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
City still hopes to prevent mayor from taking stand in deadly crosswalk lawsuit
"Mayor Faulconer had no involvement in the handling of the complaint, nor am I aware of any evidence to suggest otherwise." Boy, that could be the motto of Kev-boy's mayoralty: *I have no involvement in the holding of this office, nor is anyone aware of any evidence to suggest otherwise*.— March 29, 2017 11:01 a.m.
Mission Valley privatization's blazingly fast cash burn
Actually, *why* should it be put on the ballot? *Why* should the people be forced by private speculators to put up any of our public property for sale to benefit any of their schemes? Developers are literally trying to give us the bum's rush out of a place we own, hoping it all happens so fast we don't notice they have no right until it's too late.— March 29, 2017 10:55 a.m.
SDSU area mini-dorm group sues city of San Diego again
"Claiming the city's mini-dorm ordinance unfairly targets minority groups, low-income students, and others in need of affordable housing." It's fascinating the way that developers are trying to co-opt the language of civil rights to cloak their naked greed. Community character, historic preservation, and livable neighborhoods are marched to the guillotine in the name of density, and any homeowner who disagrees with letting them have their way is labeled a heartless greedy racist. You could almost believe the developers, if they themselves didn't all live in large single-family parcel areas that they jealously and hypocritically protect at all costs from densification.— March 29, 2017 10:40 a.m.
Escondido neighbors call it sprawl
Developer shills— March 25, 2017 9:19 a.m.
Hedge-fund figures kick in $1.4 million for stadium land grab
I've said it before and I'll say it again: the problem with San Diego politicians isn't that they're whores—it's that they're such cheap whores. This is "a 165-acre city-owned parcel." And the story is that the dirty money to take it away from the public is currently $1.4M. The closest empty parcel is [an 0.38 acre lot on El Cajon Blvd going for $1.6M][1]. If you think for even a minute that developers can't or won't sink tens or hundreds of millions into stealing this **multi-billion dollar legacy** from the public, then I have some Salton Sea timeshares that should interest you. P.S. to The Reader editors: nothing is "city-owned"—it's owned by the people. The city is simply the trustee in more or less dereliction of duty. [1]: https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/San-Diego-C…— March 24, 2017 10:01 p.m.
Planned Parenthood march against Obamacare repeal
Good point, but don't waste it on tomorrow's example: http://sandiegofreepress.org/2017/03/san-ysidro-b… I'm not that technically savvy, but it seems there should be a way to tie the Reader's events into Facebook, or at least subscribe to certain kinds?— March 24, 2017 9:20 p.m.
It was a quiet cul-de-sac in Sorrento Valley...
And just as usual, thinkered is nursing at a developer teat and jnojr thinks you have no rights to enjoy your property unless you can endlessly extend your ownership of it; and each of them either ignores the point of the story completely in order to grind his respective ax or has a serious reading comprehension problem. If you read the lede, the issue isn't that there's not enough land—though it's problematic how in a high-risk fire area there's only one access road for 100 (and soon 108) homes. It's that the Coastal Commission believes there *never should have been this much development* in the first place: "According to the report, which recommends that about 25 percent can be developed [which would be 1.1 acre and 4-5 houses total] and the rest of the site turned into open space to protect fairy shrimp — which inhabit vernal pools — and other sensitive habitat." Short of tearing down 95 of the houses and beginning remediation measures, I don't see how letting developers continue to profit from destroying the environment and allowing even more harmful expansion into public open space helps this situation.— March 23, 2017 noon
It was a quiet cul-de-sac in Sorrento Valley...
Sigh. Another day, another developer making an end-run around the community.— March 22, 2017 11:54 a.m.
Residential puts squeeze on Linda Vista retail/industrial
Once again, pro-developer shills like thinkered swoop in with the insult-as-argument that homeowners oppose density simply out of selfishness, of wanting to keep their property values high. Yet, as this article points out, “Jerome’s wants the payment **as if it were zoned for a large residential project**, but Sandag is basing their offer on **what the current zoning is**.” If NIMBYs were motivated by greed, then they would be siding with developers in wanting to up-zone their properties! But since they're operating against their own financial interest, thinkered should admit that "community members" mean it when they say they're motivated by uncynical concerns like neighborhood character—or at least not just for the money like he is.— March 14, 2017 2:59 p.m.
Longtime trailer park in Bay Park to close
This is absolute madness. Not only is affordable housing being eliminated, it's being destroyed to make way for "investment properties." We are witnessing the wholesale assault on individual ownership of property by REITs, cutting off the one sure avenue to equity available to private persons. We are rapidly becoming a society which creates all its wealth through debt, such as rents, interest, and fees. This reliance on a literally empty means of production is a direct threat to free markets and free societies. But what if anything will we do about it?— March 13, 2017 10:33 a.m.