Hundreds of San Diego residents rallied across a wide swath of the city on Saturday, May 6, to protest Mayor Gloria and the city’s housing policies, as well as Senate Bill 10 (SB-10).
From University City to Hillcrest, from Mission Hills to the College area, from Clairemont to North Park and in Normal Heights, people stood on street corners at major intersections holding signs that decried the direction Gloria and the City Council were taking their neighborhoods. Councilmembers Steven Whitburn and Kent Lee were also targeted for supporting Gloria’s policies.
It’s a conservative estimate that 600 people took part in the 7 different rallies.
Two small counter-demonstrations were also held, one across the street from the main protest in Hillcrest. About 20 people were at that one, including 2 of Whitburn’s aides. Meanwhile, across the street, up to 50 protested Gloria and SB-10 under the Rainbow Flag along University Avenue and at the two adjacent corners.
Seven people were in attendance at 10:30 a.m. at the counter-protest in University City at Doyle Park, several miles from the primary protest at the intersection of Genesee and Governor Drive. By noon, from 150 to 200 demonstrators held the 4 corners at the intersection – one of the largest of the day. Bonnie Kutch, the main organizer of the UC protest, was very visible, as was Geoff Hueter, chair of Neighbors for a Better San Diego, and Paul Kruegar, one of its more active members.
Down south in Clairemont at Balboa Avenue & Clairemont Drive, three dozen hardy folks guarded the corners with signs. It was easy to see that Todd Gloria was not their friend. One of the only TV stations to cover the events, 7News was on hand and interviewed Diane, the key organizer.
A small rally was held in Mission Hills, organized by Patty Ducey-Brooks. And there was the one in Hillcrest, mentioned above. It was somewhat disorganized but it attracted a good number of dedicated residents.
Along University Avenue in North Park at 30th Street, from 80 to 100 protesters lined the avenue and provided one of the most energetic rallies.
In Normal Heights, a similar scene developed and up to 140 protesters stretched for several blocks along Adams Avenue near 35th Street.
In perhaps the largest protest of the day, up to 200 people took over the 4 corners of the busy intersection at College and El Cajon Blvd.
Along Adams Ave. in Normal Heights. Photo by Scott Kessler
The two local stations that did cover some of the rallies, reported that there were two competing events, two opposing sides, balanced for your consumption. How 600 protesters are “balanced” by 30 counter-demonstrators is not disclosed. For instance, 7SanDiego stated, “Opinions on both sides of the debate were heard during two planned, separate rallies at the intersection of University Avenue and Normal Street in Hillcrest on Saturday.” This is typical of the mainstream media.
Fox5 reported “Supporters of the use for SB 10 for re-zoning certain areas stressed during Saturday’s demonstrations that this will help with the overall lack of housing across the county,” and then devoted a third of their report to these “supporters of SB-10.” So much for “balance.”
Organizers of Saturday’s loose coalition plan to mobilize everyone down to City Hall for their next possible protest.
{ 70 comments… read them below or add one }
With all the photos taken of these rallies, and all the press coverage of it, how is there not one picture showing more than 20 – 30 people congregating? Please feel free to add it to the article but none of these pictures show the kind of attendance written about here.
Also aren’t all of you a little worried when you look through these photos that this isn’t a rainbow coalition of age, class and race fighting for affordable housing but 95%+ older white homeowners fighting to keep their neighborhoods exactly as they are? I know Rag readers hate to hear how their movement is only older homeowners – and feel like that’s ageist – but at some point you need someone other than older homeowners to be a part of your struggle to suggest you represent anything other than entrenched homeowning interests. Seems like you are all who they say you are!
I’ll ignore your strident parroting of the YIMBY mantra, and inform you that I was physically at or drove by 6 of the 7 rallies. I don’t have to prove to you there were 600+ people because the Rag has some integrity and a history of accurate reporting of crowd numbers. I’m sorry the photos didn’t meet your expectations but I think the final tally shows that your buddy Todd is in trouble.
It’s a cinch that you got the most accurate and honest reporting on this right here in The Rag. How many of the rallies do you think the mainstream news visited?
Why is Todd in trouble?
Also what mantra? Saying that this coalition is 95% all older homeowners who don’t want anything to change, not some selfish organization fighting for “affordable housing”? Because your photos – and the signs that were being held up – suggest otherwise (unless there are hundreds of young people, renters and folks of color jusssssst out of the shot that we’re not seeing).
