Category: Economy

Conflicting claims are flying around Point Loma these days regarding the property at 1004 Rosecrans — where a proposed four-story, 56-unit mixed-use project right next to the elementary school was on deck to be constructed. But community opposition quickly developed led by a grassroots group called Protect Point Loma — and it was recently announced that the owner / developer wanted to sell the site instead.

That was good news.

People in PL began celebrating – and started trying to find a developer and local investors who would create a more neighborhood-friendly project.

Eric Law, chair of both the Peninsula Community Planning Board and Protect PL, told Times of San Diego that the sale of the property / project to local investors would benefit everybody — seller, buyer and the community as a whole.

Law said Protect Point Loma is working with Peninsula developers of one sort or another with the idea of producing a different type of development that would be better for the community. He said real estate comparables, or “comps,” in the area are substantially lower than what the developer wants for 1004 Rosecrans.

By J.W. August / KPBS /  March 3, 2026

For decades, Mike’s Market at the corner of 37th Street and Ocean View Boulevard, had been an open wound for the residents of the Mountain View neighborhood in Southeast San Diego.

It was well-known as a front for drug dealing and other illegal acts. But then in 2022, coming out of the pandemic, the crime and violence exploded.

The crime surge included murders, attempted murders, assaults, sales of firearms, robberies and narcotics sales, according San Diego Police Department records. The SDPD fielded thousands of calls from the immediate area around Mike’s Market in the two years prior to an investigation being launched.

The market had been under the control of the 59 Brim street gang for decades, multiple law enforcement sources and community members told KPBS. The gang was an off-shoot of the infamous Bloods.

The gang’s increasing violence was a deadly serious threat to the community and led to a significant change in how local law enforcement confronted the ongoing problem, according to documents in the case filed by San Diego District Attorney Summer Stephan’s office.

By Geoff Page

The farther away a person is from the effort that created the wealth that person is responsible for, the less effort a person will expend in using it wisely. The curse of public works.

In a November 19, 2025 article, The Rag reported that people were stealing copper wire off the OB Pier amounting to several thousand dollars in recycle value. The city was notified but did not seem to care at all. It was only due to my persistence that the city finally filed a police report about the theft. The report just illustrated how little attention the city paid to information about the theft.

The police report, dated 12-8-25, stated “petty theft” with a market value of $500. It was filed a month after I notified the city of the apparent theft of wire and piping on the pier rail.

A thousand feet of copper wire was clearly worth much more than $500. But, as is now known, the cabling was the least of the theft. The thievery could be valued as high as $250,000.

Backlash Against Trash Fee and Paid Parking in Balboa Park “Uniformly and Powerfully Non-Partisan”

Editordude: Below, Rag contributor Paul Krueger responds to a Politics Report from Voice of San Diego (see end) which stated:

“The anti-tax-and-fees crowd is having a moment. Conservative politicians past and present are pushing ballot measures to repeal the city’s trash fee and paid parking in Balboa Park.”

By Paul Krueger

Just a few thoughts on the intro to your Politics Report, from a perspective that you might not hear, day-to-day. (And of course, no response is expected.)

I sense that the backlash against the trash fee and paid parking in Balboa Park is uniformly and powerfully non-partisan, and in no way exclusively supported by the so-called  “anti-tax-and-fees-crowd.”

The Lincoln Club and Richard Bailey may have filed the paperwork, but did so only because polling showed huge, bipartisan/non-partisan opposition to both fees: 81 percent of those polled oppose paid parking in the Park, and 60+ percent oppose the trash fees. Those numbers far exceed Democrat Party registration in the city.

Thousands of San Diegans who never have and never will identify as “anti-tax-and-fees” support the rollbacks because they’re angry that the trash fee was a “bait and switch,” and feel the  Balboa Park parking fees are unwarranted, unfair, and very poorly planned from the get-go (and opposition solidified and expanded after the botched roll-out of kiosks and the parking permit application process).

By Robert Campbell

In early 2025, the Housing Authority (the San Diego City Council) voted to “right-size” the compensation of the San Diego Housing Commission (SDHC) CEO Lisa Jones, pushing her total compensation package toward $400,000 annually – credit to Council members von Wilpert and Campillo who were the only members to see the hypocrisy of the motion and voted no.

