Civic San Diego is one step closer to completing an important development project in southeastern San Diego, an area where it’s long tried to take on a larger role in driving urban renewal.
But some in the community aren’t pleased with the process that led the organization to choose the new project developer. The complaints are stirring up the same issues that have kept Civic San Diego from expanding its authority outside of downtown for years. Namely, many in the community just don’t trust the organization.
The project is coming to an eight and a half acre lot at the corner of Euclid Avenue and Hilltop Drive. The dirt lot has blighted the Encanto area for years, and is something of a gateway to the Market Creek Plaza area that city planners have targeted for development of new housing and job opportunities for the community.
Plenty of community members are happy something is happening, but not everyone’s pleased with the way things are playing out.
Civic San Diego is a city-owned agency that regulates development downtown and in parts of southeastern San Diego. It selected Affirmed Housing to develop a new mixed-use project on the property. The project will include homes for sale and rent geared toward a mix of incomes, plus retail geared toward community needs. It hasn’t released other details.
Affirmed Housing won the project through a competitive process facilitated by Civic. Civic asked for plans from interested developers in March 2015, and asked for more details from its five favorite responses. Three submitted ideas, and Civic formed a selection committee of community members and experts, which recommended Affirmed Housing’s proposal.
We Stand Up for You. Will You Stand Up for Us?
When is VOSD going to do an article on the lack of Post Audit Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFR) for the Successor Agency (SA) and Low Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund (LMIHAF) controlled by Civic San Diego from FY-2011 to the present?
From ROPS-1 to ROPS-10 and the 2 Due Diligence Review (DDR), Civic San Diego has purposeful liquidated $500 Million = $0.5 BILLION Cash in created RPTTF Residual Distribution, when the goal is always Zero to pay back the outstanding $1.6 BILLION in Successor Agency debt.
Civic San Diego also lost -$30 million to the Banks and Privately Placed Bond Holders of 1995-2010 Bonds Debts by lagging 3.5 years from the Oversight Board Approval to Refinance Successor Agency Debt in 2012, to actually Refinancing only a portion of the debt in 2016.
So much waste. Please follow the money.
@La Playa Heritage GREAT COMMENT. Why not also ask for a series of articles about those that were responsible for losing so many millions of dollars and if they were removed from Civic $D. My guess is that they were not and are still making lame decisions!
When is VOSD going to do an article on where all the Redevelopment money has gone and who is now controlling it?
Tens of millions was taken from North Park's PAC and nobody is talking about where it is now!
Follow the Money.
Here's an example of why the planning profession deserves no respect from the public: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-6X1-SLOXM
Sorry, planners. You did it to yourselves.
@Derek Hofmann --I'd rather watch Looney Tunes. 3:58 of my life I have lost forever.
@David Crossley Be glad it's only a simulation!
@Derek Hofmann This video is a PARODY made to support a particular planning point-of-view not just a "simulation." By presenting it without explanation, and with the comment he did, Mr. Hofmann is essentially being deceitful.
@michael-leonard If it were only a parody. No, it was inspired by true events. The dialogue was written by an ex-engineer because he got fed up with the kind of professional malpractice portrayed in the video.
@Derek Hofmann "Inspired by true events" is what Hollywood puts in front of movies.
The engineer portrayed is committing bureaucrat-eze, not malpractice. The portrayal shows a certain car-centric mindset obfuscated by relentless doublespeak. We got it here, too. But, even looking at places like Mission Valley, for example, we wouldn't say that the civic planners of the '60s committed professional malpractice.
And the Strong Towns website has the exact opposite view of urban planning.
Therefore, they parodied situations that actually happened there. In order to promote their own position.
And, you're aware of all this, aren't you...?
So, Sir: I stand by my original statement as proven. QED. :-p
@michael-leonard When a professional contributes to the very problem they are trying to fix--like inducing traffic by widening roads to alleviate traffic--is that not professional malpractice?
Before I was making statements of logic and fact; now you're asking for my opinion.
I'm with you and Strong Towns on that one. The professionals who allowed this to happen aren't doing their jobs right. Especially when many of us non-professionals are aware of what's right and true. I guess that qualifies as malpractice.
Widening streets (or, in our cases, freeways) to alleviate traffic is like unbuckling ones belt to alleviate ones obesity. But, the video is STILL what I said. It's as if the writer took every good argument for "traffic calming" and reversed it and put it in the cartoon engineer's mouth. That, sir, is a parody.
And, the video supports a particular point-of-view -- one I happen to agree with!
Now, try to try (as in a trial) a bureaucratic engineer on that charge of professional malpractice. Wont never be done. Why? Because they actually ARE doing their real jobs for their true masters (it ain't us). That's why they speak a foreign language (bureaucrateze) when conducting their affairs. So we can't understand 'em!
But, again, malpractice is a legal term. And I don't think any of those charlatans is going to trial anytime soon.