Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back > THE CALGUNS COMMUNITY > CGSSA Southern California Chapters > San Diego Chapter
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-14-2017, 11:35 AM
xaerorazor xaerorazor is offline
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 192
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default A proposition, looking for input

Good day,

I am in the early stages of trying to flesh out the idea/vision I had from a replacement of the now SDCCU stadium site.

I need to make it clear that while I am employed by SDSU, this is in no way represents their view point as a university.

1: Soccer City plan has it partially right (Housing, Park)
2: SDSU Alumni plan has it partially right (Stadium, Park)
3: Neither address the largest epidemic we face that has resulted in the largest outbreak of Hep. A in recent history.
4: The Soccer City creates new HIGH end homes and shopping.
5: The Alumni plan place the site in final control of the CSU board... Which is a REALLY bad idea (they consistently under-fund, oversell and overpay)

The problems the Homeless face are in four items:
1: They have no home
2: Many have Mental Health issues
3: Many have Substance Abuse issues
4: Many are facing a skill/education gap

My plan attacks a few issues at the same time and uses Private(Business/NGOs)-Public partnerships. We just can't go and say the tents are the best thing to solve the problem, we need to look outside just single solutions and aggregate them into a Homeless Uplift Base. My vision is called SD-HUB.

Here is my vision for the site.

1: SDSU receives 30Ac to build a 32k Seat stadium and convention space to have another revenue stream into the university. Similar to the Chargers Convadium idea that was floated. This satisfies SDSU getting their stadium. Paid for by SDSU/CSU/Bonds

2: 10 Ac. is set aside for a river park/trail. This Satisfies the public lands access, and is run by City Parks.

3: 20 Ac. for multi level parking structure for use with the stadium AND housing in #4 Run By private business

4: 75 AC for Low Cost Appts./condos (mainly 2bed/1bath, 1bed/1bath, studios, and a small number of 3/2 units). This would be a starting point for many transitioning out of the transitional space in #5. Built and Managed by Private Corporations

5: 25 Acres for a Homeless Central intake providing
a: Dormitory style housing (Run By Private Corps)
b: Mental health Services (This is a County Function)
c: Substance Abuse Services (County Function)
d: Education services (K-some College) (SD Unified, SDCCD, and University run)
e: Supplemental services like a Cafeteria(NGO likely), meeting spaces(city/Private Corp managed), onsite jail space/Drunk tank(Sheriffs office), Space for NGO's to use for outreach (like Alpha Project, St. Vincent, Solutions for Change, etc.)

6: Requiring enforcement of current ordinances

My questions are:
1: Would you support this?
2: What would you change/Add?
Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2017, 10:57 AM
Jimi Jah's Avatar
Jimi Jah Jimi Jah is offline
I need a LIFE!!
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: North San Diego County
Posts: 12,513
iTrader: 1 / 100%

All park, no housing, no commercial. That is best for the city which is why it won't happen.
Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2017, 11:14 AM
Den60's Avatar
Den60 Den60 is online now
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: San Diego
Posts: 708
iTrader: 0 / 0%

Park would be mandated to be larger, I believe the soccer city proposal is for 55 acres of parkland along the river in land that is in the flood plain. SDSU doesn't have the money to buy 30 acres and build a stadium. They say their budget for a stadium is $150M (and history shows they do not reach their funding goals). Soccer City had a decent chance to pass until SDSU bailed. SDSU will need a development partner who would look at the site about the same as the SC proposal and will need to maximize profits of developing the site in order to pay the cost of building a stadium that will be a money loser from day one.

To be honest, I don't see anything happening to the site for the next 10 years. It is much easier to not get stuff done in San Diego than vice versa.
Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2017, 5:03 PM
sd joe sd joe is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 692
iTrader: 13 / 100%

Many homeless are that way by choice. Mental problems, heroin, and malt liquor will keep them on the streets no matter what you offer.
Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2017, 10:29 AM
Jimi Jah's Avatar
Jimi Jah Jimi Jah is offline
I need a LIFE!!
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: North San Diego County
Posts: 12,513
iTrader: 1 / 100%

Maybe re-open all the mental hospitals Reagan closed?
Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2017, 7:54 PM
BadKitty's Avatar
BadKitty BadKitty is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,055
iTrader: 2 / 100%

No, I do not support this proposed plan.

I have been a resident of MV for the bulk of the past 10 years. Prior to about 3 years ago, things were ok. But now, I deal with the homeless everyday. I have homeless dudes jumping into the dumpster at my complex all the time. They steal packages off our porches. On my way home about an hour ago, I passed 4-6 homeless dudes sitting out on the sidewalk by my house and yesterday, there were some 15+ homeless dudes at the recycling center all at once. There are also homeless deep into the riverbed and now there are also people all up in the bushes on the north end of Mission Center Rd. heading into Serra Mesa. Their encampments start brush fires. They got pushed out of downtown into Hillcrest. Then they got pushed out of Hillcrest into Mission Valley.

Giving them a 25 ac homeless campus isn't going to solve the problem. Yes, I'm being selfish because NIMBY; but, I honestly, don't see what is here in MV for them - it's geographically/topographically isolated. Because they are unlikely to walk up the steep hills, their only way out is to take the trolley somewhere else. So, instead, they'll just wander the streets of MV like they are now. They WANT to stay in the riverbed. They will wander about in the residential neighborhoods.

What should have happened was we should have set-up the homeless services in downtown where they were living instead of being lazy and just pushing the problem into Hillcrest, Golden Hill and Mission Valley and then acting shocked when issues arise.

Also, having been a former SDSU employee myself, I cringe at the thought of setting up a homeless center and transitional housing adjacent to an area intended for our students. It's bad enough that we have students getting robbed at gunpoint on Montezuma Rd. We don't need a homeless center on the same footprint that the university stadium is on.

Only 10 acres for a river park?? That seems a bit small.

For what it's worth, my gut instinct is that the land should somehow go to the university for a campus extension and stadium. The homeless issue is very important; but, I think would be better addressed elsewhere such as downtown or the Midway district.

Last edited by BadKitty; 11-20-2017 at 8:10 PM..
Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2017, 10:17 AM
Jimi Jah's Avatar
Jimi Jah Jimi Jah is offline
I need a LIFE!!
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: North San Diego County
Posts: 12,513
iTrader: 1 / 100%

A Rudy style "broken windows" program would shift all these losers up to LA and SF where they belong.

Instead we build shelters and reward them. That will encourage more bums.
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 1:32 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host., the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved. and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to