Showing posts with label developers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label developers. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 15, 2012

San Diego Board of Supervisors hypocrisy

MERCURIO: Board of Supervisors hypocrisy
Aug. 13, 2012
By RICK MERCURIO

Property rights. Taxpayer protection. Fairness.

Supervisors Bill Horn, Ron Roberts and Greg Cox tout these principles, but recent actions show hypocrisy at its worst.

The three supes voted to give land speculators a free ride to trash the new general plan. What would be free to the developers may cost us taxpayers $1.56 million.

It is a long, sordid story, and the shameful saga continues. The county's general plan was adopted a year ago after $16 million had been spent on many years of hearings, studies, and professional planning. Difficult compromises were reached among builders, environmentalists, and planners. The plan encompassed "smart growth" concepts, which encourage more density in town centers and lower density in outlying areas.

Horn cast the lone dissenting vote, but didn't accept his defeat.

Before the ink was dry, Horn, who is tied tightly to outside developers, began lobbying his fellow supervisors to make exceptions to the new zoning in the plan. Roberts and Cox agreed, asking the professional planners to magically manipulate the plan's guiding principles in order to accommodate speculators.

Horn's justification was that "downzoning" deprived property owners of their development rights. Of course, the properties that had received lower zoning were largely unbuildable, requiring taxpayer subsidized infrastructure in the backcountry.

More significantly, the two biggest developments affected ---- Merriam Mountains and Accretive ---- were not downzoned at all. To the contrary: Under the previous general plan, these rugged, rural properties were properly zoned for a fraction of the houses that the developers wanted.

The property rights that Horn, Roberts and Cox have hurt are those of existing residents, whose lifestyle and choice of location was premised on the county living up to its general plan.

How can Horn justify using taxpayer dollars to hand over an enormous gift of increased density, and therefore profits, to his developer buddies?

As for taxpayer protection, on June 20 Roberts did an end run. Normally, landowners must pay their own costs when seeking an amendment to the general plan. The public had been advised via the Agenda that a super-majority of four votes would be required to increase the current budget to approve funds to trump the new General Plan.

When Roberts realized that Pam Slater-Price and Dianne Jacob would not go along with his scheme, he left the meeting while public testimony was still in progress, and quietly directed staff to add the $1.56 million to the budget. He knew that this maneuver would only require three votes.

Sunday, November 14, 2010

Jack Johnson's arrest shows development as a blessing and a curse

Jack Johnson's arrest shows development as a blessing and a curse
Jack B. Johnson, Prince George's County's executive, was arrested on Nov. 12 as federal investigators served search warrants at the County Administration Building. His wife, Leslie Johnson, was also arrested. Each was charged with evidence tempering and destroying evidence.
By Miranda S. Spivack, Ovetta Wiggins and Carol Morello
Washington Post
November 14, 2010

Development deals have been at the center of Prince George's County's most contentious political fights for decades, the source of its highest hopes and deepest embarrassments.

The wins have included luring the Redskins from the District, creating a tourist and shopping destination at National Harbor and, most recently, persuading Wegmans, the Rochester, N.Y.-based grocer with a cultlike following, to open a mega-store in a county that has long been shunned by upscale retailers.

But the arrests of County Executive Jack B. Johnson (D) and his wife, Leslie Johnson, on Friday as part of a federal probe of political corruption in Prince George's are a reminder that the money swirling around big development deals can be both a blessing and a curse.

In a recent interview with The Washington Post outlining his achievements during his eight years as executive, Jack Johnson said he was "very, very proud" of his development record.

Two weeks later, according to an FBI affidavit, the Johnsons were overheard on a wiretap plotting how to rid themselves of a potentially incriminating $100,000 check from a developer and hide wads of cash totalling $79,600. They could each face 20 years in prison if convicted.

"Upper Marlboro has developed a reputation for having a pay-to-play atmosphere, and you certainly don't hear that about other jurisdictions" in the area, said Joel D. Rozner, a lobbyist and former county zoning counsel, referring to the county seat.

Wednesday, September 02, 2009

A Goliath among corrupt cities

A small group of developers and attorneys with City Hall connections glommed on to a program for poor neighborhoods and used it to build luxury hotels and fancy shopping centers in the richest parts of town, draining $90 million per year from the city's budget and racking up $5 billion in debt. Cash poor, the city's bridges, sidewalks and sewers were literally crumbling...