It’s not about no change. When this started, it was positioned to granny flats. Well now it’s 4-10 units on a single family property bypassing developer fees that short change police, fire, and infrastructure. More cars on the streets with every conversion. Turning single family properties into developer investments takes inventory out for first time buyers keeping more people as renters. Mayor Gloria and the counsel are out of touch. 200 people at College & El Cajon Blvd is a fair number. I was there and took note how many were there.
So the issue is more homes in what were single family homes, more cars on the street, different types of housing as well… isn’t that change? Aren’t you mad about these specific changes to your neighborhood?
Also how does a first-time buyer afford a single-family home when the minimum price across San Diego is over $1M, especially with interest rates where they are right now?
You keep using the word homes. They are rentals. You can’t sub divide the property to be individually bought and sold. Conversely, how would a first time buyer afford a home with an ADU on it? The goal posts are moved even further back.
A developer bought a single family home on Clairemont Mesa Blvd for $1 million, then build a fourplex ADU in the back yard and is now trying to sell the same lot for $3.5 million. How does that result in lower housing prices?
Thank you, Don! Another entry-level home removed from the market and replaced by rentals that will not be affordable and cannot be sold individually. To date, every “deeded-affordable” ADU under the City’s Bonus ADU Program has been deeded at moderate income which is 110% area median income (AMI).
That means that the most common sizes rent for the following rates: a studio (which can be as small as 150 sf) rents for $2058/month and a 1 Bedroom ADU deeded affordable rents for $2353. Those are 2022 rents. 2023 rents are due out in the next two months or so from the San Diego Housing Commission.
So much for “naturally affordable housing,” which is what the City Council called accessory dwelling units (ADUs) – and these are the rents on the units “deeded-affordable” for 15 years. After that, they go to market-rate rents. The ADU Bonus Program is not creating truly affordable housing. Based on information reported by the San Diego Housing Commission, the program has not created one unit deeded for low or very low income households, only units for moderate income households at 110% AMI!
Danna G: You are spot on. The naive folks think more housing will lower rental rates. It won’t. Talk to any builder/developer and they’ll tell some of these people who have been spoon fed trash. Great article Frank.
IF there is a point at which rents in San Diego or elsewhere begin to fall significantly, the developers will cease building because it will not be in their best interests to lower their incomes. Why build more (invest more) to earn less per unit? This is one of the fallacies of the “simple supply and demand” argument that does not apply to housing because, among other things, land is a finite commodity. Turns out there are a lot of moving parts and it is not so simple after all.
Danna do you… think a million-dollar home is “entry level”?
So, I guess that old, white homeowners shouldn’t have a voice in development patterns, because we’re, uh, old and white and own homes? I’m not trying to play the odious reverse racism card here, but what else am I supposed to infer from your comments, Phil? I should just stay home, keep my opinions to myself until I die? Tell me how that is inclusive.
Paul, do you think I’m actually saying that older white homeowners shouldn’t have a voice in this or are you upset that I’ve correctly pointed out that the loudest voices in this conversation HAVE BEEN older white homeowners who don’t want their neighborhoods to change but would prefer not to have that so clearly recognized so you’re accusing me of reverse racism (hahaha)? What population has been catered to more than older white homeowners?? Between social media (Facebook, Nextdoor, OB Rag comments), public comment periods, representation on the local news, op/ed submissions, sets held in planning groups and town councils AND small-dollar campaign contributions, where does this population NOT make its voice heard???
I can tell you where we’re not being listened to – City Hall!
You can paint it any way you want, but when you call out people for the age, or skin color or other personal characteristics, you change the nature of the discussion and not in a good way. And it says something about you.
You are absolutely right. I don’t want more cars on my streets, and I bet you don’t either. I don’t want construction that does not pay developer fees that support infrastructure improvement. I do not want development that claims to be “affordable” but which is priced way out of the realm of affordability.
My neighborhood is actually pretty dense, with single family homes, duplexes and small apartments sharing the same block. While housing density has not increased, the population density of my neighborhood has increased as renters double and triple up in existing units. I have neighbors of color and young neighbors, who, by the way, are as unsupportive of additional density as us old, white people.
Paul do you think, possibly and potentially, that the reason that you’re not being listened to at City Hall is because you have unpopular ideas? Every time your ideas have been on the ballot, they’ve lost. Barbara vs. Todd, Measure C, Measure E, Measure B… the list goes on and on. Why – and I mean this honestly – would these folks listen to you?
