|
Post by longtimebooster on Oct 18, 2018 9:53:53 GMT -8
The SD Union-Tribune comes out with an editorial about the competing E & G Measures. Their take: On the fence. Vote "No" on both. Send it back to the City Council so they can take a "non-political" approach to city planning and development. Huh? www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/endorsements/sd-soccercity-sdsu-west-endorsement-20181017-story.htmlVote no on both SoccerCity and SDSU West — Measures E and G
... Before we state our recommendation, we’d like to share the principles that guided it. One, there are too many questions about both measures. Both sides talk a good game, but City Attorney Mara Elliott’s impartial analysis shows just how much uncertainty there is about either. Two, even before our editorial board saw the massive potential in the SDCCU Stadium site, it had concerns about ballot-box development planning. We have concerns about any public process being turned over to developers, who in SoccerCity’s case could skirt public hearings or council approval because of the language of their proposal, or being shifted to the California State University’s Board of Trustees, who would step in in the council’s place to guide the SDSU Campus Master Plan revision process. Both plans require certain leaps of faith. And three, while there are too many questions about the SDSU West initiative, our board firmly believes that the San Diego City Council’s 1955 decision to offer city-owned land to the University of California — paving the way for UC San Diego and its transformative campus, which was founded in 1960 — was one of the best and most far-reaching decisions any council has made in city history. Given that, our board won’t begrudge anyone’s yes vote on SDSU West, given SDSU’s potential to transform San Diego’s future more than SoccerCity. But we think a fair and open public process is best for San Diego, and that the city should lease not sell the land, so we recommend no on Measure E and no on Measure G. Send city leaders back to the drawing board and have them solicit ideas with an eye toward picking one next year so we don’t play politics with the issue during a mayoral election in 2020.
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Oct 18, 2018 10:15:38 GMT -8
The sad thing is that they do make some decent points... mainly being that this should never have been allowed to go through a citizen initiative process. A competent City Council, and non-corrupt mayor, would have been ready for the Chargers departure and immediately opened up a public and transparent RFP process. If that had happened, shovels might already be in the ground starting work on SDSU West.
|
|
|
Post by azson on Oct 18, 2018 10:55:24 GMT -8
The sad thing is that they do make some decent points... mainly being that this should never have been allowed to go through a citizen initiative process. A competent City Council, and non-corrupt mayor, would have been ready for the Chargers departure and immediately opened up a public and transparent RFP process. If that had happened, shovels might already be in the ground starting work on SDSU West. Exactly. DO YOUR F'N JOBS!
|
|
|
Post by aztech on Oct 18, 2018 11:04:00 GMT -8
The problem is should their voting recommendation happen, then look for more years of infighting and indecision until 2020. Meanwhile the SDCCU stadium won't be demolished IMO, so at least that would be a plus. That's just the way the city of San Diego rolls. It'll also provide the self serving UT more fodder to write about.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2018 11:16:11 GMT -8
The sad thing is that they do make some decent points... mainly being that this should never have been allowed to go through a citizen initiative process. A competent City Council, and non-corrupt mayor, would have been ready for the Chargers departure and immediately opened up a public and transparent RFP process. If that had happened, shovels might already be in the ground starting work on SDSU West. You are blaming the wrong people. The university knew that the Chargers were leaving and did nothing in response. Do you think it was the city’s job to formulate a plan for SDSU? A plan that they’d have to propose blindly without knowing the will of the school let alone the school s financial situation. This isn’t how things work.
|
|
|
Post by McQuervo on Oct 18, 2018 11:16:41 GMT -8
Who cares? Let them TRY to focus on reporting the news without a liberal spin (wont happen).
|
|
|
Post by Boise Aztec on Oct 18, 2018 12:06:17 GMT -8
It is a fair editorial, I think most would have wanted the City Leadership to sell the land in an open RFP, which would have lead to the sale to CSU.
It is also clear that the editorial board is a firm no on SuckerCity with a very soft no on SDSU West...
Not a bad outcome...
|
|
|
Post by obboy13 on Oct 18, 2018 13:04:09 GMT -8
The problem is should their voting recommendation happen, then look for more years of infighting and indecision until 2020. Meanwhile the SDCCU stadium won't be demolished IMO, so at least that would be a plus. That's just the way the city of San Diego rolls. It'll also provide the self serving UT more fodder to write about. Having already cast our ballots for "G" and against "E", and as my wife and I gaze out at the blue Pacific with our Yes on "G" yard-sign in the foreground we are under no illusion that no matter what the outcome there's a virtual guarantee of "more years of infighting and indecision until 2020"... and beyond. Given the number of stakeholders in the property, e.g. developers, environmentalists, universities, politicians, etc. you can count on lawsuits aplenty post election. Litigation being the favored sport here in America's finest city, it probably couldn't have been avoided, but with the arguably amorphous language of Measure G, and the negligent lack of planning and effort expended by the previous President of the University, here we are. That's not to suggest the outcome doesn't matter, it does. We need a large margin of victory to help guide our politicians with the peoples will. Remember our Aztec for life mayor wants private development of the site, because it will make him look good, and maximize the City's revenue stream for years through property and sales taxes. University ownership won't generate as much of those revenues, so he's going to look for ways to wriggle out of any mandate from Measure G. If we win by a significant margin he'll have a much harder time finding support for something that doesn't include SDSU West. So vote if you're eligible, take every opportunity to remind and cajole your friends and acquaintances to vote with us, contribute what you can to the Yes on G effort, and learn to like those seats at SDCCU stadium...we're going to be there a while.
