By Kate Callen
Here in San Diego, recent news stories about developer Christian Spicer have revealed that he is facing multiple lawsuits, loan defaults, forced property auctions, and code enforcement sweeps.
But readers of the New York Times aren’t aware of his collapse. From what they’ve been told, Spicer has been and always will be a pioneer in urban housing development.
Times housing reporter Conor Dougherty first wrote approvingly of Spicer in an October 2021 article headlined “Where the Suburbs End.” The story said that Spicer’s approach to stacking up accessory dwelling units (ADUs) on single-family lots was “a vision for California’s future.”
Dougherty described Spicer as “a mellow presence” who is “trying to make money by building new housing instead of by making existing housing more expensive.” In an October 2022 podcast about Spicer, Dougherty noted, “ADUs are just the first crack in ending the domination of single-family homes in California.”
Four years later, Spicer has left a trail of wreckage and financial ruin in residential neighborhoods across San Diego: large unfinished complexes overtaken by squatters; 34 lawsuits, including 22 from construction companies, supply houses, and mechanics’ liens; 54 notices of default; and four properties gone to auction.
Will Times readers learn that this housing visionary has become a pariah? Not anytime soon. Dougherty has ignored multiple pleas from two Rag reporters that he should correct the record with a story about Spicer’s downfall.
Paul Krueger and I have repeatedly emailed Dougherty with evidence of Spicer’s misdeeds methodically compiled by Pamela Begeal at www.adubonus.org. We have reminded him that he has a responsibility to his readers to update them on Spicer. He has not responded.
This isn’t the first time Dougherty’s housing coverage has been challenged by a reporter. He did respond to a 2022 inquiry by Zelda Bronstein of 48Hills.org by dodging her because, he wrote, “our PR people have to clear outside media.”
Bronstein is a journalist who dares to question pro-density orthodoxy. Her January 24, 2022 story, “Are ADUS Affordable Housing?” begins, “The California growth machine rarely breaks ranks.”
The main section of the story, labeled “The New York Times Hype,” focuses on Dougherty’s coverage of Spicer. In it, Bronstein dismantles the reporter’s claims that ADUs lower the price of housing and provide more affordable rental units.
Looking at a Spicer development singled out by Dougherty, Bronstein showed that “the more units allowed on a parcel of land, the more profit that can be squeezed out of that parcel, which means higher real-estate values and housing prices.”
On the issue of affordability, she quotes a study from the UCLA Ziman Center for Real Estate that “the median rent for ADUs with non-related tenants is higher than the median rental price for the whole of Los Angeles.” And because they tend to be small, “ADUs are less affordable than other rental units after taking the number of bedrooms into account.”
Bronstein emailed Dougherty to question his coverage. He replied, “I’m happy to discuss, but if you want to quote me, I have to call our handlers.” He later wrote that Times publicists “are not really comfortable with me being quoted in local media.”
Come again?
The Times has long been criticized for having a liberal bias. But its loyal readers, who include Paul and me, have always believed the paper’s commitment to integrity means it would welcome the scrutiny that is at the core of journalism.
How naïve we were. Bronstein writes that, “As [Dougherty’s] article indicates, The Times is an unwavering growth-machine loyalist.” Which means, in terms of objectivity, it’s on a par with Fox News and the New York Post.
The Times has a famous motto: “All the news that fits.” Apparently, that means all the news that fits if you have the Manhattan mindset that people should live in tiny units in tall concrete towers on streets that are always darkened by shadows.
