One Paseo Vote

[njtosd]

Well – it looks like One Paseo is going to be decided by a referendum (unless the City Council rescinds their approval). An enormous disappointment for Kilroy but I can’t help but be happy. http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/apr/24/one-paseo-carmel-valley-referendum-signatures/2/?#article-copy

Interesting that a poll among voters who are familiar with the project showed opposition to One Paseo 2:1.

[FlyerInHi]

So very disappointed.
My predictions usually turn out correct but I may lose this one.
I hope business interests ban together and open their checkbook to win this referendum.

[njtosd]

I think you are seeing this project from the perspective of a single older man, which is not really representative. And I don’t know who the business interests are that you are speaking of – office space vacancy rates were at about 18% at the end of last year for San Diego, so tenants have a lot of places to go. Plus I’m sure there are a lot of landlords who don’t want to see another 1.5 million SF built.

One Paseo will, hopefully, be resubmitted as a project that comports with the current zoning guidelines. No one can object to that –

[FlyerInHi]

More apartments and condos would work wonders for housing affordability in the region and for hiring of job applicants to relocate to San Diego. More density will mean more opportunities for businesses to increase sales in the region.

We want a growing San Diego, not a stagnant, expensive San Diego.

[an]

[quote=njtosd]I think you are seeing this project from the perspective of a single older man, which is not really representative.[/quote]How about millennial with kids?

[FlyerInHi]

Also broadening the tax base would also do wonders for local government budgets. If public employees want raises, they can’t just do so only on the backs of existing residents.

[Coronita]

I thought this was kinda funny that Kilroy managed to come up with 30,000 petition withdraw requests, but only 3200 of them turned out to be valid….

They submitted 61,235 signatures on March 25, far above the 33,224 required valid signatures — 5 percent of the city’s registered voters. Many submitted signatures, however, are always disqualified during the verification process for various reasons, such as the signer not being registered to vote in San Diego.

In addition, an aggressive campaign by Kilroy prompted about 30,000 people to request their names be removed from referendum petitions. Protect San Diego’s Neighborhoods said Friday that nearly 90 percent of those turned out to be invalid, primarily because many of the people submitting them didn’t actually sign referendum petitions.

I voted against it not because I’m against development completely, but I think this should be decided by the voters rather than just a city council, because obviously enough people object to it. This is how it should have been done anyway. Neighborhood decides and has an input, not some elitist developer and a few chosen city council people. I wouldn’t mind a scaled down version of One Paseo. And Kilroy has plenty of office space just vacant all along El Camino Real in Carmel Valley that has been unfilled for years.

[Coronita]

[quote=FlyerInHi]More apartments and condos would work wonders for housing affordability in the region and for hiring of job applicants to relocate to San Diego. More density will mean more opportunities for businesses to increase sales in the region.

We want a growing San Diego, not a stagnant, expensive San Diego.[/quote]

I think the point is many people don’t want such a large footprint there 🙂

And no, more apartments will not make housing affordable in this area. they have put many new apartment complexes in Carmel Valley, and I wouldn’t call the housing affordable at all. $2400/month for a 2 bedroom. Almost $3k/month for 3.

Not to mention that the bigger density of non-owner occupied, the less likely people that live there will ever donate money to the public schools extended studies programs. Just follow the money trail for the DMUSD extended studies programs, in which you have a small percentage of the families contributing to an optional program for which a big percentage of others don’t contribute jack and enjoy all the benefits of it.

This is a cash grab by kilroy. That’s why developers usually do. They dump a bunch of rental properties into a community, and then when the schools are overburdened, they don’t donate 1 penny to the public schools in that community. I might change my mind if Kilroy actually stepped up and committed to annual contributions to the DMUSD, San Dieguito school district for middle school, and high school for the next 10 years. But nope…I haven’t seen that mentioned.

[an]

[quote=flu]I voted against it not because I’m against development completely, but I think this should be decided by the voters rather than just a city council, because obviously enough people object to it. This is how it should have been done anyway. Neighborhood decides and has an input, not some elitist developer and a few chosen city council people. I wouldn’t mind a scaled down version of One Paseo. And Kilroy has plenty of office space just vacant all along El Camino Real in Carmel Valley that has been unfilled for years.[/quote]I go back and forth about this. On one hand, I do want to voters to make the final decision. But on the other hand, I think most voters are not aware and informed about what their vote will affect 20-30 years from now. Which is why it’s actually important to have a holistic city plan. You can’t have a self sustaining public transit without density. But you can’t have density unless you change how SD is build. SD is almost built out with nothing more than suburban sprawl. So, public transit won’t have enough ridership to be self sustaining.
I bet most of the people who don’t like One Paseo would love One Paseo to be another strip mall just like the strip mall across the street. There’s nothing wrong with that, if that’s what you want. But then 20 years from now, SD will be exactly like LA. You can’t stop the city from growing. So, when you limit more density, builder will continue to build out instead of up. Then you’d have grid lock in all directions all the time.

