SB 79 and Budget Cuts in Letters to Editor
Sometimes the truth is more forthright and evident in the Letters to the Editor than in the news articles — or lack of — themselves.(I always check them out in both the U-T and LA Times daily.)
Here’s two from today, Wednesday, Sept. 23, that speak volumes; they both are responding to the news that San Diego’s Metropolitan Transit System may have to make budget cuts that would eliminate over one-third of the current bus routes, force cut backs on another third, and less frequent trolley trains on all four lines. The letters make the case that with drastic, even draconian budget cuts to MTS, the foundational logic for Senate Bill 79 and other pushes for high-density near transit has been lost. Despite this, our politicians are not taking note of these potential heavy-weight changes to our urban landscape.
Let’s say that again, as it’s very important and immediately stands out amid this news.
The grim news of potential major service cuts— including eliminating a third of bus routes and reducing trolley frequency due to projected $100M–$150M deficits by fiscal year 2030—has intensified criticism that building high-density, low-parking housing near transit stops under laws like Senate Bill 79 is losing its foundational logic.
Here’s the first from RC of Sunset Cliffs:
What an eye-opener. After years of the “build, baby build” housing policies of the YIMBYs, Todd Gloria, our City Council and the state Legislature — pushing the building of high-density housing along transit routes — we learn that MTS is going broke and may need to cut back bus routes and trolley service. Yet our politicians keep wanting to build high-density housing with minimal parking requirements.
This will immediately affect the mayor’s grand vision of Midway Sinking and “improving” our traffic on Sports Arena Boulevard by converting car lanes to bus lanes and bike lanes. And now Sen. Akilah Weber Pierson and other state lawmakers are working with the mayor to approve the project without any input from local communities.
The second is from ED of Point Loma:
I shudder to think about the impact this could have on the thousands of new housing units that have been approved with little or no parking based on their proximity to public transportation.
SB 79 was passed and was aimed at addressing the housing crisis by streamlining development near transit stops. San Diego even released its first maps [see 7NBC link below] showing the neighborhoods that could be affected by SB 79. They identify qualifying areas across the region, including downtown San Diego, Mission Valley, North Park and neighborhoods along trolley lines.
In the South Bay, qualifying areas include National City, Chula Vista and communities toward the border. Other affected areas include Lemon Grove and La Mesa in East County, along with clusters around Oceanside and Vista in North County.
Under SB 79, five- and six-story residential developments could be built in single-family neighborhoods within a quarter mile to a half mile of transit stations. Supporters say increasing housing density near transit is key to helping cities such as San Diego create more affordable housing.
Critics argue the law is unnecessary and are concerned the state will override local zoning decisions. They also warn that higher-density housing could dramatically change neighborhoods.
San Diego Union-Tribune, Sept. 23, 2026
All the recent and ongoing neighborhood destruction throughout San Diego has been carried out under the guise of linking public transportation to affordable housing.
What constitutes this link ? There’s an 8 story 186 unit development in Golden Hill that was allowed based on being within a mile of “an existing or planned high-frequency transit stop”. Key word: “planned”. What does it mean ?
The upgrade for the stop in question has no dedicated funding. Apparently “We’re thinking about it” is good enough. I wonder if that upgrade is still being “thought about” ?
Are we so naive and gullible that we still cannot see through the thinly veiled money grabs that we the citizens ultimately pay for ?
And the whole house of cards rests on the continued viability of MTS ?
MTS needs to be operated like a business, not an extension of the City Council
Gavin Newsom directed this high density building to public transit. The problem is it doesn’t work for every community. Here is some info I found on a google search
93% of people in California own cars.
84% drive
74% drive alone.
10% carpool.
10% bike or walk
Around 5% use public transportation, while larger cities it’s 17%.
If we treat public transportation as a business it seems to be an uphill battle when so few use it.
Kramer – you are right, this high density building to public transit emanates from Newsom. It is a central part of the platform of the San Francisco political machine, Scott Wiener has authored or sponsored almost all of the housing bills that have wreaked havoc due to his “one size fits all” approach. And that one size is San Francisco’s.
Do a google search on “San Francisco political machine”. It started with the Burton brothers back in the 1960s and has now transmogrified into a beast that will not obey.
Now, neighborhood after neighborhood in San Diego is being irrevocably changed to fit Wiener’s SanFran model. The modus operandi is to engage the “community plan”, make it fit with Todd Gloria’s hallucinations about what San Diego should look like in the near future, get it all passed and approved and then whip it on the unsuspecting residents of that community. this is exactly what he has done with Clairemont and from what I see no middle class neighborhood is safe.
The tony areas where Todd & friends reside are somehow exempt from the “makeovers”
Kramer – that’s the problem: the electeds and their agents treat MTS and mass transit in general as a business. How about treating it as investments? How about making it real. When I lived in San Francisco, there was a bus ever 15 minutes on a regular basis. And people used the buses.
Robert – don’t agree re Newsom but do re Wiener. You use a broad brush and castigate the Burton brothers for some reason. Political machines have been around since Greece. But Wiener is bad and I hope he loses his current race. And yes, the “one size fits all” model has wrecked havoc of our neighborhoods, thank you Todd Gloria. So we agree there.
And it’s not just “middle class neighborhoods” at risk.
Frank – you read things into my comment that are simply not there.
I did not castigate nor even judge the Burtons one bit, I simply stated that the San Francisco Political Machine that exists today started with the Burtons in the 1960s, and that sir, is a fact. If you have a source that disputes this I’d be keen to see it.
I did judge (negatively) the SF machine as it exists today. I consider it the nexus of progressive activism and the source of California’s “nanny state”. Nancy Pelosi, Gavin Newsom, Kamala Harris, Diane Feinstein, Scott Wiener – these are or have been the Big Cogs in the machine. Todd Gloria and his ilk simply take their marching orders from The Machine, because without their blessing and support, continued time in office is unlikely.
Why doesn’t Gloria resist the State “mandates” urged, authored and sponsored by Wiener, and then enthusiastically signed and supported by Newsom ? Why doesn’t he stand up for San Diego ? Is it because he truly believes he is doing what is best for San Diego ? Or is because he knows that unless he toes the line, his further political ambitions after he terms out as mayor in 2028 are kaput ?
Yes, political machines have been around for hundreds of years, that doesn’t mean they are good. Crime, war, injustice and poverty have been with us for longer, yet we generally oppose them despite their longevity.
This small and concentrated cabal that controls the California Democratic party with an iron fist emanates from an exceedingly small area – San Francisco, and this area and its problems are not representative of the remainder of the State of California. Yet they operate as if the entire State was simply a macro version of SF. This is what I referred to as “One Size Fits All”
Since we’ve reached the point where I have to defend things I have not said, I see any point in continuing here. I’ll leave you to the echo chamber.