Your constant assertions that all the protesters are older white people is reverse racism. You’re trying to paint anyone who doesn’t agree with you as racist. Just taking a page out of Circulate San Diego’s bogus YIMBY playbook. CSD is getting paid by developers for lobbying city hall politicians to increase zoning. What is your motivation?
Actually, as much as Paul of full of s**t, there is no such thing as reverse racism.
Phil, I have lived in San Diego for a long time, and I have been involved with many different aspects of development – residential, commercial, industrial and public infrastructure. I have learned a few things, but the one constant lesson that I have learned is that the voices that speak the loudest and that are the most heard are the voices of development interests and labor. Very, very few truly populist initiatives have survived.
Lol I meant Phil. Again sorry for the confusion.
Chris, you and I might disagree, but let’s keep it civil.
Actually meant Phil. Brain fart on my part. Sorry for the confusion.
Don, please tell me how I’m wrong in suggesting that the vast, VAST majority of the folks protesting over the weekend were older white homeowners. What in any of the photos above suggests that I’m incorrect in pointing that out? And what is “reverse racism” Don?
I have no idea what CSD is but I do know that every person holding a sign on that street does not want a single additional home built in their neighborhood (and because the majority are homeowners, have a financial stake in keeping housing prices high). In fact, Bonnie Kutch – listed above – said on twitter that new homes were “raping existing neighborhoods” today. Do you agree with that terminology Don? Are new homes “raping existing neighborhoods”? https://twitter.com/KutchCo/status/1656076181865914368?s=20
A true saying:
Make no mistake, the same people who are demanding you accept and tolerate their way of life, passionately hate you for yours and are relentlessly seeking to destroy it.
There is plenty of affordable housing in other states. Just because someone wants to live here doesn’t mean they should. You either have the means to support yourself in this city or you don’t. When it comes to taking care of my family, If I thought for a minute there was any serious indication that I could no longer afford to live here, I’d look for a place to live that is affordable, wherever that may be. Just because you want it doesn’t mean you deserve it, that’s just life.
Not a take. It’s one thing to move to an area you can’t afford, but quite another to be prices out. Your view is very short sighted and selfish. If you really think what you posted, I kinda hope something band happens to you.
You’ve got better eyes than I do then. In the foreground of the Normal Heights photo I see mainly older protestors. I see some on the left of the 2nd to last photo. There isn’t enough detail on the other photos.
We can speculate though.
How many of these affordable units will even be for sale? They’ll be rentals for the first 15 years, with market rate increases following that. Frankly the deed restricted AMI based rents are not much of a limitation for the builders.
I’d like to see how our permitting costs here vary with other cities.
I can speculate as good as any, but for sake of argument, let’s stick with what’s actually been witnessed.
If these policies have such wide support among everyone except old white homeowners… I have not seen that at any public meetings. The people speak in support of upzoning policies has been small in comparison and is almost entirely comprised of people identifying themselves as part of the building industry or a lobbyist group. And there’s always quite a few written comments that are cut and paste from probably a single source.
It’s lazy to claim we know what others think or want based on their age or race. The city should be soliciting more public engagement early in the process, when it can be impactful. And we need to hear out the people that do show up, not dismiss them with trite acronyms.
I was there. The numbers are accurate. There is plenty of footage from the various community organizations if you need it. Much is already posted online. Keep in mind there were four occupied corners at each rally and they overlapped in time, so it was not possible for one person to be present at all during peak hours.
Selfless* sorry
Phil is your whole take away is to argue about crowd size and who attended?
Please educate me about what Gloria or anyone on the Council has done for renters when it comes to lowering rents and improving opportunities for first time buyers? By up-zoning a vast majority of the City all that has been accomplished, thus far, are higher property values, and an excess of market rate housing. What I find interesting are the people who think we can build our way out of this are the same ones who say we can’t build our way out of freeway congestion.
Whatever happened to strategic thinking and building on traffic corridors in order to leverage previous investments in mass transit? All I see happening with Gloria and crew is a City of renters at the mercy of corporate housing operators.
That isn’t my whole takeaway! I just think it’s funny there isn’t one photo showing more than 30 people gathered together and also that what is shown are clearly gatherings of older homeowners who are fighting new housing in their neighborhoods (and in some cases being super racist about it by writing a message to Sean Elo-Rivera in Spanish, despite the fact that he does not speak Spanish and neither did the maker of the sign (who was wearing a blue lives matter t-shirt too, cool crowd!)).
kh you’re right these photos aren’t great but the ones posted by folks like Paul Kreuger and in the videos OP posted show the demographics incredibly well.
