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
La Mesa council votes for...cooperation?
Questions don't get much more simple: "Do you support changing the policy from only one council member needed to docket an item to two required?" Which begs, what question did Colin Parent think he was answering? He had time to reply by email twice, and whiffed it both times. Has he been working as an operative for developers (allegedly) for so long that, if he doesn't have a jargony euphemism to cover a hidden objective, his brain spits up a 404 error?— October 18, 2016 1:32 p.m.
Chargers, mayor, U-T collude on con job
What? Where did you get that idea? TOT'es in other cities go to their general funds: it's San Diego that is unique in having a big chunk get siphoned off by private businesses, that is, the hoteliers. That's why there've been two lawsuits about this issue, http://sandiegofreepress.org/2014/09/who-runs-san… Unless you're intentionally making an "is/ought" deception, there's no reason why TOT'es *should ever* go to an industry slush fund rather than back to the city that is purpose for the travel.— October 4, 2016 10:40 a.m.
Y’all are rude
Sad but true. Coming from the plains of the Midwest, I also marvel at the door-held-open, everyone comes streaming phenomenon. I didn't understand at first why women of a certain age were so effusive about thanking me for being a gentleman when opening a door, rather than just thanking me. Mostly, I'm shocked that *men* do it. Where I'm from, a man would only accept another man holding a door open for him ("Oh, no: after *you*") if he was carrying something heavy. Does this mean we should take comfort that gender roles hath withered on the vine beside courtesy?— September 28, 2016 10:09 a.m.
Clairemont’s home day-care shuffle
Ideally, most young children would benefit from having a family member instead of "a stranger" take care of them during the work day--which as the term indicates is what 'daycare' actually is, not 'raising' them with all that involves. (Or do you want to claim that parents are slobs for giving up on parenting from ages 6-18 because they slack off by sending their kids to school to be 'raised' by teachers?) But rather than make that mild positive claim, instead you chose to demonize the one-third of all parents* who can't or don't count on a family member to watch their children while at work. Or wait, no. Maybe I missed your point Thank you for endorsing universal work leave with guaranteed income for at least one parent or family member for the first five years of every child's life. I agree that is the best solution! *https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p70-135.pdf— September 14, 2016 4 p.m.
Clairemont’s home day-care shuffle
Three issues: why do we have to wait for something bad to happen before taking action? What level of injury or neglect is acceptable before deciding corrective action should be taken? Second, this deliberate gaming of the system allows those who are unqualified to unfairly compete against those daycare providers who follow the rules and do their best to ensure safety and accountability. Placing your child with someone who isn't legitimate not only increases the risk to them but also means parents have little or no recourse against the operators, as this article reveals a typically tangled legal responsibility. Finally, legitimate daycare providers aren't just babysitting, they're preparing children for preschool and kindergarten during the most critically formative years of their lives. Unlicensed providers are already cutting the other corners to make a buck; are you willing to risk your child's future that they aren't cutting this corner as well?— September 14, 2016 noon
Demolition of historic Little Italy house likely
I think that's exactly where we're headed, "back to the future" with SROs. Again, the developer mantra is that density is good, more density the better. Whatever scheme allows them to maximize profit at the expense of livability they will endorse. Watch, it will first happen with housing the homeless.— September 12, 2016 9:44 a.m.
Donna and Cory go after Jan
Looks like Jackass Jan is trying to break the record for most money cost to taxpayers for frivolous or willful incompetence. His use of the office of city attorney to conduct personal squabbles proves once again that "He who represents himself has a fool for a client."— September 8, 2016 10:42 a.m.
30-foot coastal height limit slips a peg in Point Loma
Every revolution eats its own. Faulconer and other local politicos have twisted permitting and code interpretation to reward developers for their fat campaign contributions. Up until now, the victims have mostly been the poors and people living in less tony ZIP Codes. But now it's Point Loma and La Jolla residents that are getting screwed, and there's no way to stop when or where the next folly will foul any neighborhood. Used to be if you had a problem and money, you could compel code enforcement. Being rich or better off is no longer any protection when there's no code left to enforce. Remember this the next time someone tells you it's too difficult to build anything in San Diego because there are "too many regulations."— September 7, 2016 9:56 a.m.
Demolition of historic Little Italy house likely
And here you see why developers are the #1 source of private funds for "density" and "multi-modal" advocacy groups: When projects can eliminate parking, one of the largest hard costs in construction, the difference can be pocketed as pure profit. Surely no one believes that any of the 34 units besides the two token affordable ones will be priced at less than market rate, or that otherwise the developer will pass the savings on to the tenants/buyers? This leads to an arms race, with each developer whining in turn that they "can't compete" with having to provide parking, the pretexts for exemptions becoming ever more flimsy, and the loss of quality of life inflicted on the existing neighborhoods. I predict the next social engineering strategy will be for developers to fund "water conservation" and "mental health" advocacy groups, who will argue in favor of projects built with dormitory-style central bathroom and shower facilities in lieu of in-unit plumbing. They will produce studies that show this will save the environment as it combats alienation and depression by mandating personal interaction. And the prices for rent or mortgage on these units will remain just as untouched.— September 5, 2016 2 p.m.
Binational railroad continues up steep grade
No honor among thieves. Sounds like they all deserve each other.— August 31, 2016 10:44 a.m.