[an]

[quote=flu]Not to mention that the bigger density of non-owner occupied, the less likely people that live there will ever donate money to the public schools extended studies programs. Just follow the money trail for the DMUSD extended studies programs, in which you have a small percentage of the families contributing to an optional program for which a big percentage of others don’t contribute jack and enjoy all the benefits of it.

This is a cash grab by kilroy. That’s why developers usually do. They dump a bunch of rental properties into a community, and then when the schools are overburdened, they don’t donate 1 penny to the public schools in that community. I might change my mind if Kilroy actually stepped up and committed to annual contributions to the DMUSD, San Dieguito school district for middle school, and high school for the next 10 years. But nope…I haven’t seen that mentioned.[/quote]Does that mean you’re objecting to them building apartments but you’re ok if they build condos?

[Coronita]

[quote=AN][quote=flu]Not to mention that the bigger density of non-owner occupied, the less likely people that live there will ever donate money to the public schools extended studies programs. Just follow the money trail for the DMUSD extended studies programs, in which you have a small percentage of the families contributing to an optional program for which a big percentage of others don’t contribute jack and enjoy all the benefits of it.

This is a cash grab by kilroy. That’s why developers usually do. They dump a bunch of rental properties into a community, and then when the schools are overburdened, they don’t donate 1 penny to the public schools in that community. I might change my mind if Kilroy actually stepped up and committed to annual contributions to the DMUSD, San Dieguito school district for middle school, and high school for the next 10 years. But nope…I haven’t seen that mentioned.[/quote]Does that mean you’re objecting to them building apartments but you’re ok if they build condos?[/quote]

I would be more open to housing that would be more owner occupied, yes. You have less of this “transitory” nature of people in the community.

My two main objections are
1) Concentration of apartments
and
2) Just the shear size of the thing.

I don’t think the housing they are proposing is owner occupied. I’m not saying it has to be 100% owner occupied either. But, renters don’t typically contribute to public school extended studies funds, at least not based on what we’ve seen. Probably because most people aren’t going to be staying for the long-haul..Or rent is too expensive in this area anyway for them to be able to afford rent + donate. So you really need a mix of both kind of families to make this optional system work in which part of the population pays for the optional programs that the other enjoy for free. Because if that percentage drops such that more people don’t donate and pay into that optional systems, pretty soon the ones with the financial means to pay into the system end up stop contributing, because they figure they can take the same amount of money and spend that same money sending their own kids into classes/enrichment for which their kids benefit 100%.

[Coronita]

[quote=AN][I go back and forth about this. On one hand, I do want to voters to make the final decision. But on the other hand, I think most voters are not aware and informed about what their vote will affect 20-30 years from now. Which is why it’s actually important to have a holistic city plan. You can’t have a self sustaining public transit without density. But you can’t have density unless you change how SD is build. SD is almost built out with nothing more than suburban sprawl. So, public transit won’t have enough ridership to be self sustaining.
I bet most of the people who don’t like One Paseo would love One Paseo to be another strip mall just like the strip mall across the street. There’s nothing wrong with that, if that’s what you want. But then 20 years from now, SD will be exactly like LA. You can’t stop the city from growing. So, when you limit more density, builder will continue to build out instead of up. Then you’d have grid lock in all directions all the time.[/quote]

If developers actually commit to delivering on the parts that improve the schools, public transportation, etc, then I might believe that. But I don’t think, just based on Kilroy’s actions and handling all this, they really give a shit about the neighborhood, for most of the things I pointed out above. I’d say they are just like every other developer that once they get their permits, and start building their enormous commercial projects, who gives a shit about the public schools, public transportation, parks, traffic, etc.

[Coronita]

It would also be nice of some of the members on the city council that voted yes on this without taking into consideration the credible objects get thrown out in the future.

[an]

[quote=flu]It would also be nice of some of the members on the city council that voted yes on this without taking into consideration the credible objects get thrown out in the future.[/quote]
I think everyone voted yes except for the rep that cover Carmel valley.

[an]

Public school, transit, traffic, etc are city responsibility. The developer can and do contribute money for those stuff. The new developments in Mira mesa contribute alot of money to redo the community park in front of MMHS. They also can buy lands to be converted to parks as well. That’s just something you have to negotiates with the developer for money. But they can’t and shouldn’t build school, transits, etc.

[Author]

Posts