‘My Beef with the UT’s Coverage of Midway Rising’

By Paul Krueger

I take serious issue with the Union-Tribune’s latest story on Midway Rising, (see image above) and the paper’s  failure to include a response from any of the numerous, very credible opponents of two new “special interest” state laws that allow the city and Midway Rising’s developers to ignore established environmental review.

It’s also beyond my comprehension that the UT’s reporting lacks any response from the equally well-informed critics of the Midway Rising project, as currently proposed.

Sen. Weber-Pierson’s introduction of her special interest legislation (Senate Bills 344 and 958) was immediately met with a well-documented backlash from San Diegans who objected to what they saw as a blatant attempt to thwart legitimate legal challenges to Midway’s Rising negative and irreversible environmental impacts.

Both of the reporters who wrote this story cover housing issues as part of their important and influential work at the Union-Tribune. I must assume they’ve followed the very public debate about the merits and drawbacks of special state legislation that allows developers of a specific project to skirt established environmental reviews.

In San Diego, the sources for an informed, intelligent, and credible criticism of SB 344 and 958 are obvious, starting with attorney Everett DeLano, who successfully challenged the city’s failure to complete an adequate environmental impact study on the proposed increase in building height limits in the Midway/Pt. Loma corridor. (That legal challenge notably survived the city’s appeal to the Supreme Court, not just the lower Court of Appeals.)

Here’s DeLano’s comment to the Times of San Diego, which had the journalistic common-sense to include in their story a reaction from critics of special-interest legislation designed to sidestep appropriate review while benefiting a billionaire developer, his investors and partners, and the politicians whom their money and influence helped elect and retain in office.

“Long-time Midway Rising critics, however, were not at all excited about those prospects.

Attorney Everett DeLano, who represented Save Our Access, which successfully sued the city over preserving the 30-foot height limit in Midway, said the signing could be a slippery slope.

‘Is it just me, or does anyone else see an irony in taking a bill that was supposed to be about the disposal of human remains,’ DeLano said, referring to the original intent of SB 344, ‘and turning it into Midway Rising ‘fast track’ legislation?’

‘It’s hard not to just scratch your head when you see one of these project-specific CEQA workaround bills. The statute and the courts talk about the importance of the process and the role of public participation, then a few well-connected political players get Sacramento politicians to take that all away from ordinary San Diegans. Sad day, indeed.’”

DeLano and his clients are hardly the only critics of SB 344 and 958. A simple Google search would lead the UT reporters to Donna Frye, Eric Law, Scott Case, Lisa Mortensen, Patty Ducey-Brooks, and both candidates for the District 2 council seat (Richard Bailey and Nicole Crosby), all of whom have raised concerns about this very controversial legislation.

In addition, seven State Assembly Members opposed or withheld their vote on SB 344, citing concerns about its intent and ability to stifle public scrutiny of controversial development proposals and/or its lack of transparency.

As for Midway Rising itself, credible opposition to the development as proposed has been extensively voiced and written about since the project’s inception.

Those concerns focus on infrastructure deficits, traffic impacts, the cumulative impacts of surrounding development, view corridors, the enforceability of development contracts, and, more recently the problems of being in an earthquake zone, groundwater seepage, foundation stability, and flooding.

Attorney Josh Chatten-Brown (and his clients J. Keith Behner and Catherine Stiefel), Lori Saldana, Katherine Rhoades, Christine Smith, Susan Baldwin, and John McNab, as well as those mentioned above as opponents of SB 344 and 958, are just some of the credible sources of information on the arguable shortcomings of the current Midway Rising proposal.

I hope the UT’s future coverage of Midway Rising, including the upcoming October 8 City Council Committee, hearing will be fair, accurate and, most importantly, balanced, and not leave its readers with a misinformed and biased account that highlights canned responses from Mayor Gloria, Chamber of Commerce CEO Chris Cate, the project’s billionaire developers, and their allies.