Meanwhile, in 2026, the city’s poorest residents are being forced to “right-size” their survival as the Section 8 waiting list which has grown to over 76,000 people has been officially closed.

The inequity is staggering. Under the Baker v. San Diego settlement, the city committed to stronger oversight and greater fairness in its housing programs because the SDHC has been concentrating poverty in Low Resource, Environmentally Burdened areas of the City.

Yet today, to bridge a massive multi-million-dollar funding deficit, the SDHC requires “work-able” families to contribute 40% of their income toward rent. If we applied this same standard of “shared sacrifice” to Jones, her personal housing budget would be $13,333 of her $33,300 salary per month, enough to finance a multimillion-dollar home in an exclusive enclave of San Diego.  The person in charge of affordable housing in San Diego, a public employee, makes more than the mayor.

The Big Picture: Preservation Overreach? The Data Says Otherwise

From SOHO / March-April Newsletter

With the release of the comprehensive report by PlaceEconomics, The Urban Vitality Blueprint: A Data-Driven Analysis of Equity, Affordability, and Vitality in San Diego’s Historic Districts, San Diego now has the clearest, most comprehensive data ever produced on the real economic and social impacts of historic preservation and the evidence shows that our most important affordable housing is not what we plan to build, it is the older homes and historic neighborhoods we already have.

Read the full report online.

Protecting San Diego’s older and historic housing is the most immediate, scalable, and cost?effective affordable housing strategy we have. Keeping these homes standing is how we keep San Diego livable.

Why This Matters Now
This report arrives as San Diego’s preservation ordinance is under intense political pressure and misinformation is spreading about its impacts. The new data makes several things clear:

• Preservation protects and extends existing affordable housing.
• Historic districts are more economically mixed and diverse than many newer areas.

Here is a quick overview on this 17th day of Trump’s war with Iran.

• Cost of war — it was estimated that in the first 6 days of the war, it cost the U.S. nearly $2 Billion a day. The Pentagon reported that the first week cost us $11.3 Billions, not counting the expenses of the build-up. Tomahawk cruise missiles, like the one the U.S. military used in that deadly strike on an Iranian girls’ primary school, cost $2.2 million each. It may be worth keeping these figures in mind as the Trump administration argues it doesn’t have enough money to make health care more affordable.
• Cost of gas — since the war started on Feb. 28, the average cost of gas has risen 25%; the cost of oil 40%.
• The war is unpopular with Americans; only 1 in 4 support it. A good portion of the MAGA base is seething over the war, since their guy ran against “endless wars.”

This Week at City Hall

The San Diego Community Coalition publishes this email bulletin to keep our members and the San Diego public informed about important Council and Planning Commission hearings and other city public meetings.

Wednesday, March 18: Rules Committee, 9:00 a.m.

Agenda:

Item 2: Amendments to the Rules of Council Governing Public Comment During Council Meetings

Why it matters: This is intended to comply with Senate Bill 707 to modernize the Brown Act in an age of growing telecom sophistication. To include equal time for in-person and virtual speakers, the proposal includes:

• A notice will indicate whether public comment will be allotted 1 minute of 2 minutes per speaker
• Organized presentations will be taken before individual comment and must be 15 minutes or less, Presenters must give 24-hour notice to the City Clerk. Electronic presentation materials must be provided 2 hours in advance.
• Finally, “proposed amendments will provide for recording closed sessions [to] eliminate the requirement of costly transcriptions.” Audiotapes are less accessible than written transcripts, which can be searchable and excerpted. This keeps the public at a greater remove from Council deliberations.

Item 3: Review of Ballot Measure Proposals for the November 2026 Election

Why it matters: A measure proposed by Councilmember Raul Campillo would establish free parking at beaches and bays in the City of San Diego. The measure states, “Ensuring equitable public access to these coastal resources remains an important component of the City’s commitment to maintaining a high quality of life for San Diegans.”

Wednesday, March 18:  Community and Neighborhood Community Services Committee, 2:00 p.m.

