Connect with us

San Diego, CA

Should San Diego lease the Kettner and Vine warehouse for a homeless shelter?

Published

1 year ago

on

Should San Diego lease the Kettner and Vine warehouse for a homeless shelter?


City leaders have yet to come to terms on a 30-year lease agreement to convert the empty warehouse at Kettner Boulevard and Vine Street into a large homeless shelter, as proposed by Mayor Todd Gloria.

With the deal, the city would lease the 65,000-square-foot facility for a 1,000-bed shelter, called The Hope @ Vine Campus. The mayor has framed the proposal as a bold move to tackle homelessness, with the facility designed to help people reintegrate into society.

As proposed, rent would start at $1.95 per square foot a month — or $1.5 million for the first year — and increase 3.5 percent each year. Rent does not include building operating expenses, which the city estimates at $32,469 a month.

The city is also budgeting more than $18 million to get the space ready for occupancy, with renovation and repair work extending to major building systems.

Advertisement

The San Diego City Council recently put off a decision on the real estate deal, flagging concerns about deal terms, potential liability, ongoing funding of shelter services and proper due diligence.

The City Attorney’s Office said in a report that the lease, as is, “does not adequately protect the city’s legal or financial interests.”

Q: Should San Diego lease the Kettner and Vine warehouse for a homeless shelter?

Economists

Lynn Reaser, economist

Advertisement

NO: There are shades of 101 Ash St. The 1963 building may well have lead and asbestos problems. Before starting, the site needs to certified for fire safety standards as to whether 1,000 people can be housed there. Building systems are old, tired and neglected. Food preparation, dining areas and sanitation systems are needed. In all — there’s not much quality of life for the mass of people crammed into 65,000 square feet with minimal privacy.

This will be Lynn Reaser’s final Econometer. She died Tuesday. She was a nationally revered economist but still took time to comment on the San Diego affairs of the day. We will miss her deeply. Read our story about her life here. 

Alan Gin, University of San Diego

NO: At least not at the proposed terms. Summing up the projected rent shows that it is much higher than the most recent purchase price, meaning simply buying the property might be a better option. On top of that, whether a large facility is desirable or not is uncertain. While there would be economies of scale in running a large facility, there may be negative consequences in concentrating many homeless people in one place, including causing some homeless people not to want to use the facility.

James Hamilton, UC San Diego

Advertisement

NO: The core problem is substance abuse and mental illness, not a shortage of beds. We need to clearly delineate that camping on a public sidewalk is prohibited and that offenders will be forced to receive treatment for their underlying problems. I’m very much in favor of a big commitment of funds to make sure we have a place to help the people who need it. But building shelters without providing support and enforcement is not going to solve the problem.

Norm Miller, University of San Diego

NO: We desperately need a large-scale homeless shelter, but the comps used to justify the rent are excessive for an old warehouse. While there are some nice features in the lease like landlord tenant improvements of $5 million, 14 percent rebate flip fees and 19 months free, this deal has a present value of $23 million to $28 million or as much as $430 per square foot while a similar property sold for $358 per square foot. Go back to the negotiating table one more time please.

David Ely, San Diego State University

NO: The city’s Independent Budget Analyst report notes several areas of concern, including lease terms that appear to be above market rates, the funding of annual operating costs over the lease’s 30-year life and the building’s condition. It would be imprudent to approve the current version of the proposal. Establishing a large permanent homeless shelter represents a significant financial commitment for the city. Additional analysis is needed before a decision is made to move forward.

Advertisement

Ray Major, economist

NO: Too many unanswered questions remain regarding the project that could lead to serious real estate and financial liabilities for the city, especially given the 30-year commitment to the site. Homelessness is a crisis in our region that must be quickly addressed, but more work and analysis are needed before this proposal is approved.

Executives

Phil Blair, Manpower

YES: Of course assuming the negotiations go well and the city does not overpay. Echoes of 101 Ash St. The location seems prime, away from residential and tourist areas. The city needs to be bold in relocating up to a thousand homeless people in one spot, which seems more cost-effective then spreading the facilities all over town.

Advertisement

Gary London, London Moeder Advisors

NO: This is a purely real estate analysis response. I am not weighing in on whether this is the right approach or the right location. I recommend, based on my analysis, that the city can do significantly better. In fact, compared to these terms, the better approach would be for the city to purchase the building. I recommend that the city slow walk this deal and bring in experts who can rightsize the terms.

