Debating about Hillcrest

Re: “Guest editorial: A response to Benjamin Nicholls” by Nancy Moors [Volume 7, Issue 25 or bit.ly/1YibKJq]

Thank you, Nancy, for setting the record straight. If anyone has taken a walk around Hillcrest lately, you can see that there is plenty of residential development going on and yet businesses are increasingly shutting their doors. Can the Hillcrest Business Association (HBA) tell us why this is happening?

—Sue Sneeringer via Facebook

Not sure what Sue is talking about when she said there is plenty of residential development going on around Hillcrest? Looks to me that neighborhood has been frozen in time for the last 15 years or so!

Why is it that people living outside of Hillcrest can see that the neighborhood is dying a slow death, but those who live/own businesses there don’t? Hillcrest needs to reinvent itself if it wants to compete with Downtown and every other Uptown neighborhood.

Until then, I’ll keep watch on the decline of the once envied neighborhood from afar (I sure as heck have no reason to shop or eat there since everything seems to be closing).

Poor D Bar had to learn the hard way that Hillcrest is no longer the destination it once was. Head east to North Park or Little Italy if you want vibrancy.

—Justin G. via Facebook 

Ms. Moors said, “A survey by Uptown Planners in 2006 showed that over 80 percent of those surveyed supported the (Interim Height Ordinance).” The respondents of this unscientific survey were likely single-family homeowners who benefit from higher home prices through exclusionary housing policies. Of course they would support the IHO, which effectively blocked any new housing in Hillcrest for years. Yet if you were to survey younger San Diegans who are still living with their parents or planning to leave due to our city’s unaffordability, you’d get a much different result.

The author illustrates why Uptown’s land-use decisions shouldn’t be made by Uptown residents alone, when state affordable housing laws and the city’s transit-oriented development goals are ignored. Downzoning, reduced height limits and questionable historic districts are all part of an effort to prevent any new housing because of parking and traffic concerns. The result is increased inequality in a neighborhood that was once progressive.

I agree that we need to preserve Hillcrest’s historic architecture, but other historic districts in San Diego have reduced height limits on commercial strips to just 30 feet. Instead, let’s strengthen existing historical review laws, so Hillcrest businesses can’t continue to tear down affordable housing for parking lots.

—Paul Jameson via Facebook 

Hillcrest could be a destination for people who want a nice neighborhood to walk or ride in on a day out. Instead the HBA promotes dangerous streets and wonders why their businesses fail.

—Robert via Facebook

Why do Hillcrest businesses continue to close? Perhaps it’s because the HBA continues to promote events instead of providing needed services to its business members.

—Oldtimer via Facebook

About your poll question

I want to vote on the gun control poll, but I don’t understand the way it’s worded. I AM TOTALLY OPPOSED TO GUN CONTROL so should I vote “yes” or “no?” I don’t know how Congress feels. It would have been better if the question was “are you against gun control?”

—Jean Monfort via Facebook 

[Editor’s note: Congress has the authority to make laws regarding gun control, which is why the question was formulated that way. So if you oppose gun control, you would vote “no” in the poll.] 

Leaving out Jesus 

Your holiday issue omitted the central person of Christmas, Jesus Christ, our Lord. The empty chatter about gifts, hedonism and the rest of the hype are of no importance. “Christmas” means “Christ’s Mass” in the ancient English usage in the liturgical calendar. Hopefully, your readers may be interested in Jesus, Christ the Lord, Savior of the world.

—Michael Suozzi of Mission Hills via letter 

About Craftsman homes

Re: “The Craftsman awaits his wake,” [Volume 7, Issue 20 or bit.ly/1KOwFxh]

Everyone saying that Mr. [Eric] Domeier is misguided has clearly not the owner of a Craftsman home who has had to deal with the historical review board.

My growing family and I love our historic (though NOT Mills Act eligible) home. We outgrew the space and spent thousands of dollars designing a second-story addition to accommodate our needs. We hired professionals who are knowledgeable about the board’s requirements for additions to historic homes, and our design met them to the best of our knowledge. Nevertheless, the board refused our design because the addition, while set back from the original structure per the rules, is not set back “significantly enough.” In subsequent correspondence they’ve refused to define what they mean by “significant,” leaving us in limbo not knowing what to do.

Apparently from the historical board’s perspective, our plan makes the addition look too much like it was part of the original structure. How asinine is that? They’ll allow additions to these beautiful homes as long as the addition clearly looks like it was added on after the fact. That’s how we get approved structures like the one on 32nd Street, where there’s an ultra-modern three-story tower stuck onto the back of 1920s Craftsman. That’s not my idea of preservation.

The historical review board has little common sense and wields their power in an arbitrary and capricious manner. They don’t care about our homes, neighborhoods, or the people they serve. Ask any contractor, designer, or architect in the county and they’ll tell you the same.

—Sean Bornhoeft via Facebook

Loving the renaissance

Re: “The Boulevard is back!” [Volume 7, Issue 25 or bit.ly/1TNVbUm]

Big kudos to Tootie [Thomas] and everyone at the El Cajon Boulevard BIA! When I was a kid, I was always told to avoid “The Boulevard” but that is so not the case anymore! It gets better everyday and really is a cool street again! Can’t wait to see even more good stuff coming back to this grand street!

—Benny Cartwright via Facebook

Re: “Mission Hills debates: ‘growth vs. no growth’” [Volume 7, Issue 24 or bit.ly/1I6YeGN]

The title of the article “growth vs. no-growth” is very misleading and mischaracterizes the debate about the Uptown Community Plan update. I didn’t hear any speakers at the Mission Hills Town Council town hall meeting advocating for no growth. Most of the comments focused on concerns that growth and new density are done correctly and don’t wreak havoc on the community.

My comments for Mission Hills Heritage acknowledge that new development is going to occur; the focus should be on where and how much. The land-use map that Mission Hills Heritage submitted to the city (which was coordinated with the Mission Hills Town Council) is scaled back from the very high limits allowed by the 1988 plan, but still allows plenty of new development along the commercial core area of Mission Hills near Washington and Goldfinch and along Reynard Way. We just need to make sure that new development is done thoughtfully and doesn’t destroy the attributes of our neighborhoods that we cherish.

—Barry Hager via Facebook

[Editor’s note: The headline was taken directly from a quote by Sharon Gehl, a member of the Mission Hills Town Council’s board of trustees, who said during the question-and-answer session: “It boils down to growth vs. no growth.” I sat in the front row at the meeting and heard a number of speakers advocating against growth and for neighborhood preservation.]

—Send letters to the editor to [email protected] or via the San Diego Uptown News website or our Facebook page.