Category: Economy

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.

By Tanja Kropf / Clairemont Explore / March 4, 2026

Questions about trust in City Hall, including whether residents believe their leaders are listening, dominated a March 2 Linda Vista town hall with San Diego City Council Member Raul Campillo, who represents District 7.

Campillo recently held a series of town halls in his district, in the neighborhoods of Linda Vista, Serra Mesa, Navajo, and Tierrasanta.

From the failed one-cent sales tax measure to trash fees, parking fees, bonus ADUs, fire safety laws, and e-bikes, the evening revealed a consistent theme. Residents are skeptical of San Diego’s government, a concern Campillo says he doesn’t take lightly.

Hot Button Items That Lead San Diegans to Distrust City Hall

Voters Rejected Sales Tax Increase

Campillo began the evening by reflecting on the failed one-cent sales tax ballot measure, which he had supported.

“As many of you know, in 2024, I was pushing hard for the one-cent sales tax on the ballot,” started Campillo. That measure failed.

“What that told me was San Diego voters are not ready to trust the city with more money, and so we need to listen accordingly,” he said. Campillo said that view was not widely shared by his fellow council members or by Mayor Todd Gloria.

By Lisa Mortensen

Well, the city has concocted another tax proposal to inflict pain on San Diegans and divert attention from the real issue of ballooning staff and salaries that has created an ever-increasing deficit.  The city asks for your input on surveys of community projects that you may want to have implemented, but this is a diversion tactic to take your eyes off of the true culprits; our exploding deficit that is the making of our elected officials at city hall.

These ‘surveys’ are disingenuous and will lead us to be forced to create community foundations to pay for projects on our wish lists; all the while robbing the city’s taxpayer-funded accounts.  This indirectly is a double payment for what we have already paid for in our property taxes and sales taxes. 

by Debbie L. Sklar / Times of San Diego / Feb. 20, 2026

In 1916, the sands of Mission Beach were dotted with striped canvas tents and cabana-style shelters, forming a temporary seaside neighborhood known as Tent City. Visitors and a handful of longer-term residents pitched their lives on the shoreline, enjoying the Pacific breezes, the surf, and a rare chance to live directly on the sand.

Tent City was located in:

• Old Mission Beach, generally west of present-day Mission Boulevard.
• Near Redondo Court, site of the former bathhouse.
• Beachfront parcels that later became permanent residential lots.

Promoted as an affordable coastal retreat, Tent City offered rental sites and small lots for sale, appealing to families and vacationers who wanted more than a day trip to the beach. The settlement reflected a broader early-20th-century trend in Southern California: transforming open beachfront into planned, accessible recreational communities.

By Erwin Chemerinsky / Los Angeles Times Op-Ed / Feb. 20, 2026

The Supreme Court’s decision invalidating President Trump’s tariffs sends a clear and crucial message: The justices will not be a simple rubber stamp approving presidential actions. In the first year of Trump’s new term, 24 challenges to presidential actions came to the court, almost all on its emergency docket. In 22, the justices ruled in favor of the president. But Friday’s 6-3 decision striking down his tariffs is a huge victory for separation of powers and the rule of law.

The importance of tariffs to Trump, and their consequences for the world, cannot be overstated. The president said that their invalidation “would be a total disaster for the country” and “would literally destroy the United States of America.” In its petition to the Supreme Court, Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer said “the tariffs are promoting peace and unprecedented economic prosperity” and “pulling America back from the precipice of disaster, restoring respect and standing in the world.”

Trump has treated tariffs as something he can impose or rescind at will. But not anymore.