This initiative sounds really weird. Is this part of the proposal to build a new stadium for the Chargers out over the water and have the port operations keep going on underneath it?

Posted by Simple Guy | reply to this comment
June 10, 2008 6:45 am

On Thursday morning last SD Community Solutions presented their proposal to the Infrastructure Cmte of the SD Regional Chamber of Commerce and then participated in a Q & A session with the members of that Cmte.Here are some impressions: 1:They want to put a hotel in direct proximity to the largest shipyard on the West Coast;a virtual 24 hour facility w/night time deliveries of I-beams,steel sheeting and every decible level one can image that's associated with building naval combat vessels.This simply defies logic.2:When asked respectfully and repeatedly who,in fact,was funding their project they were evasive and non-responsive.Needl to say this did not inspire confidence.3:If one attempts to research and Google SDCS they are nowhere to be found.There's no local base or track record.4:They made assurances that the Coast Guard,DHS and Customs were on board with the project.At this elementary stage?In sum:this project demands rejection.It fails even a cursory review.

Posted by Jack Griffiths | reply to this comment
June 10, 2008 7:46 am

This is typical developer politics for San Diego. Even the developers based locally are CARPETBAGERS at heart.

Posted by Simon | reply to this comment
June 10, 2008 8:20 am

Let me guess--JMI will step forward with a plan for developing the Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal--oh, and Steve Peace will be spinning the deal. 'Just a guess.

Posted by Steve K | reply to this comment
June 10, 2008 8:37 am

As a service provider to the ships that dock at 10th Avenue, I find it incredulous that a developer would exhibit such a complete lack of understanding as to the economic engine that our commercial waterfront is. That this developer, or anyone else for that matter, would trade the high paying jobs of my company, along with countless other small and large companies servicing the Port of San Diego, for yet more dead-end service jobs is mind-boggling.Expand our shipping and receiving, don't eviscerate it! America's middle class, the backbone of our society and economy, requires good paying jobs. Converting those workers to busboys and waitresses helps no one but the developer!

Posted by Dontbelieveit | reply to this comment
June 10, 2008 9:02 am

Four active fault strands of the Silver Strand segment of the active Rose Canyon Fault Zone (RCFZ) bisects the 10th Avenue Marine Terminal, which is founded on liquefiable soils. See pages 1 to 17 of the Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology 2001 Investigation and Report on San Diego Bay. link and the 2003 State Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Maps. link In order to investigate if_this is_a viable site, all the Port of San Diego has to do is hire Klienfielder, Inc. the engineers who discovered the Rose Canyon Fault Zone on land as part of the Coronado Tunnel study in 2006. link The difficult nature of seismic problem on liquifiable_soils requires guidance from world renown experts that have already dealt with the same active faults in 2005 and 2006 as part of the Coronado Tunnel Technical Advisory Panel (TAP) including Caltrans, Caltech and UC_Berkeley engineers.

Posted by La Playa Heritage | reply to this comment
June 10, 2008 10:13 am

Four active fault strands of the Silver Strand segment of the active Rose Canyon Fault Zone (RCFZ) bisects the 10th Avenue Marine Terminal, which is founded on liquefiable soils. See pages 1 to 17 of the Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology 2001 Investigation and Report on San Diego Bay. link and the 2003 State Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Maps. link In order to investigate if_this is_a viable site, all the Port of San Diego has to do is hire Klienfielder, Inc. the engineers who discovered the Rose Canyon Fault Zone on land as part of the Coronado Tunnel study in 2006. link The difficult nature of seismic problem on liquifiable_soils requires guidance from world renown experts that have already dealt with the same active faults in 2005 and 2006 as part of the Coronado Tunnel Technical Advisory Panel (TAP) including Caltrans, Caltech and UC_Berkeley engineers.

Posted by La Playa Heritage | reply to this comment
June 10, 2008 10:13 am

The Chases and their organization have a long history of proposing new publically subsidized developments that will profit them, going back to the 1980s. They also understand that the public is increasingly angry at the Port District for ignoring public concerns over huge waterfront development projects like Manchster's hotels and the Lane Field project. The Chases are trying to play on that anger by proposing an initiative that would require a public vote on all future large developments on public tidelands managed by the Port District, while slipping in approval for their own project under the wire. If the Port District doesn't want to see more initiatives like this, it needs to begin listening to - and actually responding to -the public as part of its project planning process. That hasn't been the case along the downtown embarcadero.

Posted by Watcher | reply to this comment
June 10, 2008 11:05 am

IN CASE READERS WERE WONDERING WHY THERE ARE SO MANY SUPPORTING COMMENTS ******************** From: Adrian Kwiatkowski [mailto:Adrian@monge Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 4:55 PM To: 'Sharon Cloward'; 'Barnes, Chris' Cc: 'Jack Monger'; 'Edward Plant'; Whitney Benzian Subject: RE: Cafe San Diego*************** Hi Sharon, The first post for Café San Diego has been submitted and will be loaded this evening. The web address is: link For our Allies and Friends to post comments in support of our message all they need to do is the following: ******************** While the proposal may be foolish or worse, it does seem to deserve to be discussed in public. Who are these people, so arrogant, and self-serving that they hire a PR firm to shout down an open discussion. Shame on them! ***

Posted by sez me | reply to this comment
June 10, 2008 11:09 am

to#9:sez me.With all due respect I am not a member of a PR firm and was not in receipt of the alleged email you've quoted from.My impressions posted as #2 are based upon my participation in and observations of the SDCS presentation and my own subsequent research.I was only one person of a full house and,fairly stated,the over-whelming majority of those members expressed very serious reservations about the project itself and SDCS's failure to adequately address their reasonable concerns.Adrian K's willingness to air out the issues is anything but an attempt to stifle this important debate.One does not go on the Cafe in an effort to shout down anyone.On the contrary this forum is usually the most open and combative of any in town.The SDCS project is ill-conceived,imho,b upon its lack of merit and will fail naturally because of the paucity of its credentials.It'll need no help in that regard.

Posted by Jack Griffiths | reply to this comment
June 10, 2008 3:07 pm

If we want anything to change we have to 1st make sure we have an HONEST election in November otherwise all the BIA candidates will win. Look at the red flags regarding SDs election RED FLAG 1: Hiring of Deborah Seiler and Micheal Vu from Ohio. link RED FLAG 2 We got rid of the Diebold voting machines but buy Diebold optical scanners which are just as prone to hacking. (Seiler actually sold us the diebold voting machines when she worked for them in 2003) Seiler changed us from precinct counting to central tabulation. (major red flag) Anomolous election results. The results particularly of the city atty race indicate a huge spike in support for Goldsmith despite his polling at 15%.

Posted by keepThemHonest | reply to this comment
June 12, 2008 4:35 pm

In years past the SD Port was lame in cargo movements. Since 2003 when steve peace rail roaded the airport away to create the new airport authority. The port has been very active in recreating the waterfornt. All terminals are now very productive and a great asset to the region. There is no way a private redevelopement could generate the revenues at the moment. This is simply another move by selected individules to get at the port. These are not regional minded people, but pocket lining proviteers.

Posted by hillbilly/redneck | reply to this comment
June 16, 2008 2:29 pm

• 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.