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
Does mayor's big money game verge on a crime?
It appears everyone here, myself included, agrees with your saying this "measure has qualified for the ballot and it should appear before the voters for their decision in a timely manner." It's just that the rest of us aren't convinced of any reason why deciding in November of 2018, as we will *every other qualified initiative*, is not "expeditious" per the language of [Measure L][1]. (A measure which, it should be noted, [no argument against][2] was filed.) So yes, we *do* support the "Initiative in California," because it put Measure L on the ballot and thus brought order to the chaos of allowing anyone with deep pockets to continually inconvenience the electorate and have taxpayers foot the bill for elections every half year for whatever crazy idea or scheme they want. And at 600 pages, SuckerCity is literally a textbook of a scheme. [1]: http://www.sdvote.com/content/dam/rov/en/proptext… [2]: http://votersedge.org/ca/en/ballot/election/area/…— June 12, 2017 5:59 p.m.
Does mayor's big money game verge on a crime?
Monaghan, let's be clear: Measure L was passed by **66% of voters** ([305,638 people][1]) in a presidential general election, specifically to stop wasteful special interest special elections. But just seven months later, you want a tranche of signatures on a petition, [gathered by paid collectors under false pretenses and in total ignorance of what the initiative's 600 pages really contain][2], to break this new law in order to hold yet another wasteful special interest special election. And just because you say so. Have *you* even read the damn thing? (With attachments, it's [3,000 pages][2].) Frankly, your glib and snarling dismissal of a popular vote, the rule of law, and basic civility for your own opinion on this topic, both now and [before][3], is deeply disturbing. [1]: http://www.sdvote.com/content/rov/electioninfo/tr… [2]: http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sports/charge… [3]: https://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2017/jun/02/t…— June 12, 2017 12:01 p.m.
Does mayor's big money game verge on a crime?
Wow. SuckerCity really has suckered people, when they think retaliation and extortion deserve to be graduated from gangland to government. Look at the projects that Kev-boy unfunded: they directly injure the most vulnerable and already least served among us. The thuggish thinking that "hardball" by elected officials which targets innocent citizens is acceptable behavior, is unacceptable under any circumstances—most of all in the service of a scheme as laughable and obvious as this one.— June 12, 2017 10 a.m.
Two more downtown high-rises — 800 Broadway and 6th & A
I don't believe I did. Including token amounts of affordable housing for gimme variances to skirt other quality-of-life zoning requirements is bad enough. But as these numbers show, developers aren't even "providing 10-20 percent of inclusionary affordable units." These two projects have just 67 out of 773 affordable—only 8.7%. So again, when these projects replace "older housing that" *could have* "become available," it's fatuous for apologists to claim "every little bit helps." And whether the new units are condos that will be individually leased by absentee landlords (if they don't just keep them empty—see the links in my original comment) or apartments, the point is that the market will ensure that rents are exorbitant to cover for the overhead of development and provide an appreciable profit margin. Again, unless we look at **all** the market forces in action and actively address their effects, we will never create adequate affordable housing.— June 10, 2017 11:55 a.m.
Two more downtown high-rises — 800 Broadway and 6th & A
There are several inter-related problems with this analysis. First, none of this new construction is "moderately priced housing." Every one of these high rises is advertised with the words *exclusive* and *luxury* for a reason. And no wonder: construction costs go up in direct proportion to height. Second is that banks are not interested in lending to build "moderately priced housing." They're only interested in maximized return; and the margins for anything that meets the needs of the 99% isn't enough for them. Unless there is a return to serious and sustained government-led financing for affordable housing, the market absolutely will not solve the problem. Third, natural demand for housing is being warped by [international investors looking for safe places to park their money][1]. If there isn't some kind of reverse occupancy tax or other serious financial mechanism to protect and encourage housing for shelter rather than investment, absentee owners will continue to consume [close to half of all new housing built][2]. And finally, this means changing community plans to allow for density means that, unless an area is being rezoned from industrial to mixed residential, that affordable existing housing will be destroyed and replaced with *exclusive*, *luxury* developments. Targeting areas already heavily infilled, like North Park and Hillcrest, precisely because they're established and popular will result in lower net project units and only make the crisis worse. [1]: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/05/hedge… [2]: http://48hills.org/2014/09/29/investigation-new-c…— June 9, 2017 2:30 p.m.
SoccerCity's open special influence money frenzy
First to the point of the article: it's precisely because of flimflam plans like SuckerCity that San Diego voters last fall overwhelmingly passed [Measure L][1], "requiring citizens' initiative and referendum measures be placed on a November general election ballots, unless the council decides to submit them to voters earlier." That it didn't specifically call out holding off-year November special elections rather than "June primary elections" should not be considered a gimme by the city council, as it was clear the measure was intended to stop frivolous, costly, and presumptive special elections in general. And as to monaghan's initial comment: there are two fatal flaws with taking a jaded attitude to the corruption around us. Not only is it a logical fallacy to say that because things have always been corrupt they should remain corrupt. But also being blasé about corruption doesn't make one sophisticated and above it all; instead, it makes one complicit and practically no different from the perpetrators—with the exception that they at least are getting some lucre out of it, while all the apologist gets is a bad reputation. Finally, if this proposal is so good and so worthwhile, why can't it stand up to scrutiny for long as November 2018? Unless, as *The Reader* has repeatedly pointed out, so many unsubstantiated claims and false urgency have been attached to this proposal that its proponents know that the only way they **can** get it passed is to do an end-run around the turnout of a general election. [1]: https://gallery.mailchimp.com/8453033eadb71df419f…— June 3, 2017 4:14 p.m.
Safe healthcare investment turned out to be shaky student debt
I have never understood the logic of tougher sentences for theft versus fraud. Fraud invariably involves larger sums of money, many more victims, and does greater injury to people's feelings of trust and security. Which would one rather lose: your wallet or your retirement? And while not excusing either, it's fair to say in general the motive for theft is need but that for fraud is greed. But alas, society's sense of justice is not piqued by this elephant in the court room, and we continue to judge people as less deserving of punishment so long as they "look respectable" and flash Pepsodent smiles while bilking little old ladies—or taking down the entire economy.— June 3, 2017 1 p.m.
Prebys's close associates won't surrender to his furious "life partner"
Good to know that, even in the late ravages of Alzheimer's disease, Prebys knew enough to never marry Turner. Given her current behavior, I'd gather it wasn't for her lack of trying. But facts are stubborn things, and none of the euphemisms she gives herself will ever supersede the legal status of "sole heir." At this point, the only legacy she's purchasing with Prebys' money is her own disgrace.— June 1, 2017 noon
Presidio Hills golf course: storied past, unsure future
Julie: this really draws attention back to your [story on the pepper trees][1] from August 2015. The city ignored community input and did nothing to preserve these wonderful old growth trees—and as your photos show, instead left a line of ugly stumps in a parody of *The Lorax*. It was never credible that **all 18** of the trees had root rot: this was about six parking spaces and going to extremes to protect the new sidewalk. I refuse to believe that the city couldn't have made the street improvements work without cutting down almost every one. Let's hope the efforts for preservation and improvement mentioned in this article meet with happier results. [1]: https://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2015/aug/15/s…— May 31, 2017 1:31 p.m.
Opponents to Jessop Property subdivision win
Shame it took going to the appellate level, but glad that community consensus finally prevailed over pro-developer pressure.— May 25, 2017 9:29 a.m.