As for what Gloria or the Council has done to help lower rents, I would say not nearly enough! For instance, according to a piece from Voice last year, “The city issued permits for 5,033 homes last year, short of the 13,505 the city needs to build each year to achieve the total assigned to it in a statewide housing program called the Regional Housing Needs Assessment.” https://voiceofsandiego.org/2022/07/13/one-year-in-san-diego-isnt-anywhere-close-to-building-the-homes-the-state-says-it-needs/
That’s really bad! We clearly are not even close to building the number of homes we need to make San Diego affordable! And yet these people protesting think we’ve built too many already!
Also you know what’s a great way of reducing freeway congestion? Build more homes in walkable neighborhoods so people never have to get in their cars! Build homes closer to job centers! Literally build more homes in places that don’t require a car!
Phil, thanks for the reply.
The Regional Housing Needs Assessment is a made up number. What is supposed to happen when the City hits 13,505 units, prices go down 20%? Who made up these numbers the BIA or the Chamber of Commerce?
Long time San Diego residents (old white protesters) have lamented about decades of poor planning and urban sprawl so now the answer is urban core sprawl?
I believe most of us want affordable and thoughtful housing in neighborhoods that have character and where people want to live.
When it comes to affordable housing, the City is one of the biggest contributors to rising rents. When a home gets sold to a investment group that is now allowed build up to 11 units in the backyard with no setbacks, 30′ height limit, no parking or space for trash or recycling bins beside the front yard, or no design standards and reduced or no development fees, which are supposed to pay for parks and libraries, the neighborhood suffers.
But the City makes out via a significantly higher property taxes being generated, which in turn renters ultimately have to pay.
As to your last comment about more walkable neighborhoods and not needing a car, I’m with you and I’m guessing so are most of the people who were at the protest. The old white folks, who used to be younger, are advocating for building on transit corridors and you might be surprised but most also support the State’s ADU law but are against the City’s poorly thought out ADU program.
If the City really wanted affordable housing it would be building housing above fire stations, libraries and other City land but instead they would rather have people arguing over who is a NIBY or YIMBY.
Uhh the Housing and Community Development Department makes the RHNA numbers and has done so since 1969? So feel free to explain to me how this is either a made-up number or made up by the BIA or Chamber of Commerce (just because you don’t like its findings?) https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/regional-housing-needs-allocation
What is “urban core sprawl”? Please – and I mean this sincerely – tell me how building a dense, walkable, urban core is sprawl compared to never-ending single family home, greenfield developments in Spring Valley?
Don’t people who don’t have homes want a home regardless of how it looks? I for one would care more about the amount I own in rent versus the architectural design.
How does what you describe increase rents when it comes to ADUs? Do you think more homes cause higher rents?
The city is looking into building on public lands, which all of the people here are against – just look at their comments about potential housing near City Hall on this website!
Look you can keep saying that the folks in these photos support any kind of development but I would love to see one article – ONE article – where the people (whose names we know!) support a single new development anywhere in San Diego. You certainly won’t find anything on this website supporting new homes. There’s always a reason why not, never a reason why we should build one more home in this community. I’m just sick of these folks acting like they’re the good guys.
Whatevs
It looks like we are heading towards agree to disagree, but as far as urban core sprawl what I meant by that term is the City has come up with a new definition for “walkable community” and it is anywhere within a mile of an existing or future transit stop, which is a large portion of the City. By making the definition so broad, all it is creating is more housing where people still need a car (10 unit ADU in Mira Mesa?).
The City and MTS decided years ago (against the wishes of many young white people, who are now older white people) to go the cheap route and built transit lines in the easiest places where they could secure the right-of-way and not where people live.
At this point, it makes the most sense to build density on existing traffic corridors (El Cajon Blvd., University Ave…) which will make it easier for people to not need a car. Look at Grantville where there are a lot of units going in near the existing trolley stop and where people can start to walk to businesses. This is where the City should be focusing its energy.
Unfortunately, the current strategy of up zoning most of the City is not going to get you your walkable neighborhoods any time soon.
