Advertisement
 
YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollectionsInterim Development Ordinance
IN THE NEWS

Interim Development Ordinance

FEATURED ARTICLES
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
April 24, 1988
Mayor O'Connor's inconsistent application of commonsense principles has been evident for some time. In early April, she voted to let another North City developer have an exemption from the IDO (Interim Development Ordinance) growth ordinance. Her rationale: the developer had an investment in the property and the city could be on the losing end of a multimillion-dollar lawsuit. Fair enough. Two weeks later, the mayor continued her simplistic attack on the Belmont Park redevelopment.
ARTICLES BY DATE
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
April 19, 1989 | LEONARD BERNSTEIN, Times Staff Writer
The San Diego City Council on Tuesday adopted a standby ordinance outlining the procedures it would use to limit home building citywide or in individual neighborhoods in the event of an emergency. The 6-2 council vote gives the city legislation it will "put on the shelf" for use if population growth from new residential construction outstrips the capacity of roads, schools, sewers or public facilities, according to Planner Tom Farrar. "Let's hope we never have to use this," said Deputy Mayor Judy McCarty, who, with Councilman Bruce Henderson, opposed the measure.
Advertisement
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
June 14, 1987
Whether it be a City Council decision to lease developers public land (Mission Beach Park, for example), or Sandag voting for a Sheraton hotel at Torrey Pines Golf Course, or the school board attempt to "lease" taxpayer school sites, or the federal government telling local communities that an environmental impact report is not necessary at the site where a greedy group wishes to put a hazardous-waste test site on "pueblo lands"--San Diego needs growth...
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
November 6, 1988
Proposition D, misleadingly called the Rural Preservation and Traffic Control Initiative, is probably the most restrictive no-growth initiative on the ballot, the next being Proposition J. It pits the Haves against the Have Nots, with the cost of housing rising to unheard-of levels. It will cause vacancies in rental housing to be non-existent and thereby raise rent to such levels that rent control will be the next battleground. Jobs in the building industry, and many other jobs that are created from the economy being healthy, will die in what is nationally one of the longest sustained growth periods.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
October 20, 1987
What audacity for two Los Angeles writers to suggest that San Diego should become as unlivable as Los Angeles by allowing unlimited urban growth. The authors have correctly identified the problems of unlimited growth but have proposed no viable solutions. However, criticizing the Interim Development Ordinance is being done in San Diego, as well, as many consider it too pro-growth. Consequently, the local "Citizens for Limited Growth" organization is sponsoring a countywide voter initiative which would: 1)
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
April 19, 1989 | LEONARD BERNSTEIN, Times Staff Writer
The San Diego City Council on Tuesday adopted a standby ordinance outlining the procedures it would use to limit home building citywide or in individual neighborhoods in the event of an emergency. The 6-2 council vote gives the city legislation it will "put on the shelf" for use if population growth from new residential construction outstrips the capacity of roads, schools, sewers or public facilities, according to Planner Tom Farrar. "Let's hope we never have to use this," said Deputy Mayor Judy McCarty, who, with Councilman Bruce Henderson, opposed the measure.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
October 25, 1987
The Times editorial ("Vote Yes on Proposition A," Oct. 18) deserves a response. If passed, Measure A would raise the county sales tax to 6.5% for transportation projects. Although some projects might be beneficial, this tax would be a blank check for local governments. Many citizens believe that most of the funds would be spent on projects that would benefit developers and result in only more subdivision and worse gridlock. In the same edition, The Times printed an article by two USC professors of urban development that criticized San Diego's Interim Development Ordinance.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
July 26, 1987
July 21, 1987, the day the San Diego City Council adopted the Interim Development Ordinance and approved more effective protections for the city's natural resources, may become the most significant date in the city's recent history. Mayor O'Connor and Councilman Gotch are to be commended for taking leadership roles and standing up to the extraordinary pressures mounted by the development industry. In spite of unsubstantiated predictions of financial ruin for the industry and San Diego, the council majority voted to preserve the city's quality of life by limiting residential growth and protecting the city's canyons, wetlands and river valleys.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
January 31, 1988
Jess Haro's eloquent plea for district elections as a remedy for Latino disenfranchisement ("San Diego Minority Representation Hinges on End to At-Large Voting," Jan. 10) is not just another minority voice crying in the wilderness of San Diego politics. A change to district elections for San Diego City Council has never been more relevant or full of promise for improved standards of civic life--for everyone in this city, regardless of ethnic or economic pigeon hole. Times readers undoubtedly know there is widespread popular discontent with the quality of San Diego City Council.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