Did you think the above paragraph was talking about our San Diego Development Corporations?

No, it's about Kansas City. Here's more:


The oddest couple in politics
My brief, unhappy career working for the mayor of Kansas City and his eccentric wife -- the unofficial co-mayor
By Joe Miller

Kansas City is a Goliath among corrupt cities. From its earliest days as a muddy sin stop on the banks of the Missouri River, through the years when "Boss Tom" Pendergast ran the town with a greedy fist, to the 1990s when a near quorum of its City Council was indicted on criminal charges, K.C. has been at the forefront of graft.

For the last decade, the city has been caught up in a pork fest -- all of it perfectly legal -- the likes of which are unequaled in any American city...

Sunday, December 14, 2008

Jan Goldsmith: right wing and reckless? Andrea Dixon and developers are back in favor.

Jan Goldsmith is still going negative after being sworn in. Jan Goldsmith apparently likes campaigning more than he likes the job of San Diego City Attorney. In his inaugural speech, he combined his fondness for developers with some reckless, unsubstantiated allegations.


Goldsmith stirs up criticism with claim
Inaugural speech lashed out at foe
By Matthew T. Hall
SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE
December 14, 2008

The rub on Michael Aguirre was that he was reckless: He made unsubstantiated allegations that were beneath the dignity of any lawyer, much less San Diego's city attorney.

No one sounded that criticism louder than Judge Jan Goldsmith, who used it to unseat Aguirre in an election last month.

But in his first five minutes in office, Goldsmith made an unsubstantiated allegation of his own. During his inaugural speech in front of 2,000 people Monday, Goldsmith alleged that Aguirre had reassigned an attorney who dared to take an ethical stand in an office run amok.

From the dais, Goldsmith restored Deputy City Attorney Andrea Dixon to her old position advising the Planning Commission. Afterward, he declined to back up his claim or elaborate on it.

“I really think it says something about his character and integrity that he's willing to jump on this for political advantage to continue to grind his heel into Mike,” said Kathryn Burton, who was an assistant city attorney under Aguirre. “He made spurious accusations about the office and the management of the office that he hasn't even vetted. In a funny way, he's as reckless as Mike is.”

...The inauguration came a month after the supposed end of a tough political campaign in which Goldsmith said Aguirre habitually circumvented due process and Aguirre said Goldsmith was too close to builders and business interests.

A quarter of Goldsmith's high-profile speech involved the tale of Dixon being punished for refusing “to do something that she was ordered to do because it violated her ethical obligations.”

...Another former assistant city attorney, Karen Heumann, said a belief that Dixon was rubber-stamping development projects played a role in her being removed from Planning Commission duties.

Burton and Heumann said Goldsmith never spoke to them before making his accusation, to hear their version of what happened. Both were relieved of duty during the transition.

The public accusation by Goldsmith is surprising because, again and again in his campaign, he criticized Aguirre for making unfounded allegations.

“Your work is based upon conduct and actions, not based upon a lot of accusations and hot air and making enemies,” Goldsmith said at one televised debate. “That's a huge difference between us. I have never shot first and asked questions later...

UTC expansion

Retail giant Westfield's proposal for a $900 million expansion of its University City shopping center was at the center of the Dixon dispute.

The company sought approval to add 750,000 square feet of shops and 250 to 300 condominiums, raising concerns for neighbors about traffic, noise and other environmental issues.

Two July 25 e-mails show Burton asked Dixon to rewrite her memo reviewing the project to more fully analyze the legal issues and “to protect the public interest.”

Dixon wrote, “While I am very aware the project is controversial, I have not found any legal inadequacies in the EIR (environmental impact report), nor is there anything illegal concerning the draft permits.”

Burton replied, “Irrespective of any personal opinion regarding the merits of the project or the merits of the EIR, any opposition position that could prove problematic for the decision maker should be addressed.”

Burton added, “When I spoke to you about the project, you shrugged your shoulders and said: 'Ehhhh, the council is going to do what the council is going to do. Nothing we write will change that.' Your work on this project has not been of a quality that could be approved for distribution to the council.” ...