It’s time for San Diegans to start paying much closer attention to Civic – especially as it’s seeking to expand its authority around the city. That more oversight is needed has been driven home by the events of the past week.
It’s not that members of the Southeastern Planning Group don’t want a community plan update. We just want one that will really help the community, not just enrich developers.
Those of us in the Citizens’ Stadium Advisory Group knew early on we needed to take a holistic approach to focusing on Mission Valley as a part of any stadium plan.
A new mixed-use development proposed as part of Councilman Scott Sherman’s plan for a stadium is an opportunity to take the city’s largest, undeveloped real estate asset and turn it into a financial boon to taxpayers.
How about we collectively discuss the issues of accountability? We all share accountability for the violence epidemic, not just the police.
The Chargers need to take a page from the Padres’ grassroots playbook and stop using their superior market power muscle to force us to spend money we do not have.
While the debate about Civic San Diego and whether it favors efficiency over public input is interesting, it obscures an important question: Was creating Civic San Diego even legal?
Instead of trying to take what Civic San Diego does right and replicate it to benefit other urban neighborhoods, Lorena Gonzalez’s AB 504 will upend Civic San Diego’s whole permitting process, adding unnecessary layers of bureaucracy while creating uncertainty.
The average San Diegan is likely unaware of the city decisions that have been made and the implications for their neighborhood. And that may mean trouble when it comes time for implementation.
Yes, Civic San Diego issues permits faster than the city. But that means there’s less meaningful public involvement on a project-specific level.