By Norma Damashek
The city of San Diego has first-class universities, first-class biotech companies, first-class ethnic restaurants, first-class theater, first-class engineers, artists, and musicians. Also: Our city has first-class standing as a prototype of community-based planning.
Who would have guessed that during the heady years of the 1960s while the Pump House kids were tripping the waves fantastic at Windansea Beach, other San Diegans – more firmly-grounded and civic-minded – were partnering with City Hall as official members of newly-created community planning groups. The La Jolla community plan was the city’s first. Then the Peninsula plan. Soon came the others.
Half a century later there are more than 40 recognized community planning groups throughout the city, where locally-elected members meet monthly to opine on neighborhood land-use issues, community goals, and proposed real estate development and relay their advice and recommendations to city officials.
Imperfect though they may be, San Diego’s community planning groups are indispensable. They’re the eyes, ears, and vocal chords of our neighborhoods. They’re the building blocks of a healthy city.
Although these planning groups are private organizations they have no legal power to take action on behalf of the city. They’re required to adhere to city council policies and city-approved bylaws.
It’s true, our planning groups are frequently dominated by people with personal or business priorities rather than communal well-being. It’s a fact, they generally represent the perspectives of homeowners over renters. Certainly, they can be contentious and rancorous. Yes, they’re sometimes short-sighted and overly-opinionated.
But in these planning groups you’ll find plenty of altruistic, environmentally-aware, economically-savvy, intelligent and openminded social reformers and planning advocates, all determined to do what no one else will do for them – look out for their own backyards. Plus those of their neighbors and neighborhoods in the rest of the city.
Granted, there’s plenty of room for improvement within community planning groups. Dwindling staff support from city planners (who have, themselves, been hammered by planning department reorganizations, budget cuts, unfilled positions, and political machinations) doesn’t help.
But here’s a fact of life we should not ignore: Imperfect though they may be, San Diego’s community planning groups are indispensable. They’re the eyes, ears, and vocal chords of our neighborhoods. They’re the building blocks of a healthy city.
Without them, the voices of everyday citizens to improve the environment throughout San Diego are easily diminished… overridden… eventually extinguished.
Here’s another fact of life we should not ignore: One by one, in this way or that, San Diego’s community planning groups are being sabotaged.
Look what happened in Barrio Logan and its community plan update. See what’s happening at the opposite end of the city, in Carmel Valley’s One Paseo project. Watch how numerous communities are left hanging out to dry over their community plan updates. Take note of the chronic battering in Ocean Beach by variances to permit out-sized development. Notice the attempts to cluster and meld distinct neighborhood planning groups in North Park, Golden Hill, and Uptown. The Serra Mesa community group knows how hard it is to prevent being devalued and ignored. The Grantville planning group knows the same.
Community planning groups routinely tackle blunt questions: Does the proposal under consideration benefit the street? the neighborhood? the community? the city? the public good? They put themselves on the line each time they resist fast-tracking and outsized projects… each time they challenge spurious claims and empty clichés about “property rights” or “transit-oriented development” or “smart growth”… each time they open the debate about community benefits versus private profits.
Which brings us back to Civic San Diego and its kiss of death.
Does Civic San Diego – the recently-created private real estate consortium, endowed by its creator (the city of San Diego) with certain (unalienable?) rights to override, supersede, and nullify the voices of community planning groups – sabotage San Diego’s longstanding public system of city planning and community planning groups? Yes!
Is Civic San Diego’s most recent proposal to become a provider of “community benefits” and “work with a diverse range of community stakeholders… on community priorities” a calculated farce to placate their critics and keep themselves in business? Yes!
When city leaders created and empowered Civic San Diego as an autonomous purveyor of private development and transferred city government responsibility for planning, zoning, permits, and oversight to a private corporation – locking themselves, the public, and city planners out of the process – they got it all wrong.
They sabotaged the public’s rights to be heard and oversee our own backyards. The City Attorney’s office tiptoes around the edges but appears to have serious reservations about city delegation of authority to Civic San Diego. The courts may not be as easily intimidated by San Diego’s power elite or remain sanguine about Civic San Diego’s kiss of death for community planning.
City officials need to cut their losses and try to get it right. How?
FIRST, DISASSEMBLE AND DISSOLVE CIVIC SAN DIEGO. Land use decisions involving the future of our neighborhoods and communities belong in the hands of city officials and the public, not in the hands of San Diego’s downtown landed gentry. Contrivances like Civic San Diego take us backward to the bad old days. Just get rid of it.
SECOND, EXPAND THE ROLE OF COMMUNITY PLANNING GROUPS. After a half-century history of constructive partnership between community planning groups and the city, the time is ripe to consider enlarging and extending the scope of planning groups beyond land use issues.
