Got a permit for that, Manchester?

In early December 2012, lawyer Paul Robinson asked city attorney Jan Goldsmith if the hotel could continue using the equestrian center as they went through the permit process. Goldsmith refused. “I have reviewed this matter with our attorneys to determine whether the Grand is being treated worse than others in similar situations,” Goldsmith penned in a December 17 letter to Robinson. “Based upon that review and my knowledge of other code enforcement cases, it is not.”

Now, ten years after the first notice of violation was sent to the Grand Del Mar, Manchester has finally agreed to comply with the city’s demands. This time, however, the city seems to have realized it needed the power of the court to hold the Grand Del Mar accountable. Judge Timothy Taylor signed the judgment on January 8.

Share / Tools

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • AddThis
  • Email

More from SDReader


Money rules in $an Diego, especially now in these tough times when a little publicity goes a very long way! Add to the equation, that they also own the only newspaper in town plus they have lots of lawyers and you begin to see why they feel they are above the laws meant for others less fortunate than themselves.

As far as the landing pad goes, why is San Diego so helicopter unfriendly? I'd like to see a landing pad at every freeway cloverleaf, so we could have a Helicopter Air Taxi Service.

The scenarios that govern Code Compliance Action are convoluted. A violation for Doug Manchester provides a perfectly legal way for Mr. Manchester to give money to the city. It is hard to take anything at face value, with the cast of characters we have here. The best way for the TMD to publicize San Diego would be to make a mini-series about what goes on here. Set at the Grand Del Mar Resort, of course.

In the second paragraph, there is the comment that "Manchester . . . willingly ignored permit-violation notices from the City of San Diego." I think you meant that he "willfully" ignored such notices. Willful suggests deliberate, voluntary or intentional action. "Willingly" is something much more passive, and I doubt you meant anything short of intentional.

Of course I meant willfully, Visduh. It was a test to see if my editors would catch that. Unfortunately they failed this time. Just trying to keep them on their toes...

It took the writer 11 minutes to blame the editor while pretending to be joking. It usually takes less...

You know, if he plunked down 35 MILLION then I don't find it any of the City's business, really, if he wants to install "tee boxes" (wth?) or grade part of the property for a horse area.

Does the City have some Department of Useless Minutiae with commensurate forms (in triplicate) which must be stamped with the Official Stamp and, of course, a FEE must be paid. All administered by a small but dedicated cadre of pompous bureaucrats. Probably an annual inspection and a renewal form to fill out, too.

does not have a State-permitted heliport and does not appear to meet any of heliport permit exemption criteria

And as far as a helipad? Seems pretty cool to me. Is there a problem? Is there another form in the Department of Useless Minutiae if one wants to add a helipad to one's $35 million property? ("heliport permit exemption criteria" reeks of some small minded bureaucrat with a handful of forms he intends to force you to fill out, just because he can)

put in three parking lots, a total of 2.66 acres, again without any permits.

Not as cool as the helipad, but, again, this is any of the City's business? Does the Department of Useless Minutiae have a finger in this pie, too? $0.05 per parking space? And we have to have INSPECTORS to measure the width of the painted lines dividing up the parking spaces, I'm sure.

I'm no millionaire, but the "violations" detailed bring to mind a slang term for insect excrement. The City comes off as a bunch of wormy little grey bureaucrats, running after every little violation, bleating in their ineffectual nasal voices, measuring how tall the grass is and vigilantly enforcing City Lawn Height regulations. If somebody buys a $35 million property, I'd say let them do as they please with it. I don't see any harm whatsoever. It seems like a petty vendetta.

I love all the moaning and handwringing over "disturbing environmentally sensitive areas"... but all of those moans go away if he pays enough money. Either up-front for a permit, or after the fact in fines.

If the land is so "environmentally sensitive", then someone who gives a poop should buy it from him and keep it the way they want.

Log in to comment

Skip Ad

SD Reader Newsletters

Join our newsletter list and enter to win a $25 gift card to The Broken Yolk Cafe!

Each subscription means another chance to win!