Phil, you could search the years worth of minutes of Peninsula planning board meetings and of its project review committee meetings and see the number of projects for which I made affirmative votes. Yes, I voted to deny some projects that I thought did not conform to the adopted community plan (which, by the way, was approved long, long before I was on the board), but those no votes were far fewer than my yes votes.
I appreciate what you and Danna Givot bring to the forum in perspective. I’ve been a boots on the ground construction person over the years. not very schooled with the bureaucracy end of things. maybe run across one another as time progresses on this issue one day. But, thanks.
“Also you know what’s a great way of reducing freeway congestion? Build more homes in walkable neighborhoods so people never have to get in their cars! Build homes closer to job centers! Literally build more homes in places that don’t require a car!”
That would be awesome. I know I’d love it. If fact I DO bike to work (Hillcrest to North Island) when it’s not too cold or rainy. So, what happens when someone who’s work is close enough to not have to drive loses that job? They get a new job in another walkable neighborhood 20 miles away?
Chris are you saying we shouldn’t build more homes because what if someone living in one of those homes gets fired and can’t walk to work anymore?
I didn’t say that nor did you interpret it that way. Also I didn’t even specify being fired. There are any # of reasons someone loses their job. YOU thought about that when I posted this, so why are you asking such an aburd question?
Just because VOSD makes the mistake of citing building permits issued as a proxy for housing units actually built is no excuse for doing the same here. Regardless of how many permits a city may issue, developers are the ones who decide whether to build housing or not. Right now, with higher interest rates, some developers are banking permits while waiting for interest rates to go back down. Others are focused on getting zoning entitlements with no intention of building anything. They just wait until their properties are upzoned, then sell them at huge profits. Others are building new ADU or larger apartment blocks on single family lots, and immediately selling them at multiples of what they paid for them. What they are not doing is creating more affordable housing or rents.
I live in a very walkable neighborhood. But despite it’s charm the jobs there do not cover the cost of living. Every morning, the residents exodus out to commercial/busisiness centers, and the workforce drives in from the east to run the shops and minimum wage retail jobs.
I’d take the bus but it would add 4 hours to my commute time.
But yeah, let’s build some more rental units for more people to commute out of to afford them. And let’s build em without parking because there’s a bus stop 1-mile away that doesn’t go where they need to go. The only ones that seem to be benefitting from these policies are the developers and land owners.
I have not heard anyone say we have built too many homes in San Diego. Instead, I read someone claiming that people are saying that. What I have heard people say is that what we have a shortage of AFFORDABLE HOUSING, not luxury housing. I don’t hear many people disagree with this fact, which is supported by this study by the San Diego Housing Commission: https://www.sdhc.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Affordable-Housing-Preservation-Study.pdf. Check out the chart on page 7 to see where the shortage of housing is in San Diego – at what income levels. When you compare the number of units available by income level (Figure 12 on page 20) to the actual number of households in each income level (Figure 11 on page 19), you can see exactly where the housing shortage is in San Diego. (You can see this charted in the second slide here: https://www.neighborsforabettersandiego.org/so/d1NiT63or?languageTag=en#/main) When the figures were collected (study published in 2020), the city was short approximately 46,000 units for extremely low-income households and 1,200 units for very low-income households. (Note: There was also a gap for above moderate income households, but this is not a problem as these people can live in less expensive housing. The problem comes when people cannot afford more expensive housing.) Now, these numbers can be misleading because families and individuals live together in groups when they cannot afford accommodations and they are “housing-burdened,” so it is very likely these numbers are understated. That doesn’t change the conclusion that the housing “crisis” is not at all income levels; the meaningful shortage is of truly affordable housing.
For those who say it is a simple “supply and demand” problem, land is a finite commodity and there are too many other variables to expect supply to lower rents and land costs in San Diego or most high demand cities. In fact, every time the city upzones properties, it is contributing to rising land values, which in turn leads to increasing housing costs and rents.
For those who would like to read more about just how much of a supply increase it might take to bring down rents even a couple percentage points, I recommend reading this 2018 Federal Reserve Study: https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/files/2018035pap.pdf
I refer you to Table 3 on page 23 for the gist of the article. San Diego is not one of the cities listed, but the results are generalizable and indicate that if a major city adds 20% more housing units, it could anticipate less than a 2% decrease in rents as a result of that increase in supply.
