we like the blight
local businesses in point loma near shelter island are opposed to a townhome project coming to their area, according to a recent union trib story. the $50 million dollar project, consisting of 47 luxury townhomes across from point loma seafoods (love the food, hate the politics - hosting rudy giuliani? come on...). some of the NIMBY quotes included "it just doesn't belong here" and "this is a working industrial area".
can one of these NIMBY folks explain why you can't mix residential with industrial? also, the "industrial area" quote came from someone blocks away from the actual site - it's not like they're being displaced. when i've driven through the area, it does seem kind of dumpy (i'll try to get over there for a pic). it's definitely caught in a time warp - like much of shelter island, it feels stuck in the 70's. and that's exactly when the boatyard in this area peaked, according to a local in the article.
another redevelopment plan that irks the townies is the proposed Kettenberg Landing, part of the America's Cup Harbor Redevelopment project by the port of san diego (shown above). this would be a continuous boardwalk along the harbor in the area. but given the big conservative turnout for rudy at point loma seafoods, i can see why the locals are opposed to any kind of change.
conservative opposition to change, largely by older folks, is mirrored here in kensington. the son of the elderly owners of kensington video railed against kensington terrace, a new mixed-use project down the street from them. what is it about human nature that makes us fearful of change as we age?
Labels: "point loma" axiom "kettenberg landing" "shelter island" townhomes
posted by Paul Jamason @ 9/19/2007 11:24:00 PM
4 comments
links to this post
4 Comments:
I think you are right about one thing: the area is sort of dated. But it is simply wrong of you to fall into name-calling (the NIMBY term is way overused) and wrong to assume that the opposition is to change alone, or to assume that only "older folks" are opposed. I don't know how old you are, but people of all age groups, from their 20s to their 80s, including renters/business owners/home ownners, are concerned at the densification push at the City Planning level, and are particularly concerned about the lack of power/information-sharing between the city and the communities. The city has done a masterful job of creating their soldiers at the community level by nurturing the developer-friendly membership in Planning Groups and increasing Planning Group power to decide what happens in an area. That aside, some long-term residents do have a broader, historical view of just what destruction the City Planning department can wreak when unchecked and when faced with a lack of tax revenue, largely due to previous corruption and mismanagement. I bought my property in the early 1980s and worked hard with many neighbors to undo the damage that City Planning had caused by upzoning during the 1970s. You may not think that older residential/mixed-use neighborhoods are smart-looking, cool, or whatever, but taking an area that has a limit to the population it can handle, and still remain peaceful and functional, and allowing a developer to build unchecked is not the answer. Currently the "city of villages" concept, the Charter Review, and the Planning Group updates are all focused on one thing: densification. My quiet, single-family-zoned neighborhood, which we fought so hard to downzone to one house per 5000-sq-ft lot in the 1980s, is now being proposed for rezoning, once again, to two per lot. It makes a huge difference to do that: old homes are lost (torn down to develop an apartment building), the neighborhood has twice as many cars/people/dogs, etc. You may be among those who can't find a place to buy that you can afford: I'm sorry for that, but cramming more housing units into the city is not the answer, and it won't cause market prices to drop to an affordable level. Think of it this way: children, dogs, cats, and all kinds of things are fun to have, but you don't just keep acquiring them beyond your means to accommodate them. The San Diego city government needs to stop relying on the developer community to prop up its tax-starved general fund. We need managed growth policies and waste-free planning, and more liberal, Democratic willingness to admit that taxes are what allow a city to survive. And the next time you hear a candidate downgrade the idea of taxes for the General Fund, or promote "privatization," speak up and fight the election of that candidate.
Whatever you think is the solution, please stop oversimplifying and stop name-calling. People who have seen what bad planning can do are your best friends.
Did a little checking, and see that you do own a house, and that you might like to sell your house... tell me: do you think it would help your neighborhood and your potential buyer if you had a 47-unit building next door to your house? Do you think it would alter the environment of the block, or change the neighborhood's traffic patterns? Maybe you want to fight for upzoning your neighborhood?
You should suggest increasing the zoning for the Adams Avenue area at the next Planing Group meeting. Just a thought.
actually, as i mentioned in my post, we do have a new condo project coming in on adams ave and i'm looking forward to its addition to the neighborhood. i don't mind the additional traffic, people, etc. it will bring. but no, i wouldn't want a high-density project next door.
i've seen what the huffman 6-packs have done to the residential streets of the neighborhoods around here and it's a shame. i do support increased density on and around urban thoroughfares. i haven't been to point loma seafoods in a while but it seems like a mixed-use area already, one that would be prime for such a development. nowhere in my post did i recommend rezoning an entire residential area however.
now that most of the buildable land has been filled, where are the new people supposed to go? i'm sorry, but "no more new people" is not a realistic option. and you can't fit them all downtown. also, this is a luxury project, not affordable housing, so it may in fact increase the property values of the surrounding property. if you don't like density, moving is always an option.
finally, i've long been opposed to many developers, and the building industry association, for their ownership of politicians and the sprawl they've created. i saw the don bauder article in the reader about this issue too. nevertheless, i still support increasing density in commercial/industrial areas, even if that means supporting the developers who build them. thanks for your comments.
No, homeowners fleeing and abandoning their neighborhoods is not the option if they don't want the densification that a fund-starved city Land Use department periodically tries to impose on existing communities: staying and presenting reasoned opposition is the option.
Increasing/decreasing surrounding property values is not the concerning issue: quality of life and the nature of existing communities are the concerns. It wouldn't matter if a plan to build a multiunit project an area was intended to house Section 8 recipients or to house people with huge amounts of disposable income. Problems of densification where high density is not supportable or well-planned occur no matter the income level: the problems just have different forms.
And if acceptance of densification depends on "luxury building," with some hoped-for benefit of increasing property values, contemplate the ease with which the target demographic can shift overnight, depending on the real market forces (Ten Fifty B).
Yes, a city can have managed growth and discuss, before green-lighting new high-density buildings, what size community is supportable, given the infrastructure. Anyway, as far as our city government is concerned, the densification impetus is to increase tax revenue and support the building industry, not to solve the problem of where the "new people are supposed to go." This drive extends also to ignoring code compliance for commercial entities (Our Lady of Peace, in the news this past summer and today, for violations of size/enrollment) for years, until residents fight back.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home