Are we sacrificing San Diego’s future for the vision of Midway Rising’s billionaire developer?

By Scott Chipman / Times of San Diego / Oct. 30, 2026

San Diego is preparing to make one of the most consequential public-land decisions in its history. The proposed Midway Rising development would commit nearly 50 acres of publicly owned property to a private development arrangement lasting 105 years.

Before making that commitment, city leaders should answer fundamental questions about housing demand, public subsidies, infrastructure, and whether this project represents the best long-term use of irreplaceable public land.

First, where is the demonstrated demand for thousands of additional housing units?

California has experienced population declines in recent years, while San Diego’s population growth has been modest. Meanwhile, thousands of apartments have recently been constructed throughout the region, with additional developments underway.

Where is the independent analysis demonstrating that San Diego needs this concentration of new housing at this location? How much demand represents genuine population growth versus residents simply relocating from existing neighborhoods?

Relocation doesn’t necessarily create new housing demand. It can leave vacancies elsewhere, potentially undermining existing neighborhoods and property values.

Second, what does “affordable housing” actually mean, and who pays for it?

Midway Rising promises approximately 2,000 affordable housing units. But affordability is not free. Construction, financing, maintenance and operating costs must be paid by someone.
Project financing documents contemplate substantial public subsidies, including federal tax credits and other financing mechanisms.

Who ultimately bears these costs? Federal taxpayers? State taxpayers? San Diego residents? What happens if anticipated subsidies become unavailable?

More importantly, what income levels qualify for these apartments, and how long will affordability restrictions remain enforceable?

The public deserves a transparent accounting of the actual cost per affordable unit, the sources of subsidies, and the financial obligations that may ultimately fall upon taxpayers.

Third, how will an already congested transportation network accommodate thousands of additional residents and a major entertainment arena?

The Midway District has limited major access routes, including Sports Arena Boulevard, Midway Drive, Rosecrans Street and West Point Loma Boulevard. Connections to Interstates 5 and 8 already experience substantial congestion.

Adding thousands of residents, their vehicles, delivery traffic and arena visitors raises serious questions about circulation and emergency access.
An arena event coinciding with evening commuter traffic could create particularly difficult conditions.

Promoting transit use does not eliminate these concerns. The nearest trolley stations are not conveniently located for many residents and arena patrons.

Where is the comprehensive, independently verified transportation plan demonstrating that these impacts can be adequately addressed?

Fourth, who pays for the necessary infrastructure?

Project proponents describe hundreds of millions of dollars in infrastructure improvements. But headline figures can obscure important distinctions between improvements serving the development itself and improvements benefiting the surrounding community.

How much funding is actually committed to off-site roads, intersections, utilities, drainage, and emergency access?

If tax-increment financing or other public financing mechanisms are contemplated, what future tax revenues might be committed to supporting this development?

Those revenues could otherwise support essential municipal services and infrastructure throughout San Diego.

The public needs to understand the full financial arrangement before surrendering control of this property for more than a century.

Finally, why has the city failed to seriously consider a major public park?

Great cities recognize that public open space becomes increasingly valuable as surrounding neighborhoods grow denser.

New York has Central Park. San Francisco has Golden Gate Park. San Diego has Balboa Park.

The Midway property offers an extraordinary opportunity to establish another major urban park serving Point Loma, Pacific Beach, Ocean Beach, Mission Valley and surrounding communities.

Imagine a beautifully landscaped Midway Park with recreational facilities, walking and cycling paths, athletic fields, gardens and gathering places accessible to everyone.

Such a park could become an enduring public asset rather than another densely developed neighborhood.

Once this land is committed to development, that opportunity may disappear for generations.

San Diego should not confuse development activity with genuine public benefit.

Private developers understandably seek profitable projects. City government, however, has a different responsibility: protecting the long-term interests of its citizens.

If additional housing density eventually becomes necessary, surrounding development opportunities will remain. But the opportunity to establish a major public park on nearly 50 acres of publicly owned land may never return.

Indeed, as San Diego becomes denser, the need for such a park will only increase.

Before committing this extraordinary public asset for 105 years, city leaders should demonstrate why another massive housing development serves San Diego better than a permanent public park.

The burden of proof belongs to those proposing to give up that opportunity—not to the citizens asking that it be preserved.

Scott Chipman is a 55-year resident of Pacific Beach, a community activist, parent and ex-PTA president, planning group member, co-founder and board member of SavePB and founder of San Diegans for Responsible Planning.