Bob Rauch, R.A. Rauch & Associates

NO: A better answer to the homeless crisis is the Sunbreak Ranch concept. It would serve as a central navigation center designed to house people, identify their needs, and move them with care and proper treatment to more permanent housing or treatment centers. It is not site-specific; it would be an emergency “triage center” where everyone in need would have a clean, healthy, safe, secure place and bed. It would be a solution, not a Band-Aid.

Austin Neudecker, Weave Growth

Advertisement

YES: “The Hope” proposal for a homeless shelter must be reworked. The city should determine if it has adequate funds, is paying a reasonable lease, is protected from liability and can identify a capable operator. Otherwise, there will always be objections to proposed shelters. This location is less likely to impact residents near the industrial corridor between Interstate 5 and the airport. I appreciate attempted action toward the crisis. These issues are solvable and the project is needed.

Jamie Moraga, Franklin Revere

NO: There are too many unknowns and more due diligence needs to be conducted. The proposed lease has several red flags. Currently there are no identified funding sources. Committing to a 30-year lease is a lengthy financial and legal commitment. And no current city homeless providers have managed a facility of this magnitude. With upfront costs in the millions and at an estimated cost of $30 million a year to operate, the proposed lease as it stands is a significant risk to taxpayers.

Haney Hong, San Diego County Taxpayers Association 

NO: This lease deal is about as sound as a screen door on a submarine. It’s yet another attempt by the city to add to its long list of real estate blunders, eroding taxpayers’ confidence in its ability to make sound decisions. The rent is above market rate, the shelter identification process raises eyebrows, the lease favors the landlord at the expense of taxpayers, contradicts the Community Action Plan on Homelessness, and the list goes on and on.

Advertisement

Not participating this week: 

Chris Van Gorder, Scripps HealthKelly Cunningham, San Diego Institute for Economic ResearchCaroline Freund, UC San Diego School of Global Policy and Strategy

Have an idea for an Econometer question? Email me at phillip.molnar@sduniontribune.com. Follow me on Threads: @phillip020

Originally Published:



Source link

Advertisement
Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

San Diego, CA

Mayor Gloria defends Balboa Park paid parking, blames council for rocky rollout

Published

9 hours ago

on

January 9, 2026

By

Mayor Gloria defends Balboa Park paid parking, blames council for rocky rollout


San Diego will put off issuing citations for paid parking in Balboa Park for about one month while improvements are made, but Mayor Todd Gloria says the new system is functioning well and being “actively adopted.”

In a long and harshly worded memo released Thursday, Gloria said recent calls by City Council members to suspend the program were politically motivated and examples of bad governance and erratic decision-making.

Gloria also deflected blame for the chaotic way enforcement began Monday, when city officials raced to put stickers about resident discounts on parking kiosks and lobbied a vendor to deliver crucial missing signs.

The mayor said the council had “shaped, amended and approved” paid parking in Balboa Park and contended an accelerated timeline chosen by the council made it hard for his administration to implement it flawlessly.

Advertisement

The mayor’s memo came in response to a Tuesday memo from Councilmembers Kent Lee and Sean Elo-Rivera in which they called implementation of paid parking “haphazard” and “not ready for prime time.”

Lee and Elo-Rivera said the process for city residents to get approved for discounts was so complex, cumbersome and confusing that Gloria should waive fees for residents until they have had time to adapt and learn.

While Gloria rejected that suggestion in part of his memo, he later said “enforcement remains focused on education, not punishment, during this early phase, to ensure park users are aware of the new parking fees.”

Dave Rolland, a spokesperson for Gloria, said Thursday that no specific date had been set for when the city would shift from education to enforcement. But he added that “about a month” would be an accurate timeline.

City officials have already corrected one key mistake: Signs that were missing Monday — alerting drivers that the 951-space lower Inspiration Point lot is free for three hours — have since been installed.

Advertisement

Lee and Elo-Rivera in their memo decried “an inadequate effort to educate the public on how to use this new system.”

They said San Diegans had not been clearly informed about when a portal for city resident discounts would go live or how to use it.

And they complained that residents weren’t told they couldn’t buy discounted parking passes in person, or when enforcement with citations would actually begin.

