Reader Rant on the New Warehouse Plan for San Diego’s Unhoused Citizens

By Lisa Mortensen / April 7, 2024

Dear Councilmembers:

In a few weeks’ time, you will be thrown a political football and it’s called Vine and Kettner.  Now, I know the local news media and the current city hall lobbyists will refer to us as NIMBYs but I hope you will see through the smoke and mirrors and make an educated decision on this fast-moving project before giving it a dutiful approval to satisfy Todd Gloria’s political intentions.

I will provide below a summary of bullet points that should be your guide to this very complicated project.  As someone who has spent close to 50 years in the real estate industry, twelve years in the development business and have represented principals in land development transactions, these due-diligence items are ones that I would present to any potential interested party to make sure their goals will be compatible with the subject property.

Here are the bullets:

• The 35-year lease should be a non-starter.  Are you admitting that we will have the same homeless crisis way beyond our lifetimes?  What are the terms of this agreement; such as the ability to cancel.  Will the next Mayor be able to renegotiate these terms since they are assuming terms of a contract that they did not engage in or acknowledge (sign).
• Todd Gloria talks in veiled terms that there will be Federal and State funding and also funding from ‘generous private donors’.  If the mayor is not re-elected, will these private donors dry up?   If so, then what?  Will the tax payers be asked to be on the hook like what’s happening in the Midway Rising project?
• Where is the money coming from to do the major renovation of the existing structure to retrofit it for a 1,000-person shelter?  This would require increasing sewer and water capacity.  What is the detailed analysis of costs for this infrastructure improvement and who will pay for this?
• What would the cost be for the increase in electrical capacity?  or the HVAC system?
• What is the cost to retrofit the current structural capacity of the building from a printing operation to one that will house 1,000 people and pets?
• Has the city reviewed this project with insurance carriers?  Will there be adequate fire, property, and liability coverage for the new building or is insurance not something the city is worried about because the taxpayers will absorb costs if there are claims issued?
• Before signing this long-term noose around the taxpayer’s neck, wouldn’t it be prudent if not imperative to have a property inspection and sub-inspections based on ‘call outs’ in the general inspection?  Along with these specialized sub-inspections there should include imperative reports for structural, soil, and all environmental hazards to name just a few.
• Attached is a report from the Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) that talks about the hazmat testing performed on the property in 2016.  I realize one can just try to ‘work around’ these issues but there most likely will be some hazardous material due to the chemicals used in the former printing facility.  What about asbestos in the building?  It is imperative that there be inspections done on all environmental issues pertaining to the property as well as the existing structure(s).  Who will pay for the remediation?
• On the subject of liability, since this is one building with a central ventilation system, what happens if there is another pandemic, or a hepatitis outbreak, or if there would be animal attacks?  Since this facility will not have a zero-tolerance policy, who will pay for an overdose/suicide?  Are taxpayers going to have to pay to vaccinate the pets so that they are safe for the residents and other pets in the facility?
• If the city is planning to pay for these retrofit costs described above and then the city is not able to financially complete the transaction, the taxpayers have improved a property on our dime not the property owner’s.

We, the residents of San Diego are still asking where did the city get the money to pursue the H Barracks facility and what are the costs tabulated thus far?  Where will the money come from now that we will be responsible for operating costs on 11 shelter facilities?  If we take this into aggregate proportions of 11 properties, the cost is daunting to say the least.  Meanwhile, our city infrastructure is broken and we have a billion-dollar deficit in that account.  So, while you celebrate at the ribbon cutting for H Barracks and Vine and Kettner, please know that ‘Rome is burning around you’.

These are the important questions to ask because as we have learned, Todd Gloria takes pride to tout that Vine & Kettner will be the 11th shelter he has opened and by far the largest.  This accolade we all know is a charade that has not solved the homeless problem which has increased to crisis proportions.  Our homeless problem is the number one issue of the citizens of San Diego and we have only seen it get worse during Todd Gloria’s term with people living in filth on the street.  This has become a chronic health and safety threat to those living on the streets as well as residents who are becoming more and more fearful for their personal safety and that of their loved ones and neighbors.  Meanwhile, Todd Gloria wants to just stuff the homeless into facilities so we will think, out of sight out of mind.  But as one person is removed from the sidewalk, the next homeless individual takes up that space.  So, let’s stop this political foil.

As we have learned by the failure of Ash Street and the stubble with Midway Rising, these transactions are not simple and need independent and professional advice.  Something that has been lacking because money and politics has gotten in the way.

It shocks me that with the past failed real estate transactions, of Ash and Midway, why the city did not have reliable in-house legal or real estate counsel and is again wanting to engage with those with unspecified intentions for a third transaction (Vine & Kettner) that will in the end not accomplish its goals and leave us taxpayers on the hook.

We all have the same goal of getting people off the street, but the road to getting there with these pay to play real estate deals is where we part ways.  Instead of closing the door on the community you were elected to serve, why don’t you reach out to us, the stakeholders, for advice and discussion.  We are not just contrarians but who better to know the nuances as I have discussed above then long-time community advocates.  Who better to know the right location to provide social services?

We, as community members, have developed a well-planned community that offers housing in all price points with commercial and institutional facilities properly mixed in as well.  We don’t have a supermarket located in the center of our residential district because it’s not the proper location based on the zoning laws that adhere to this well-planned guideline.  We also must have infrastructure in place in order to incorporate growth.  But, as we grow, we need to increase our essential services such as supermarkets, schools, and retail to provide convenient commerce within the growing community.  The rules and regulations of well-planned communities that community members have lived by throughout the decades will provide access to these conveniences in order to maintain the quality of life of the residents of said community.  This is not exclusive but inclusive to all in all income levels who wish to patronize said businesses.

In closing, you must just say ‘no’ to this politically ladened project for all the reasons listed above.    Otherwise, your eyes are wide open on Deja vu Ash Street.

As I have said on numerous occasions to Mr. Whitburn, I am available for advice and discussion, not for an exorbitant consult fee but as a community advocate who knows that this project proposal will only serve as another political boondoggle that will be left to the taxpayers to bail out.  So, shouldn’t we have a seat at the table now?  Put the brakes on this political hot potato and let’s analyze this in a methodical way.   What’s the rush?  A delay and rejection of this project will not change the status of the current homeless crisis.

So before saying yes to Todd Gloria’s latest pop-up venture, you have to say to yourselves, “Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.”  Your legacies are at stake.

Lisa L. Mortensen
Taxpaying homeowner since 1986
Community Advocate/Community Organizer since 1985
San Diego Realtor since 1976
Avid Voter since 1971

Hand-delivered to all councilmembers 4.08.2024