Wednesday, July 27, 2005

Leucadia, Stocks, Eminent Domain in SD Business Journal

Good piece with the usual cast of characters about Leucadia in the San Diego Business Journal click me

It's funny, some of the quotes out there from the developers. They always claim they don't use eminent domain, or want eminent domain, blah blah blah. Then there is the bold comments from a developer trying to take a 35 year old business in Littly Italy San Diego link

The final paragraph in the SD business journal piece is odd because it says Carslbad does not use eminent domain yet the whole Ponto project fiasco will result in the loss of private property.

From a purely business standpoint, said Andreen, the issue remains: Who is going to pay for improvements in aging neighborhoods?

“Leucadia’s infrastructure is in very bad shape,” he said. “The city, because it’s built out, doesn’t have a no-growth problem. The growth is here. Our city is like a living organism, as far as capital investment. The money can’t go into growth, so it has to go into regrowth, like the Gaslmap Quarter. So, too, can Leucadia address its flooding with or without redevelopment.”

Andreen said he knows investors in commercial real estate who believe the future of the city is in Leucadia and are willing to put money there.

Okay Andreen, who?


  1. Interesting comment in the article:
    There are many ways to skin a cat.

    City councils don't need eminent domain to start a redevelopment roll. Changing the zoning of the property or surrounding property quietly helps the developers.

    Strange timing for Stocks to announce his possible running for the state assembly and taking advantage of the Court ruling with his grandstanding a position on eminent domain a few weeks earlier. Another way to skin a cat.

  2. Need a revolution in consciousnessJuly 27, 2005 11:29 AM

    I enjoyed reading the SD Business Journal piece. Hope blog readers keep clicking "next" at bottom of each page, as this article goes on for about five or six computer screens. I had read about Tom McClintock, State Senator, in the LA Times. We hope his bill becomes a law! According to the SD Journal article:

    "On July 14, state Sen. Tom McClintock, R-Thousand Oaks, introduced a constitutional amendment that would prohibit the use of eminent domain for private use “under any circumstances.”

    For public uses, local governments would have to convince a judge that the seizure of property is a last resort, when no 'reseasonable alternative exists,' and would require that the land be returned to the rightful owner if the public use no longer applies."

    Also, I read another piece about eminent domain in yesterday's NCT. Seems Christy Guerin's comments at the recent blight public meeting, with Council present were incorrect. She stated that she didn't know of any cases of eminent domain in the City of Encinitas during her tenure. The article pointed out that there have been five or six recent cases.

    Anonymous' comments are correct. Through rezoning, such as in the case of the Orpheus property, land designated for Public/open space, can be changed to commercial by a simple majority of Planning Commission and, if appealed, simple majority of City Council. This is not right.

    Look at all the corruption and scandal going on in the City of SD. The people feel much of their problem is a direct result of lack of open government. When Encinitas Council members are not available to answer questions, when they seem to hog meetings with their endless self-promotion, when they have unreported and under-reported closed sessions, often with private property negotiators, then they are betraying the public trust.

    Vote out the incumbents in 2006!

  3. It is true that Andreen knows commerical real estate people. In fact Doug Harwood and David Meyer (Ecke) worked closely with Andreen during the last election to make sure Stocks and Bond got elected... ummm why? So, they could pillage Leucadia.

    Hey they already started... see

  4. Andreen, Stocks, Bond, Meyer and Ecke are all homos sitting in a circle jerk. I love this blog.

  5. We are being ripped offJuly 29, 2005 10:06 AM

    When tacky "McMansion" development was done near us, not everyone who was to be noticed was. We were told only residents within a one hundred ft. radius would be notified, not 300 ft., as suggested by Mr. Weedman, in related

    Frankly, we were dumbfounded when all of the incumbents were re-elected last time. Please don't make the same mistake in 2006.

    Christy Guerin, "retired" from the SD County Sheriff's dept. after numerous complaints had been made against her. She received some kind of Workmen's Comp award, that is, she received or is receiving disability, apparently due to the emotional distress she suffered as a result of being reported for wrongly giving out someone's confidential info, and also, for using excessive force in apprehending and cuffing a 16/17 year old girl, re a small time traffic violation.

    Now Council is on vacation for about a month. All of these concerns cannot be addressed. We can almost never ask questions directly of Council.

    One thing, despite unanimous public sentiment against doing so, Council voted to raise the appeal fees to $250 for appellants; it had been $100 for those protesting a planning dept. or planning commission decision. Conversely, Council voted to lower developers' (applicants) appeal cost to $250, from $950. Staff's reasoning had been when the applicant had been denied, it had already gone thru numerous meetings, including Planning Commission and/or Planning and Building determinations.

    Council just ignored many old time residents' requests not to raise appellants' fees, and also went right ahead and lowered the fees for developers, and so-called custom home builders, whose plans exceeded the standards now in effect.

  6. Don't be fooledJuly 29, 2005 10:21 AM

    Yeah, Christy Guerin often seems to go on and on. Dan Dalager says little, just sits there looking confused, then usually votes with Stocks and Bond. However, at the July 20 Council meeting, rebroadcast with audio last night, Dalager and Houlihan had reservations about language of proposed Ecke resolution for public vote at special election in November. Dan made & Maggie seconded a reasonable counter motion. Then they backed down. Stocks seemed patronizing and flip in dismissing legitimate concerns specifically addressed by the public in their comments before Council.

    Last year, re the illegal clean water tax added to our EDCO bills, and recently stopped, after a lawsuit by the Jarvis Taxpayers Assoc., Dalager had voted, illegaly, with Guerin and Houlihan to declare a citywide tax a fee, and to force EDCO to act as tax collector.

    Too often City Council acts as Judge, Jury & Executioner. Too often concerned citizens are forced to take the City to court.

    Although the Jarvis Taxpayer Association, on behalf, partly, of Donna Westbrook, did go to bat for us on this wrongful charge, the City is still dragging its feet in preparing the issue for public vote, as promised in the settlement. These monies should come out of the General Fund, as they are for a City Wide, State mandated improvement. This is not a weighted fee, or an assessment, per Prop 218, passed in 1996.

  7. Thanks for allowing us an "outlet" for our input, JP.

    Thanks too, for the great links. Another sad case of seeming coercion, re threatened eminent domain in Little Italy.

    Have a great weekend, anyway!


Thank you for posting on the Leucadia Blog.
There is nothing more powerful on this Earth than an anonymous opinion on the Internet.
Have at it!!!