“Backyard” concerns like neighborhood job creation, local crime problems, renters rights, city budget priorities, utility rates, water conservation, transit, homelessness, and government efficiency belong side-by-side with land use recommendations on the agendas of city-authorized, locally-elected, well-regulated neighborhood councils.
City officials unwisely transformed outlawed redevelopment agencies into Civic San Diego. That decision should be repealed.
Think about it.
Latest posts by Norma Damashek (see all)
- County Government Laid Bare - November 15, 2017
- Hierarchy of Elected Venerables - October 30, 2017
- San Diego’s Dangling Participles - October 12, 2017
Planning groups must have some power. Look what has been DONE to Logan Heights (Barrio Logan) by the bridge and interstate five.
Amen.
As long ago as 25 years, I thought that neighborhood groups ought to have some official power in the city planning process. It’s well past time for that to actually happen.
Sure, there is some bias on planning groups but, as you note, many/most of the members are genuinely trying to make their neighborhoods better. Over and over these well-meaning volunteers spend hours and days on issues that directly affect them, only to have their recommendations ignored by the city council. This should stop.
If we’re going to give community planning groups more power, their elections should last more than half an hour, during a time when people are coming home from work (or at work). This is the case with Uptown Planners.
There’s probably some obstacle, but why not add CPG candidates to our election ballots?
Dynamite Norma! Let’s increase budget for support and enhancement of planning groups. Budget is policy. The rest is rhetoric.
Maybe the general fund money flowing to Civic might better be spent in giving the support necessary for greater responsibilities of this potential representative building block of community. The concept has always been valid. The execution and implementation requires a real commitment.
As you note, the Planning Department has been stuffed further back into the City Ops building. How long has the City been without a Planning Director to lead the Department reestablished by the City Council and preceding elected Mayor ?
One Paseo and who knows what else about to appear are symptoms of the return to the Sander’s policy of Development Services dominated land use decisions. Civic San Diego is not the answer.
Thanks for sounding the clarion call. Now is there a medium in which it can and will be heard and resonate?
Thank you for an excellent commentary. Planning Groups and Recreation Councils are the home rule backbone to San Diego’s neighborhood representative democracy. It has long been the technique of the power elite and developers to get rid of these two local control groups so that the only folks the powerful need to talk to are the puppet politicians that they have bought and paid for. Balboa Park has no recreation council and limited and splintered planning group coverage.
We should consider following the lead of the County of San Diego. The County residents actually elect their Planning Groups, in the general elections.
Of course the least representative and most dysfunctional government body is the San Diego School Board. This body has a budget almost as large as the City of San Diego’s and about the same number of employees, This government controls about the same amount of land and facilities as the City. Most importantly our communities most beloved and trusted asset is entrusted to these politicians. City Schools is nearly bankrupt and parents are fleeing their institutions , for performing Charter and private schools, Reform and improvement to this broken non performing government.
First the School Board members need to be elected by District, just like the City Council. Second the number of school board members needs to be increased to better reflect the population increases since the Board was formed in the first half of the last century. The current system of at-large elections disenfranchises residents and favors the current system which has Board election campaigns financed by Developers, Building Contractors, and the Bond selling Banks. Progressives should be demand that the current Board members place a reform on the next ballot that eliminates at-large elections; limits campaign donations; and increases the Board seats to 11 members, at minimum. All the best John Stump City Heights
https://youtu.be/Id–ZFtjR5c
The La Jolla Planning Group was instrumental in putting a nail in the coffin of a power plant! Right off the 805 near UTC. Jay Powell is right. Budget is policy. The rest is rhetoric. Give the planning groups more clout, better process as to elections and more, not less, visibility.
The worst shady practices of Civic San Diego involves only having a FY-2016 Budget for their Administration Costs only for the Successor Housing Entity’s Low Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund (LMIHAF), and the Successor Agency (SA) There are no Budgets for any CIP, Infrastructure, and Affordable Housing Projects to be paid for by the new Revenue in the LMIHAF and the SA. Civic San Diego staff actions are all outside the regular Fiscal Year Budget Process.
http://tinyurl.com/20150428e
The result of pretending there is nothing anyone can do about Civic San Diego staff sabotaging actions is that the Poor just lost $11.9 Million in Cash of the LMIHAF, in order to get back Residual Distributions and RPTTF Revenue for 17.5 cents on the dollar to the General Fund.
Mayor Kevin Faulconer has recently claimed he is in charge of Oversight for Civic San Diego. Instead of blaming Civic San Diego staff for their sabotage against the poor, our Strong Mayor Faulconer is the real villain.
Norma Damashek is right on in her examination of city planning with regards to Civic San Diego and I agree it needs to be changed!