And for those who prescribe to the theory of “trickle-down housing,” it is said to require a 35 year cycle before that housing will go from market-rate to affordable, if it ever follows that path. For those who are familiar with housing prices in many older neighborhoods (Kensington comes to mind), those old homes have not lost any value – quite the contrary. And even for homes built in the 1980’s (Sabre Springs in North County is an example), those homes have done nothing but go up in value as they are now 35 years old or more. “Trickle-down housing” is not going to solve San Diego’s affordable housing shortage any time soon, if ever.
I have also heard people talk about where the optimal place to locate dense housing is if the goals are truly to increase transit usage, minimize greenhouse gases and vehicle miles traveled, encourage economic development, promote affordable housing and equity, and achieve the city’s other climate action goals (mobility mode shift, expanding the urban canopy versus shrinking it). According to SANDAG’s own research, that optimal place would not be beyond 1/2 mile walking distance from major transit stops because 92% of transit users in San Diego walk 1/2 mile or less to access transit. In fact, SANDAG’s research shows that 70% of transit users in San Diego walk 1/4 mile or less to access transit, so putting dense housing beyond 1/2 mile walking distance and expecting residents of that housing to give up their cars and adopt transit as their primary mode of travel is unrealistic and will not achieve the city’s professed goals noted above. Expanding the footprint of dense housing away from transit corridors will undermine achieving the goals noted.
Further, the state and the federal government generally do not consider projects beyond 1/2 mile from transit to be “transit-oriented development.” Therefore, San Diego will be making most of these projects further from transit ineligible for state and federal grant funding for help with its $5.17 billion and growing infrastructure deficit.
As you are reading through this thread, with some individuals telling you what others people say, what other people mean, what other people believe, etc., I urge you to consider the facts and not hearsay by people who speak about others whom they do not know and cannot accurately represent. I have tried to give you some factual information to consider, with sources. You will draw your own conclusions, as you should. I would also encourage you to do more fact-finding of your own. The Internet has made this possible, allowing each of us the opportunity to educate ourselves about subjects that are important to us and our communities. Thank you for reading this and considering what I have written.
Reasonable and fair. Thank you Danna Givot.
A couple more photos from Adams Ave have been added.
I had the same reaction as Phil. Seems like a bunch of older, white, dare I say privileged homeowners attaching themselves to a recently popularized protest movement.
Taking single family homes out of supply and making them into rental/ investment properties creates a further divide to home ownership. Home owners have skin in the game as to neighborhood appearance. Should I not be alarmed over the prospect of a 30 foot tall 10 unit rental building put up next to me destroying what I worked for (additionally in a fire zone)? And does working as a means to obtain the lifestyle I chose mean I’m privileged? So people paying their bills, paying their taxes, should bend over for the proverbial good of mankind and take it? Life is choices, and my choice was to not live in urban density. Why should it be forced down my throat? Nobody silver spooned me. I earned my keep. If that makes me privileged, so be it. My son would like to own a home. Building rental units takes away inventory. The Mayor and his cohorts would be better served revitalizing dead overbuilt commercial areas into not only rentals, but homes for sale.
That doesn’t sound right at all. When I turned 55, the mayor handed me a free house. And the black guy behind me didn’t get one. It seemed a bit unfair considering I never worked hard or saved a dime, but hey I don’t make the rules.
LOL. Yeah, the state will sue the city for opting in to SB10 cause they’ll be less starter homes on the market once reparations are handed out (OT humor).
Old, white renter here. Hanging on by my fingernails in already densely built OB, I’ve seen plenty of evidence that Gloria favors his developer friends, despite any rhetoric to the contrary. Plus, why such a push for housing if we are running out of water? How does all of this square with any climate action plans?
A toilet to tap plant in Miramar. Another plant in Santee that will supply Lake Jennings. Conservation efforts in the past led to higher rates due to not enough revenues. More people= more use.
Life is choices and mine was not to live in a high density neighborhood. Not have density forced down my throat by bad land zoning for the sake of more rentals. 4 to 10 rental units possibly 30 feet high in a fire zone that could be built next to me is not responsible planning. Numerous multi-story rentals have and are going up in the Hwy 8 & Mission Gorge area, where there’s transit. Taking single family inventory out of the market short changes first time home buyers. Homeowners have skin in game as to neighborhood quality. My son would like to own a home. Not be forced to settle in a condo. Supply and demand. Less home supply in exchange for rentals. So if working for what I own, paying my taxes, makes me privileged, so be it. I worked my keep and it wasn’t handed to me. The mayor would be better served revitalizing overbuilt commercial spaces into rentals and homes.