|
|
|
Post by FULL_MONTY on Oct 18, 2018 13:26:24 GMT -8
The sad thing is that they do make some decent points... mainly being that this should never have been allowed to go through a citizen initiative process. A competent City Council, and non-corrupt mayor, would have been ready for the Chargers departure and immediately opened up a public and transparent RFP process. If that had happened, shovels might already be in the ground starting work on SDSU West. I agree to a certain extent. The city should have fully entitled the land for the uses they wanted at the site and then auctioned off the site to the highest bidder. 20 years ago, SDSU should have built out Adobe falls with a Stadium. But once FS filed their initiative, anyone who had another vision or desire for the land was faced with only two options. Hope or work to kill the soccer city initiative or make it a bake off. The friends of SDSU were right to make it a bake off. JMO. The irony is that the SC initiative is what Walmart and other Big Business interests use to circumvent elected representatives. Narrowly define who gets the benefit but don't actually say Soccer City or Walmart, and get by the law even though there could only be one possible entity that meets the definition. I think the CA supreme court ruled wrongly in that case. JMO.
|
|
|
Post by Fishn'Aztec on Oct 18, 2018 14:45:41 GMT -8
Well, I hope the fence boards they're sitting on are pointed & sharp!!
|
|
|
Post by aztecfan1 on Oct 18, 2018 15:08:35 GMT -8
The university would " step in in the councils place? " How is that different than when they sold the land to the state for Ucsd back in 1955? What great harm came from that? Add that the council is so inept that they certainly can't be trusted not to make a decision along self serving political lines. But, all in all not having UT blessing is not that terrible. At least they exposed FS for the crooks they are.
|
|
|
Post by aztecking on Oct 18, 2018 15:46:46 GMT -8
Who cares? Let them TRY to focus on reporting the news without a liberal spin (wont happen). Liberal spin? Isn’t a more conservative news source than most?
|
|
|
Post by aztecfan1 on Oct 18, 2018 15:50:06 GMT -8
Who cares? Let them TRY to focus on reporting the news without a liberal spin (wont happen). Liberal spin? Isn’t a more conservative news source than most? Definitely no longer conservative under new ownership.
|
|
|
Post by tuff on Oct 18, 2018 16:14:49 GMT -8
If I lived down in San Diego, I would vote no on both. The whole thing is a sham and needs to thought out.
Maybe the Padres could follow the Chargers since they stink year after year, and SDSU could grab Petco.🤓
|
|
|
Post by zurac315 on Oct 18, 2018 16:18:11 GMT -8
Who cares? Let them TRY to focus on reporting the news without a liberal spin (wont happen). Liberal spin? Isn’t a more conservative news source than most? Liberal mainstream media is a myth. Conservatives just like to harp on the myth because it is a political winner for them. Any media that they disagree with is "liberal." It's been that way for years.
|
|
|
Post by aztecgold on Oct 18, 2018 16:51:14 GMT -8
The sad thing is that they do make some decent points... mainly being that this should never have been allowed to go through a citizen initiative process. A competent City Council, and non-corrupt mayor, would have been ready for the Chargers departure and immediately opened up a public and transparent RFP process. If that had happened, shovels might already be in the ground starting work on SDSU West. Exactly. DO YOUR F'N JOBS! Hey, if this had been the case then the Chargers would still be here as well.
|
|
|
Post by sdsu2000 on Oct 18, 2018 17:59:35 GMT -8
Seems that they are more neutral than a no in that article.
|
|
|
Post by aztecfan1 on Oct 18, 2018 18:44:03 GMT -8
If I lived down in San Diego, I would vote no on both. The whole thing is a sham and needs to thought out. Maybe the Padres could follow the Chargers since they stink year after year, and SDSU could grab Petco.🤓 I see that you are uninformed . Let me help. Those of us with a vote are obligated to read thru which is best long term. Is it to build another strip mall as in soccer city? Or, to do something that generates much good as in expanding our wonderful university. Its an easy choice. No on Both means your are a know nothing. That is no answer at all and not acceptable . Understand this --- The property will be sold . That is a given. Who should get it???
|
|
|
Post by aztecfan1 on Oct 18, 2018 18:49:34 GMT -8
Seems that they are more neutral than a no in that article. No , that's a wrong conclusion. It is generally pro G. Quite anti E, but not totally sold on G. Read the op-ed again. See what it concludes about the scam that is E.
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Oct 18, 2018 19:32:21 GMT -8
Who cares? Let them TRY to focus on reporting the news without a liberal spin (wont happen). What the f*ck does partisanship have to do with this... other than your own bias?!?
|
|