Aug. 19, 2012 @ 8:16 p.m.
First of all, I give my appreciation to those parents and residents who spend countless hours doing the work and research into these issues. I have been attending some of the board meetings and have been shocked by the lack of involvement from our board.
As a property owner I am also very interested in the Mello Roos issue. If anyone has more background information (like which areas have it, how long does Mello Roos actually last, etc.), please post links or information. I would like to add any links to my blog:
Speaking of Mello Roos, is it just one of the districts that raised the MR tax or all?
July 9, 2012 @ 11:04 p.m.
In response to Pancho, Crossroads II can speak for itself but it is simplistic to call them obstructionists. In this case, they want to see the Bayfront developed but, like myself, want to see more areas that families can use on the Bayfront. There will be a ton of open space areas and a "passive" park area but only 18 acres (out of 500) for a regular type park. By the way, the plan is financially flawed but the cheerleaders don't like to hear that. Opposition or not, the plan will be approved but there may be no development because of a bad financial plan.
Does Earl Jentz fund Crossroads II? No. The funds that CII uses for issues comes from their membership donations. They rely on volunteer effort. Sometimes, CII and Mr. Jentz agree on an issue, but not always.
Does Earl Jentz oppose the Bayfront? You can ask him that question but his actions have shown that he has no position either way.
Does Earl Jentz own 60 properties? I hear he owns a lot of property (good for him) but where do you get the 60 property figure?
Sandy Duncan dropped out of the group but not because of the direction they were going but because Ms. Duncan was a supporter of Councilwoman Bensoussan who, did indeed, change direction.
Also, CII has supported certain projects in the past but that has received little attention.
April 25, 2012 @ 7:22 p.m.
Jimz: I think you misunderstand the point. They are in support of the Bayfront; they just want a better vision with a park large enough to bring people to the Bayfront. To say that "they are just opposed to be opposed" is simplistic thinking and does nothing for a discussion of the issue. The real problem is the Port staff who is so arrogant as to take this to the Coastal Commission with the possibility they will lose (like they did last year).
April 21, 2012 @ 8:59 a.m.
OT: As a parent who normally doesn't follow school politics, I have started to pay closer attention due to the recent events. My main concern is that the political system as a whole needs reform. Could someone let me know if this is correct?
There are no campaign donation limits;
There are no term limits;
Gifts are only regulated in the sense that they must be reported;
There are no districts and you need to run at-large for every seat.
These are my main concerns and if someone could let me know if the above is wrong I would appreciate it.
April 17, 2012 @ 10:56 p.m.
I heard that the "property right" cheerleaders were out in force at this meeting. Who are these people? They are the ones that want every development with warts and all to get through the system unchecked. They claim it is a "property right" issue for the developer but forget that there are other property owners that have to live next to these projects. It's simplistic thinking at its worst.
March 22, 2012 @ 9:11 a.m.
anniej, how do we fix this problem? New rules? Better oversight? New Board members? Someone told me of a possible move to dissolve the district. I wrote about it here: http://focusonchulavista.wordpress.com/2012/03/19/162/
I'm not sure if that is the answer but there are definite problems here.
© 2016 San Diego Reader