Interesting note regarding the numbers of needed housing units. I went to the US census cite, looked at the population growth and the number of people per household.
The population growth between 2010 and 2020 was about 78,000. The number of people per household was 2.64. This means a total of 29,545 households were added. This means 2,954 households per year. The number of permits (about 5000) was above this according to one contributor.
As any informed voter should ask, where are the numbers coming from? Are they from the past predictions of the heyday of California growth?
I think people of any age would rather live/raise a family in a pleasant single or duplex rather than in a large apartment building (to counter claims I am anti apartment buildings, when I was younger I lived in a large apartment building and it suited my wild needs by the way). I lived in large East Coast cities and know the pluses and minuses of crowded cities. Everyone wanted to live by the trolley or subway, not a bicycle ride or a walk of a mile.
Also, if I’m a developer and want to build a 10 apartment building, and I can buy a block in a poorer neighborhood for x million, whereas I can only buy a third of block in a rich neighborhood for x million, where do you think I’ll build? Who will be displaced? Do you think that rents would drop or will there be gentrification? Do you think the rent in the apartment building in OB or LaJolla will be “affordable”?
I think what people are saying is that most are not against growth but that SB 10 is not the answer. Throwing rhetoric around about white people or old people is useless (this from an old time leftist)
My thoughts at least
Let’s talk about the PROBLEM, not about the age or ethnicity of who may or may not recognize the problem. San Diego has a General Plan and it has a strategy to create a CITY OF VILLAGES. Those “villages” are to be developed through community plans, which communities are supposed to create and update with the city. The Community Planning process is being hijacked by the City and the PLANS ARE NOT WORTH THE PAPER THEY ARE WRITTEN ON BECAUSE OF SAN DIEGO’S LOCAL ZONING CODES – NOT STATE-MANDATED CODES – BUT SAN DIEGO’S OWN, SELF-INDUCED ZONING CODES.
Several of the current, local San Diego codes that are not required by the state of California, including the ADU Bonus Density Program and Complete Communities (and, if adopted, SB 10), delegate to developers the decisions about where extreme density lands within San Diego. THESE CODES OVERRIDE UNDERLYING ZONING WITH DENSITY BONUSES AND IGNORE THE COMMUNITY PLANS THE CITY COUNCIL ITSELF PASSES. THIS IS THE ANTITHESIS OF PLANNING; it is random density located by developers based on where that density will be most profitable, rather than where it will best serve the Community Plan’s goals, including the community’s housing, climate, transit, equity and economic development objectives.
SAN DIEGO NEEDS TO GET RID OF THE ADU DENSITY PROGRAM AND COMPLETE COMMUNITIES – NOT ADOPT SB 10 – AND LET DEVELOPERS BUILD WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE COMMUNITY PLANS, SO THE CITY WILL EXPERIENCE RESPONSIBLE GROWTH SUPPORTED BY INFRASTRUCTURE. THE GROWTH AND LOCATION OF DENSITY MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMMUNITY’S OBJECTIVES, NOT THE DEVELOPER’S PROFIT MOTIVES.
TIME TO TAKE BACK THE KEYS TO THE CITY FROM THE DEVELOPERS! THEY SHOULDN’T BE DECIDING WHERE DENSITY OCCURS. THE CITY’S GENERAL PLAN AND COMMUNITY PLANS SHOULD GOVERN WHERE AND HOW THE CITY GROWS – AND COMMUNITY PLANS SHOULD BE BASED ON COMMUNITY INPUT AND RESPONSIBLE, PROJECTED GROWTH WITH SUPPORTIVE INFRASTRUCTURE – NOT UNLIMITED GROWTH WITHOUT INFRASTRUCTURE, WHICH IS WHAT IS HAPPENING NOW.
From a simple viewpoint Housing costs follow the rule of Supply /Demand.
Mayor Gloria, Councilman La Cava, Councilman Whitburn, Councilwoman von Wilpert, Councilman Campillo and President Elo-Rivera are all more committed to increasing Demand by fostering growth- as it feeds their construction labor and developer bosses. If growth was damped down Demand would decrease.