City residents must apply for discounts online, pay $5 to have their residency verified, then wait two days for that verification and choose the day they will visit in advance.

Lee and Elo-Rivera called the city’s efforts “a haphazard rollout that will surely lead to San Diegans missing out on their resident discount and paying higher parking rates than they have to.”

Advertisement

Gloria said the city collected $23,000 in parking fees on Monday and Tuesday and another $106,000 in daily, monthly and quarterly passes — mostly from residents who get discounts on such passes.

“Early data shows that the program is functioning and being used,” he said. “These are not the metrics of a system that is failing to function. They are the metrics of a system that is new, actively being adopted, and continuing to improve as public familiarity increases.”

While Gloria conceded that some improvements are still necessary, he rejected calls from Lee and Elo-Rivera for a suspension, citing his concerns it would jeopardize city finances and confuse the public.

“Your proposal to suspend paid parking for residents two days into the new program would have immediate and serious fiscal consequences,” Gloria said. “This reversal could introduce confusion among park users and would disregard investments already made to establish the system, potentially compromising the program’s effectiveness.”

Paid parking in Balboa Park is expected to generate about $3.7 million during the fiscal year that ends June 30, but revenue is expected to rise substantially when the fees are in place for a full fiscal year.

Advertisement

Gloria said the money is a small part of the city’s overall solution to recurring deficits it faces of more than $100 million per year.

“What we will not do is reverse course days into implementation in a way that undermines fiscal stability, creates uncertainty, and sends the message that addressing a decades-old structural budget deficit that has plagued our city is optional because it is politically uncomfortable,” he said. “That kind of erratic decision-making is not good governance, and San Diegans deserve better.”

Meanwhile, a spokesperson for the San Diego Zoo said Thursday that paid parking there has continued to go smoothly since it began on Monday.

The zoo, which is using Ace Parking for enforcement, opted for immediate citations instead of an educational grace period.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

San Diego, CA

Barricaded individual in custody following police response in Mission Valley

Published

21 hours ago

on

January 8, 2026

By

Barricaded individual in custody following police response in Mission Valley


SAN DIEGO (FOX 5/KUSI) — San Diego Police responded to a barricaded individual in the Mission Valley area Thursday afternoon, prompting a heavy law enforcement presence.

  • The Nexstar Media video above details resources for crime victims

The department confirmed around 1 p.m. that officers were on scene in the 1400 block of Hotel Circle North, and are working to safely resolve the situation. Authorities asked the public to avoid the area and allow officers the space needed to conduct their operations.

Police described the incident as a domestic violence restraining order violation. At this time, it’s unknown if the person is armed.

No injuries have been reported.

The suspect was taken into custody within an hour.

Advertisement

Further details about the barricaded person were not immediately released. Police say updates will be shared as more information becomes available.

This is a developing story. Check back for updates.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

San Diego, CA

Padres roster review: Luis Campusano

Published

1 day ago

on

January 8, 2026

By

Padres roster review: Luis Campusano





Padres roster review: Luis Campusano – San Diego Union-Tribune


















Advertisement




Skip to content

LUIS CAMPUSANO

  • Position(s): Catcher
  • Bats / Throws: Right / Right
  • 2026 opening day age: 27
  • Height / Weight: 5-foot-10 / 232 pounds
  • How acquired: Second round of the draft in 2017 (Cross Creek HS, Ga.)
  • Contract status: Will make $900,000 after agreeing to a one-year deal to avoid arbitration; Will not be a free agent until 2029.
  • fWAR in 2025: Minus-0.4
  • Key 2025 stats: .000 AVG, .222 OBP, .000 SLG, 0 HRs, 0 RBIs, 0 runs, 6 walks, 11 strikeouts, 0 steals (10 games, 27 plate appearances)

 

STAT TO NOTE

  • 1 — The number of plate appearances for Campusano while in the majors between June 1 and June 13 and the one at-bat resulted in a weak, pinch-hit groundout against a position player (Kike Hernandez) on the mound in mop-up duty. Campusano was recalled to the majors four times in 2025 but did not get a real opportunity get settled after he went 0-for-6 with four walks and a strikeout in three straight starts as a DH in early May. Of course, hitting .227/.281/.361 with eight homers over 299 plate appearances after getting the first real chance to start in 2024 likely informed how the Padres viewed his opportunity in 2025.

RevContent Feed

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending