by marie | reply to this comment
June 17, 2008 2:55 pm

Mike is a public champion. Mike is the publics ONLY champion(Donna Frye comes close).

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
June 17, 2008 3:04 pm

hibob, I have watched the whole process very, very closely for a number of reasons, chief among them that I'm a nearly lifelong Pt. Loma resident and an engaged citizen. There was some hometown favoritism to McMillin, but if Lennar got it, it would have been, "We shoud have kept the profits from this circulating in San Diego, not let them go to Florida!" Plus has anyone seen the supposedly brilliant Lennar's progress on the El Toro AFB redevelopment? The base closed the same time as NTC, and Lennar has done NOTHING, while Liberty Station is nearly completed. And -- reality check -- these kinds of massive, complex projects always (and necessarily) change during the process as market conditions change and in response to opposition (i.e. preservationists who fought against some proposals because they would harm historic structures).

Posted by Get Real! | reply to this comment
June 17, 2008 4:20 pm

Finally, hibob, the city couldn't just sell the parcels off. Their were conditions in the conveyance of the land to the city that prohibited it -- and that prohibited making it a giant park. The jobs and money had to be replaced, and the historic structures had to be preserved. Oh, and there is a park -- 46 acres of park, right on the previously inaccessible waterfront. I'm very proud of my community and the input we had in developing the reuse plan and holding McMillin's feet to the fire throughout the process, and I feel they did right by us most of the time.

Posted by Get Real! | reply to this comment
June 17, 2008 4:33 pm

"Edgar" -- In which of my descriptions of failed Republican and Democratic city leadership did you see the name "Alan Bersin?" Maybe you are the one who needs to get over something. The problem is much bigger than Himself. "Get Real" -- I am glad that you like Liberty Station. But probably there was a better use for abandoned government land than to give it away to a good ol' boy developer -- for a dollar? I'm willing to pay for better government, but what's the cost? It looks to me like San Diego's public/private partnerships are skewed toward the private parts. In conclusion, let me say that I think County Democratic Party chair Jess Durfee has done a great job increasing outreach and citizen involvement which will pay future dividends. For this work, Jess has been named to Howard Dean's 50-state-strategy Democratic National Committee. Congratulations and thank you, Jess.

Posted by FO'NZ Redux | reply to this comment
June 17, 2008 5:19 pm

I just want to weigh in with one comment: the land at NTC was not given to the developer for a dollar. It was given to the city by the US Navy for a dollar. The city still owns the vast majority of the NTC property. The land given to the developer is the big patch the houses are on, but the rest is still city land. I think the deal was that Mcmillin gets to lease the property for a certain amount of time, and then when (if) they reach a certain profitability level, they have to share revenues with the city. And of course all the tax increment goes to the redevelopment agency -- which should start paying some of the costs associated with increased development that's feeding it. Ballpark tax increment should pay the bonds. LS tax_increment should pay additional services needed because of the area's buildout.

Posted by Not the deal | reply to this comment
June 17, 2008 7:14 pm

Reality check here. There are too many of you ranting about things you know very little about, or think you know a lot about. First, the "Out of state developer" was Lennar, who has changed or walked away from every single base redevelopment project is has engage in since the early 90s. They did not have a better plan. They had the same plan, with deeper pockets. Council decided it was better to keep the money in San Diego, with a San Diego builder. ... Zuchett didn't push anything through for NTC. He more often than not said "I think it's a good project, but because I made campaign promises, I'm voting against this." and he did. McMillin assumed all the risk at NTC. Yes Risk. At the time the property was worthless. That's why the CITY was able to convince the navy to hand it over for free. Cont...

Posted by Point Loma | reply to this comment
June 17, 2008 8:33 pm

Cont ... The CITY determined the land was worthless and needed tons of infrastructure work to even make it inhabitable. but the city didn't want to assume the risk of undertaking unknown costs of all that infrastructure work. McMillin took on all of that risk and the costs are now far more expensive than anyone had imagined they would be. So they sold some homes and made back some of their money. And yes, they have made the property very valuable. isn't that what we all wanted them to do? Not everything in this world is as crooked as Jon McNab sees it. Some things are not all black and white. There doesn't always have to be a villain and a victim. Sometimes things can be a win-win and Liberty Station is that. Most of you complainers probably haven't even been down there since it was dirt.

Posted by Point Loman | reply to this comment
June 17, 2008 8:38 pm

Waiting for reform to come from a political party is like joining Vladimir and Estragon onstage Waitng for Godot. To the extent that all politics is local-this is a truism that is true-change is mostly pushed by local activists, not politicians or political parties. Mike Aguirre and and Donna Frye are notable local exceptions as catalysts for much needed reform in San Diego. I'm a Democratic Party precinct captain and generally support the local party but I mostly look to myself and fellow activists to push things along. Mr. McNab makes some good points, but too many people sit back and look for progress to come from somewhere else like a political party. It's not gonna happen. "If it's going to be, it's up to me."

Posted by Charlie Pratt | reply to this comment
June 18, 2008 7:00 am

Waiting for reform to come from a political party is like joining Vladimir and Estragon onstage Waitng for Godot. To the extent that all politics is local-this is a truism that is true-change is mostly pushed by local activists, not politicians or political parties. Mike Aguirre and and Donna Frye are notable local exceptions as catalysts for much needed reform in San Diego. I'm a Democratic Party precinct captain and generally support the local party but I mostly look to myself and fellow activists to push things along. Mr. McNab makes some good points, but too many people sit back and look for progress to come from somewhere else like a political party. It's not gonna happen. "If it's going to be, it's up to me."

Posted by Charlie Pratt | reply to this comment
June 18, 2008 7:00 am

And by the way, do any of you even remember how and why Jon McNab got involved and starting fighting the NTC redevelopment? He had his own plan, which was resoundingly rejected at every turn. yes, McNab wanted NTC to become homeless shelters and soup kitchens. A noble idea. But what do you think Point Lomans would rather have in their backyard: million dollar homes that a builder made a profit on, or a homeless shelter? I'd venture to guess Point Lomans would rather see the airport expand to NTC than have McNab's grand plan for the property come to fruition. When you look at what that place has become, it's very easy to forget what it was, and what it might have become (or not become) had others gotten their mitts on it.

Posted by Point Loman | reply to this comment
June 18, 2008 1:05 pm

Point Loman wrote: John McNab wanted "homeless shelters and soup kitchens." "My" plan was for a mega-Fort Mason Center. One centered on being a destination center for non-profits and community groups to come and stay on the property as a self-contained convention facility. Secondly, to do so as the first center dedicated to Sustainable Development. Following the strict discipline of sustainable development, and being a research center-testing ground for those concepts, would have put San Diego at the cutting edge of the largest and most important concept of our time. I looked at the city's numbers and found that they were inaccurate, which later borne out. Then I looked to see if the property could be self-sustaining extrapolating the Fort Mason numbers. The project would have generated sufficient revenues to cover costs and net tax revenues to the city, which McMillin's plan does not.

Posted by John McNab | reply to this comment
June 19, 2008 12:57 pm

The city should have considered the wishes of a whole lot more people than just those who live in Point Loma when it turned over land to Corky McMillan to develop, and McMcillan should have paid market rate for that land.

Posted by Maura Larkins | reply to this comment
June 19, 2008 2:25 pm

They did consider everyone's input -- the re-use plan development was a very long process with loads of public participation from all citizens. I just think the people of Point Loma, who would have to live with the results day in and day out, remained engaged throughout the whole process and continue to do so now. The deal made before the developer bids were even in was that they'd get a patch to develop in exchange for putting up more than $100 million in infrastucture costs. At the time/housing market, the city didn't want to get into the home-development business and decided not to partake in the risk or rewards of what was developed on that patch. McMillin got lucky that the housing market was good, but that doesn't mean they fleeced the city or that the city got a raw deal. We still got the $200 million in improvements.

Posted by Get real! | reply to this comment
June 19, 2008 4:12 pm

The democrats are here, but the Republicans bought the election. Yeah we got rid of the Diebold Voting machines but did you know we now use Diebold optical scanners to tally the votes which are even easier to hack. People have a false sense of security filling in bubbles on a paper ballot. Did you know in May 2007 we hired 2 of the biggest criminals that rigged the 2004 Ohio election to run our registrar and they immediately transferred us from precinct tallying to central tallying. Look into the evidence for yourselves, but we have got to raise some questions unless we want 4 years of McCain and every Republican running for office.

Posted by Wake UPSD | reply to this comment
June 20, 2008 5:48 pm

Ms. Larkin,McMillin DID pay market rate for that land. The city and the Navy determined the land was worth less than nothing, because of the massive amount of infrastructure improvements that needed to be made there. The city would not have been able to tell the Navy the land was worthless (which is how the city got it for free) and then turn around and sell it for millions. It's very easy to look back now, in hindsight, and say they should have paid for it. But you need to remember, if it wasn't for the developer investing its own money in that land to get it to where it is now, it wouldn't be worth what it is now. It would be like you buying your home for $200k and then 10 years later having to pay $400k to the bank because the house was worth more now. Fair?

Posted by Point Loman | reply to this comment
June 23, 2008 1:14 pm

Point Loman: You're telling me that land in Southern California within a mile of both a beach and a bay is worth NOTHING? Perfect climate, near to downtown? Developers pay good money for land with no infrastructure in the uncomfortably hot inland areas.

Posted by Maura Larkins | reply to this comment
June 24, 2008 9:53 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.