November 6, 1988
Proposition D, misleadingly called the Rural Preservation and Traffic Control Initiative, is probably the most restrictive no-growth initiative on the ballot, the next being Proposition J. It pits the Haves against the Have Nots, with the cost of housing rising to unheard-of levels. It will cause vacancies in rental housing to be non-existent and thereby raise rent to such levels that rent control will be the next battleground. Jobs in the building industry, and many other jobs that are created from the economy being healthy, will die in what is nationally one of the longest sustained growth periods.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
April 24, 1988
Mayor O'Connor's inconsistent application of commonsense principles has been evident for some time. In early April, she voted to let another North City developer have an exemption from the IDO (Interim Development Ordinance) growth ordinance. Her rationale: the developer had an investment in the property and the city could be on the losing end of a multimillion-dollar lawsuit. Fair enough. Two weeks later, the mayor continued her simplistic attack on the Belmont Park redevelopment.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
January 31, 1988
Jess Haro's eloquent plea for district elections as a remedy for Latino disenfranchisement ("San Diego Minority Representation Hinges on End to At-Large Voting," Jan. 10) is not just another minority voice crying in the wilderness of San Diego politics. A change to district elections for San Diego City Council has never been more relevant or full of promise for improved standards of civic life--for everyone in this city, regardless of ethnic or economic pigeon hole. Times readers undoubtedly know there is widespread popular discontent with the quality of San Diego City Council.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
January 3, 1988
During the first two weeks of December, the San Diego City Council dealt a death blow to the Interim Development Ordinance, the slow-growth and environmental protection legislation they passed last June. Two major projects, Carmel Mountain Ranch and Miramar Ranch North, with more than 10,000 dwelling units, were exempted from the IDO along with 210 more units slated for Pacific Beach and La Jolla. Council members advocating these major exemptions voiced the tired rationale that developer fees and agreements will finance the cost of rapid growth.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
October 25, 1987
The Times editorial ("Vote Yes on Proposition A," Oct. 18) deserves a response. If passed, Measure A would raise the county sales tax to 6.5% for transportation projects. Although some projects might be beneficial, this tax would be a blank check for local governments. Many citizens believe that most of the funds would be spent on projects that would benefit developers and result in only more subdivision and worse gridlock. In the same edition, The Times printed an article by two USC professors of urban development that criticized San Diego's Interim Development Ordinance.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
October 20, 1987
What audacity for two Los Angeles writers to suggest that San Diego should become as unlivable as Los Angeles by allowing unlimited urban growth. The authors have correctly identified the problems of unlimited growth but have proposed no viable solutions. However, criticizing the Interim Development Ordinance is being done in San Diego, as well, as many consider it too pro-growth. Consequently, the local "Citizens for Limited Growth" organization is sponsoring a countywide voter initiative which would: 1)
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
July 26, 1987
July 21, 1987, the day the San Diego City Council adopted the Interim Development Ordinance and approved more effective protections for the city's natural resources, may become the most significant date in the city's recent history. Mayor O'Connor and Councilman Gotch are to be commended for taking leadership roles and standing up to the extraordinary pressures mounted by the development industry. In spite of unsubstantiated predictions of financial ruin for the industry and San Diego, the council majority voted to preserve the city's quality of life by limiting residential growth and protecting the city's canyons, wetlands and river valleys.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
January 3, 1988
During the first two weeks of December, the San Diego City Council dealt a death blow to the Interim Development Ordinance, the slow-growth and environmental protection legislation they passed last June. Two major projects, Carmel Mountain Ranch and Miramar Ranch North, with more than 10,000 dwelling units, were exempted from the IDO along with 210 more units slated for Pacific Beach and La Jolla. Council members advocating these major exemptions voiced the tired rationale that developer fees and agreements will finance the cost of rapid growth.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
June 14, 1987
Whether it be a City Council decision to lease developers public land (Mission Beach Park, for example), or Sandag voting for a Sheraton hotel at Torrey Pines Golf Course, or the school board attempt to "lease" taxpayer school sites, or the federal government telling local communities that an environmental impact report is not necessary at the site where a greedy group wishes to put a hazardous-waste test site on "pueblo lands"--San Diego needs growth...
Los Angeles Times Articles
|