Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
Tiny rooms in Little Italy
***Thank you*** for letting us know when the other shoe would drop on this. As [I pointed out][1] when this project was first proposed, developers need to stop pretending that eliminating parking and allowing cell-block-sized units will increase affordability. Instead of passing on the savings in construction costs and lower impact fees, they're using the housing crisis to extract ever more money and force us all in a race to the bottom. Again, we cannot trust the market to fix a problem that its manipulators created and continue to benefit from. We need to quit buying into the lie that we have to sacrifice quality of life for housing at any price and start demanding that projects requesting exemptions have 30% and more affordable units rather than a token one or two. The only reason developers say this and other community benefit requirements won't "pencil out" for them is because they're used to triple-digit profit margins. Don't believe it. [1]: https://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2016/sep/02/s…— November 28, 2018 11 a.m.
San Diego sole-source overrun soars by $7 million
Betting Kev-boy boots Elser for bearing (and baring) bad news in 3...2...— November 27, 2018 12:45 p.m.
The problem with San Diego's historic neighborhoods
Yet you really, really care about *your* neighbors, whose "[$7000 per week house here can generate $360,000 a year for an investor. No ordinary family can compete with that investor for home ownership.][1]" Until you admit what they do with their property affects you and yours—and thus others in their neighborhoods—you really, really need to step away from the keyboard. [1]: https://www.sandiegoreader.com/users/photos/2018/…— November 20, 2018 11 p.m.
The problem with San Diego's historic neighborhoods
We get that you're trying to position yourself as the champion in all this, but the numbers don't back you up. Bumping the approving votes up against all the properties that *could have but did not* respond is intentionally deceptive. That's like trying to say all the eligible voters in an election who didn't vote *really* support you, so we should count them against the actual results. But your argument does show even more how yours is an extreme minority opinion: only 32 owners out of 395, just 8%, returned ballots expressing opposition for a historic district. Face it: this district was approved by 73% of everyone who voted. The fact is, there were four separate outreaches by the city to ALL the property owners. At the end of the day, those who cared either way acted—and those who didn't, didn't bother.— November 20, 2018 4 p.m.
The problem with San Diego's historic neighborhoods
I was with you up until your last sentence. The historic district this article is specifically about, South Park, had been in planning since 1996 and was approved by 73% of the 142 participating property owners. Just three people were sourced for this article, all opposed, and only one lives there. Which tells me the “one thing that's for sure is that” it's the *opponents* who are a “small but aggressive group” that “needs to be checked.”— November 19, 2018 11:59 a.m.
The problem with San Diego's historic neighborhoods
So much for consistent thinking, nostalgic. When it comes to [AirBnBs][1] and [code enforcement][2], you're all about having the government step in to tell others “what to do with YOUR private property." But you don’t accept historic criteria as objectively valid or that community character affects your property values? And the best you can up with to defend your hypocrisy is threats of phantom taxes? Nice try, but once you admit that there are legitimate brakes on the unfettered use of YOUR property, you need to come up with a more compelling reason why preservation isn’t one of them other than that you simply don’t like it. [1]: https://www.sandiegoreader.com/users/photos/2018/… [2]: https://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2018/jun/08/s…— November 19, 2018 10:59 a.m.
The problem with San Diego's historic neighborhoods
I’m not sure what’s going on with the editor(s) at the *Reader* lately, but this "Cover Story" wouldn’t pass a class of Journalism 101. The author was allowed to see fit to do an article on historic districts without quoting any actual historians, preservationists, or subject matter experts, instead using generic text from websites to prop up a straw man for his sources to tilt at. And boy, what sources: a developer who claims there are no engineers on the HRB ([there are][1]); a criminal defense lawyer admittedly “confounded” by the issues rather than a land use attorney; and a serial public meeting attendee with a record of naysaying anything that wouldn’t pass muster with Ayn Rand. I lost count of how many times these people were allowed to say that they heard something by someone somewhere that was left unchallenged or unverified. Which matters, because the one thing these sources clearly do have in common is a personal motive to oppose these districts. Let’s hope we’re not going to see more of these “SD on the QT” pieces trotted out as features in the future? [1]: https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/dsdh…— November 15, 2018 1 p.m.
The case for civility
Having trouble understanding why this is a City Lights feature. Besides being an opinion piece masquerading as news, it's flat out false. Making civility an end in itself, rather than a means, privileges the powerful, who are the ones who get to decide whether it's too soon or rude to investigate wrong, declare injustice, or demand change. Civility bulwarks the status quo; and a perpetrator has the luxury of politesse precisely because he is not the victim. As has been noted elsewhere, no one in history ever gained a right by asking for it. It's the unafflicted and unoppressed whom it benefits to pretend otherwise.— November 14, 2018 11:48 a.m.
Mayor Dedina welcomes Marines to I.B.
Thanks for the fact check, which shows this is an extraordinary measure which has only been taken temporarily and in response to some immediate and real need—not as an open-ended political stunt. And I think we agree that the "need" here is so nebulous and remote to make it even more likely to lead to a slippery slope of reasons for deploying in the future.— November 12, 2018 3:49 p.m.
Democrat Peters goes after McMillin
About time someone in office got serious about this. Out of all the buildings here, this chapel and the HQ building are the only ones set aside for use as originally intended in [the NTC Master Plan][1]—and McMillin can't do even one decent thing in appreciation for getting this public land free by honoring this commitment. All the other ways they have screwed us over and reneged on promises with Liberty Station may not be legally enforceable, but this sure as hell is. And I hope it opens up the whole history of McMillin's dirty dealings to further scrutiny. [1]: https://core.tdar.org/document/312203/naval-train…— November 12, 2018 2:05 p.m.