The cost of housing can be divided into both an OPERATIONAL and a PURCHASE side. Mayor Gloria and President Rivera’s growth agenda has led them to cast votes to increase the Operational cost of housing. President Rivera granted SDGE a franchise to rob as the highest priced utility in California. The Mayor and Council are furthering growth by funding the toilet to tap water recycling program that will soon make water sewer bills the highest in the state. Council president Rivera and Councilman La Cava engineered a no compete Trash tax . Soon there will be a very high storm water fee. On the cost of rent and housing the San Diego Unified School District puts the biggest burden on housing costs to pay off their never ending Bonds. There are some other smaller special district taxes, including the Zoo Tax, but most of heavy tax comes from the School board who has the same masters and motivations as Mayor Gloria and President Elo-Rivera’s government.
So I’m reading a lot about greedy developers here, which I get, so I just want to double-check that all of you will be selling your homes whenever you’re ready to move on for exactly the price you bought in at?
Imagine… a large transit center built in Fairbanks Ranch could connect South, Central & North counties… Win ! Win ! Win !
You must like to hear yourself. What’s your motivation aside from jabs of devil’s advocacy. Discussion has been about the mayor and council’s poor choices.
My motivation is to simply point out that no one commenting in this thread believes in anything other than “don’t change a thing”, and you all wrap that idea in obfuscation and progressive talking points. It’s fine that that’s the case! Just don’t act like this movement is anything other than that.
Chris you wrote “Life is choices, and my choice was to not live in urban density. Why should it be forced down my throat?”
My man, you live in the 8th largest city in the country, the second largest city in the state. If you don’t want more homes near you, maybe live somewhere else?
“…maybe live somewhere else…”
That’s some interesting advice, Phil.
Which Chris? I didn’t say that.
Never mind.
Change is with the community. Not misguided policies by politicians working for special interests. My choice is to stay and keep growth responsible. Georgette Gomez was run off for playing politics. Elo-Rivera will be next.
I honestly don’t know where I fall between NIMBY and YIMBY. Pretty much all YIMBYs support better bike infrastructure which I certainly do, even at the expense of parking. They support better and improved public transit to make cities less car dependent. I’m 100 percent onboard with that. Dense housing is the tricky part. If it really were to improve and bring down the cost of keeping a roof over one’s head, I would definitely be onboard with that, even if it means completely changing the character of a neighborhood and bringing down property values. BUT, there is not proof that an implosion of dense housing will accomplish that. That’s kind of like saying widening the 56 will reduce traffic congestion. It won’t, and both the people who advocated for it and approved it know that won’t actually happen. While some of what the people who get referred to as NIMBYs might have some things to do with the overall high cost of living, they alone are not the sole cause of homelessness and all the people who verbally claim they are know deep down that’s just not true. They certainly have nothing to do with the elimination of SROs by developers that contributed to the current homeless crisis.
Other than the economy tanking, housing costs will never come down by oversupply. It’s a Navy town. It’s a tourist town with airbnb’s. The higher cost of living keeps growth in check to the tune of 1% population yearly over the past decade. Everybody wants to live here. If you were able to magically lower the cost of living, more people would come, I guarantee it. Any gains would be temporary. There has to be growth, but it has to be calculated. Not the mantra of build anything, anywhere. Spending in general is tighter. Nobody is going to give up their sub 3% morgage rate to double it to 6%. Comercial property has taken a hit. That’s why I say look there for development. The city is looking to investors and/ or homeowners to finance growth. It’s a red herring particularly at these interest rates . There could have been a lot of growth at then stadium site but the city chose to coddle up to SDSU.
“… While some of what the people who get referred to as NIMBYs might have some things to do with the overall high cost of living, they alone are not the sole cause of homelessness and all the people who verbally claim they are know deep down that’s just not true…”
Are you intoxicated when you type all this fekking crap?
“Phil,” can you enlighten us as what it is exactly that you think should be done to fix our affordable housing crisis? (And kindly keep the focus on proposing actual policy prescriptions rather than resort to ad hominem assertions.)
Thank you for your honest reporting of the events of the day. You are apparently the only news organization in the city that can tell the difference between 600 and 30. It was the same thing for our last protest in UC. The local tv station news people need to repeat 1st grade I think. This isn’t algebra folks. Maybe they ran out of fingers and just said, “ah, that’s about ten”.
Ok, we all know that the City and developers don’t care what the rents are after they build 60 units with no parking on already unavailable parking in a residential neighborhood. This is for the city to collect more revenue from property tax. You know damn well some of the tenants will have cars.
Rents will be high for a jail cell. Also if the city will have a low cap rent, then why doesn’t the city lower property taxes. Why is it always one way. Keep governments away from business regulation!