By U T Editorial Board / November 21, 2025
For more than a decade, The San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board has called for a comprehensive push to make it much easier to build new housing in California. The extreme cost of shelter is why the Golden State has become the epicenter of American poverty. That won’t change until there are wholesale changes in state laws that make it easy to impede new projects or make them more costly.
Thankfully, the last two governors have shared this point of view. This year, Gavin Newsom got two laws enacted with far more promise than previous ballyhooed reforms to clear the way for considerable new construction: Senate Bill 79, which preempts local governments’ ability to block multifamily, multistory housing projects near transit stops, and Assembly Bill 130, which changes the California Environmental Quality Act to limit the ease with which spurious claims can be used to block housing projects.
But in San Diego, our big-picture support for streamlining review processes and making it easier to build is complicated by the city’s dismaying history on land-use decisions, especially the ongoing Ash Street debacle. Three recent commentaries on our pages provide fresh reminders that City Hall can’t be trusted to do the right thing.
On Nov. 12, local activist Danna Givot made a strong case that the city’s plans for explosive growth — 262% more residents and 316% more housing units — in the College Area in coming years were unaccompanied by meaningful proposals to improve infrastructure to deal with this transformational increase in density. It’s not NIMBYism to point this out.
On Nov. 16, another local activist, Paul Krueger, detailed the resistance he faced in getting information from City Hall about the legal fight over the fate of San Diego’s 30-foot height limit in the Midway/Pacific Highway district. The worst example was City Attorney Heather Ferbert’s response to basic questions about the process the City Council would use to evaluate Mayor Todd Gloria’s request to appeal a state court ruling that overturned a lower court decision in the city’s favor. Her staff told Krueger that the City Attorney’s Office was “prohibited by the City Charter from giving legal advice to anyone but our client, the City of San Diego.” It’s not NIMBYism to find this evasion dishonest and contemptible.
And on Nov. 18, retired local architect John Ziebarth chronicled how much plans for the massive Midway Rising project proposed for the Sports Arena site had changed from what San Diegans were told in 2022 when they approved removing the Midway height limit.
The editorial board is inclined to believe that reflexive support for height limits is a symptom of NIMBYism. But it’s not NIMBYism to say that going from the 86-foot height limit cited in winning passage of Measure C to developers’ present push for construction up to 250 feet in height is another City Hall “bait and switch.” It’s a legitimate argument.
The mayor and City Council no doubt believe that they are fighting the good fight with their aggressive approach to housing, and they’re right to see NIMBYism as their biggest obstacle. But if they think this justifies slipshod planning, bullying skeptics and misleading voters, they are wrong.
Multi family, multi story projects as outlined by 79 are by definition more corporate owned housing. There’s been much said as corporations have increased their stakes, whether by multi family buildings down to SFRs thru rentals long and short term. The former S&L crisis and subsequent bailout opened the door to corporations owning properties. Housing affordability is on several financial levels, and the answers are not individuals, but lie in the corporations government wants to rely on in the name of affordability.
Of course the U-T would like to see more housing in San Diego. More housing means more customers for them. But simply throwing away regulation to make it easier to build is pure Reaganomics. Deregulation didn’t work for the electric market but resulted in a complete melt down. Remember Enron? It didn’t work for banking either but caused a crash in real estate. Every regulation we have is for a reason. The push to build at any cost will cost a great deal. We are building the slums of the future. Trickle-down economics is just wishful thinking, it has never worked. Right now homes of 4,000 square feet are being built in La Jolla,. Houses with 6 bedrooms and five car garages are being built in Del Sur. Does anyone think that will get the homeless off the streets? Does anyone think that building more market-rate apartments. with no infrastructure, parking, sewers, roads etc. will result in lower prices for real estate? Wishful thinking. It actually makes prices go up, because developers will pay more than you will for a property because they can build it to the property line and then sell it and walk away, leaving the rest of us with all the problems.
I’m sorry if this turned into a rant but it really does make me angry. We have so-called Democrats, Gavin Newsom, Todd Gloria and most, if not all, of our city council pushing these disproven Republican theories, but people keep voting for them… Sorry I’m ranting again…
The 2026 SDCC Election is a setup by political insiders with untold power and influence. They are led by million-dollar consultants who have better aim than the sharpshooters at Stalingrad. These immoral men and women can take your heartbeat from a mile away, laughing at all the voters stupidity. Blood is thicker than water, and Josh Coyne a nice boy who has a great partner and friend of Todd will win this election and the horrific mayhem will go on and on like a broken record.
Pumping Toad’s lackey incessantly will cause me to say no without hesitation. But heard Eric Swalwell will be running for governor in a race of misfits.
Mister Schultz, are you supporting Dan, “The naked man” for D2 SDCC?
“Her staff told Krueger that the City Attorney’s Office was “prohibited by the City Charter from giving legal advice to anyone but our client, the City of San Diego.” It’s not NIMBYism to find this evasion dishonest and contemptible.”
The people ARE the City of San Diego. We ARE the client. This makes no sense to me.
Don’t we all fund the entire thing and we created it? We are the client. Who are they referring to then? What is this “City of San Diego” entity, this lawyer is fabricating?