Is a new San Diego neighborhood group positive for the Uptown area?

The San Diego City Council voted last week to replace its existing neighborhood group in the Uptown area with a new group that describes itself as younger, more renter-focused and less resistant to development.

It’s expected the move could ultimately pave the way for more high-rises and dense development in Hillcrest, Mission Hills, Bankers Hill and nearby neighborhoods.

The move is part of a three-year effort to modernize San Diego’s 40 neighborhood planning groups, which have received backlash for opposing projects and increased density.

Council members were won over by the new group, Vibrant Uptown, but faced heavy criticism from the previous group, Uptown Planners. Critics argued the process was undemocratic and an effort by the city to limit neighborhood input on controversial projects, such as high-rises.

Q: Is the new neighborhood group a positive for the Uptown area?

Economists

David Ely, San Diego State University

YES: To the extent that the new neighborhood planning group is a strong advocate for increasing housing in these areas, this is a positive development. Numerous complex issues must be evaluated when major projects are proposed, but increasing the stock of housing in San Diego to better align with demand should be the highest priority. Also, renters and individuals aspiring to become homeowners should have a voice in planning decisions.

Caroline Freund, UC San Diego School of Global Policy and Strategy

YES: Change is good. Over time the goal of entrenched neighborhood groups becomes protecting their castles instead of expanding the kingdom for all. Changing the composition of the neighborhood group will give voice to a wider and more balanced array of views. The new group should engage the old group to take advantage of their knowledge and avoid worsening divisions.

Lynn Reaser, economist

YES: The new system will give greater representation to the smaller areas such as University Heights, Hillcrest and Bankers Hill by giving them each a homeowner and renter vote. The influence of these areas in the past has been dominated by that of the more populous Mission Hills. Do not expect to see significant amounts of new housing, however. There will continue to be opposition to high-rises, greater densities and increased congestion.

Alan Gin, University of San Diego

YES: Particularly important is the structure of the board of the new group. The district elections and the requirement that both renters and owners be represented will allow better representation of the diverse community. That may lead to more density and more housing being built, which will benefit both Uptown and the city. Given the limited amount of land available for development, the only solution to getting more housing is increased density, which may mean high-rises in Uptown.

James Hamilton, UC San Diego

NO: The advisory boards provide feedback from the community. But when the City Council doesn’t like what it hears, it tries to choose a new group to “represent” the community. Board members should be selected by open elections without specifying that they have to come from certain groups. If the city doesn’t like the feedback they’re getting, they’re free to ignore it. Ultimately the decision will be made by voters in the next election for mayor and council members.

Executives

Phil Blair, Manpower

YES: If the community has selected people to represent it when discussing difficult issues it is a good move. We do need turnover in every volunteer and elected office. We need new thinking and avoiding appointments for life by people who no longer represent their community’s thinking.

Gary London, London Moeder Advisors

YES: The revitalization of planning groups is necessary given the changing demographics of the communities. Most of this is about old vs. young, and their differing agendas and needs. Many community planning groups have been overpopulated by persons resistant to change. Yet, planning is all about confronting the future and maximizing opportunities for communities to revitalize and flex for change.

Bob Rauch, R.A. Rauch & Associates

YES: As a former chairman of one of the city of San Diego planning boards, I observed a group of residents who did not have the city’s best interests in mind. They were opposed to any development, good or bad. This group felt that any pro-business position should be stopped in its tracks. Good development is something all of us should desire, whether in Uptown or a suburban community. Change is needed.

Austin Neudecker, Weave Growth

YES: While it is refreshing to see a change of the guard toward more progressive housing policies, I fear we may over-correct in some instances. Planning groups should be representative of their neighborhood in terms of owners vs. renters, ages, and socioeconomic position. We need more housing density. Development should be informed by community members who are both equipped to provide useful feedback and open to change.

Jamie Moraga, Franklin Revere

NO: This sets a dangerous precedent as the council shouldn’t interfere with elected neighborhood groups to push an agenda. Additionally, it appears the council is selectively meddling, keeping La Jolla’s planning group but ousting the Uptown planning group. Individuals should be elected to their planning groups by their own neighborhoods. Sadly, ambitious development plans will significantly alter these neighborhoods and their community character unless these planning groups can find a way to legally fight back.

Not participating this week:

Chris Van Gorder, Scripps Health

Haney Hong, San Diego County Taxpayers Association

Kelly Cunningham, San Diego Institute for Economic Research

Norm Miller, University of San Diego

Ray Major, SANDAG

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