Agenda:

Item 4: Resolution in Support of AB 2525 Surplus Lands, Mission Bay

Why it matters: The City Charter prohibits housing development in Mission Bay Park. But the State Surplus Land Act requires the city to prioritize affordable housing in Mission Bay Park to lease certain park properties for a period that exceeds 15 years. To ensure that housing is not allowed, Assemblymember Chris Ward has introduced this legislation to exempt Mission Bay Park from the Surplus Land Act.

Measure Would Be on November 2026 Ballot

By Donna Frye

It seems that every 10 years or so, the city comes up with a proposal to charge people to park at the beaches and Mission Bay Park as a potential revenue source. Thankfully, once the public gets involved, the elected officials usually back off this very bad idea.

Most recently, on November 10, 2025, The San Diego Union-Tribune’s David Garrick reported that four members of the city council were proposing entry fees for Mission Bay Park and paid parking at the beaches.

The public rallied against charging anyone to enter/park at Mission Bay Park or our beaches and on November 18, the paid parking proposal was not included as part of the council resolution being sent to the mayor’s office for consideration in preparing the FY 2027 budget.

At that time, the only councilmember who spoke at any length about the issue was Campillo and he made it clear he would not support charging residents or non-residents to park at Mission Bay Park or our beaches.

Tessa Balc at the Times of San Diego dropped a stunning article on Sunday the 8th of March, by declaring there soon could be a Walmart at the former RiteAid property in Ocean Beach.

The new owner of the property is seriously considering putting in a Walmart Depot — but it wouldn’t be a “walk-in” store to buy anything but a location for delivery drivers to pick up wares and products to distribute nearby.

An application to install one was submitted to the City of San Diego recently and, as Balc reported:

“describes Walmart Depots as non-branded facilities, stocked with high-demand delivery items. Based on the description, it would not be open to the public, instead serving only authorized delivery “drivers/shoppers.” [Rag emphasis.]

Let’s back-up by returning to Balc’s article.

She reports that Murfey Construction Company is a developer who bought the RiteAid property in January, whom she also describes as “a well-known developer in the beach neighborhoods ….” (See below.) Balc in addition stated the company “is also considering a housing development.”

Balc also maintains the City staff is on board with this idea, having already reviewed the idea and reported back to Murfey that it did not run afoul of any development restrictions.

By Rene Kaprielian / Op-Ed SD Union-Tribune / March 6, 2026 

Once again, the city of San Diego faces financial upheaval as it attempts to backfill a huge budget deficit caused by historically poor management and misguided priorities.

Our mayor and City Council remain focused on two predictable but ultimately futile strategies: raising fees and taxes and/or cutting services, including hours at libraries and park and recreation centers.

Regrettably, our elected representatives rarely question the financial giveaways to large entities and industries that contribute to the imbalance.  Whether it’s long-term franchise agreements with SDG&E or bad real estate deals, these commitments translate to higher rates and taxes for residents and less money for needed existing infrastructure improvements.

San Diego State University is a major recipient of this misplaced generosity. The city has given SDSU carte blanche in its expansion in the College Area and is silent on the lack of progress in developing the former Qualcomm Stadium site. As a state university, SDSU is not required to adhere to local land use laws on land it owns. When the city deeds land to SDSU it can no longer collect property tax, development impact fees, or control the size and scope of the project, while saddling taxpayers with substantial infrastructure costs. These subsidies include fire protection and major improvements to intersections and streets.

By Alana Coons / SOHO March-April 2026

At the City of San Diego Historical Resources Board meeting on February 26, 2026, the Newman Building project in North Park was on the consent agenda. In thanking the applicant, board member Rammy Cortez repeated a familiar refrain—that historic resources require applicants to “jump through hoops,” and that preservation reform in Package B of the preservation and progress Initiative would streamline projects like this one.

However, as this case demonstrates, the record does not support that narrative.

When Newman Building developer Nate Cadieux responded during this public meeting, he made something very clear: The historic review process was not the problem. In Cadieux’s words, the historic component to obtain a building permit was “streamlined, not scary, not complicated.” He described working with the HRB Design Assistance Subcommittee as collaborative and constructive. He credited Heritage Architecture, and preservation advocates, noting Bruce Coons of SOHO, for providing helpful, clear guidance.