3 thoughts on “Here’s the Mission Bay Staff Report on Selling or Leasing Certain Parkland”
Frank, can you please provide links to the actual pdfs for downloading?
I fail to see how:
1) The city can argue that replacing recreation-serving businesses currently at the 3 sites considered for declaration as “surplus land” with essentially permanent residential housing is in any way consistent with current uses.
2) How essentially permanent residential housing is in any way consistent with the Tidelands Public Trust which reserves tidelands for public recreational access uses. The list of changes and approvals required to be met omits the State Lands Commission which has a say in the use of public tidelands.
There’s a lot more I could say in response to this highly offensive proposal to provide highly desirable waterfront residential housing existing docks and services (in high demand in San Diego. Will these be leased to the developer as well?) on highly desirable public park property, with only 25% allocated for “affordable housing”. How much of today’s “affordable housing” is actually affordable to those in greatest need of housing in San Diego? Especially after a developer has spent what is necessary to amend the Mission Bay Park Master Plan.
One additional thought – would a developer and the city use the 25% “affordable housing” enable a density bonus to expand the number of market-rate units?
Lynne Miller on Midway Rising or Midway Sinking?: “Some of us who are native OBceans can remember the early days when doors were unlocked, dinner was at dusk,…” Aug 11, 18:48
Evelyn Viora on Midway Rising or Midway Sinking?: “Yes — Take Action Now! SB 958 needs to be defeated. Contact your state assembly member and urge them to…” Aug 11, 18:06
sealintheSelkirks on 5 Ways Donald Trump Could Rig the Mid-Terms: “I noticed that a few other possibilities not listed. One thing we all have to remember, nothing-absolutely NOTHING, is beneath…” Aug 11, 17:06
Frank, can you please provide links to the actual pdfs for downloading?
I fail to see how:
1) The city can argue that replacing recreation-serving businesses currently at the 3 sites considered for declaration as “surplus land” with essentially permanent residential housing is in any way consistent with current uses.
2) How essentially permanent residential housing is in any way consistent with the Tidelands Public Trust which reserves tidelands for public recreational access uses. The list of changes and approvals required to be met omits the State Lands Commission which has a say in the use of public tidelands.
There’s a lot more I could say in response to this highly offensive proposal to provide highly desirable waterfront residential housing existing docks and services (in high demand in San Diego. Will these be leased to the developer as well?) on highly desirable public park property, with only 25% allocated for “affordable housing”. How much of today’s “affordable housing” is actually affordable to those in greatest need of housing in San Diego? Especially after a developer has spent what is necessary to amend the Mission Bay Park Master Plan.
One additional thought – would a developer and the city use the 25% “affordable housing” enable a density bonus to expand the number of market-rate units?
No I can’t, and that’s why I had to reprint each page as a pdf.
Okay thanks. Guess I’ll have to copy and paste