Yes On One Paseo

Elliot Schroeder Elliot Schroeder 14 Comments

Share

The San Diego City Council already voted to approve the One Paseo project in Carmel Valley. But signatures have been gathered to put One Paseo to a Referendum. Opposition anchors its argument that the new shopping area will increase traffic on El Camino Real and Del Mar Heights Road. Most of this traffic growth is a result of the mixed used (living and shopping) that is planned for the site. You know, the condensed living that the left wants everyone to live in. The same plan that is supposed to reduce traffic and pollution.

I support One Paseo. Yes, traffic will increase. Its going to increase anyway, so I might as well get something out of it. Carmel Valley is an oddity in San Diego, its about 20 minutes from everything but there isn’t much there. So if you complain about traffic, try going out for dinner. You are surrounded by a wall of automobiles stopped on the 5, 805, 56 and the 101! One Paseo has the potential to let you out of your house and eat somewhere besides the limited and crowded offering at Del Mar Highlands Town Center without dealing with the even worse freeway traffic. Carmel Valley needs more by us. It will keep us off the freeways contributing to that traffic. It increases the desirability of an already desirable community that oddly has too little in the area for dinner. Support One Paseo.

Share

Comments 14

  1. In fact it’s the developer and city who’ve promoted this project’s “green” and “smart growth” qualities, even though there aren’t any. The nearest bus stop is four blocks away!

    Growth is hardly desirable, per se. Some is good, some is bad. Unfortunately, the One Paseo project, which packs the same density as UTC on a lot one third the size, definitely falls into the latter category.

    Let’s hope San Diegans have enough empathy with these North County neighbors to reject this project.

    No on One (dramatically overwrought) Paseo!

  2. Post
    Author

    So its the traffic you are worried about? I’ve always found traffic as an emotional argument. Everyone hates traffic but no one quantifies. I used to take the train to OC because I hated traffic then I started driving and found that the commute was about the same even though it was stop and go AND I then had the freedom to travel when I want to and go elsewhere.

    Same with One Paseo. it will add traffic. We are not talking about a 30min more wait on DMH rd or EC. Probably a few minutes, but the advantages of more to do easily out weigh that.

  3. Traffic’s definitely one (though from the only) facet of this project that would adversely affect (NOT “impact”) the area. But since you’ve brought it up, let’s stick with it.

    I can’t cite any figures, but wouldn’t common sense tell us that the effect of increased traffic on any given area would be directly proportional to the density of the increase? To spread this amount of traffic over the whole of Carmel Valley, for example, would likely have minimal effect on traffic. But to condense that same number into one area–again, a project with the same density as UTC on roughly 1/3 the land; not even thirty acres (UTC has 75 plus)–would put a tremendous strain on the ease of access to/in that area, would it not?

    Development can improve our communities, but shouldn’t we insist as much–indeed more!–on the quality of proposed projects as we do the quantity? San Diego builders, it seems to me, have, for the most part, stressed the former to the detriment of the latter.

    We know what the builder and city want out this this thing. Money. But the people of the area want to protect their neighborhood. I understand and sympathize with their motive.

  4. It has always been about money and it will always be about money.
    That is what this country is about.
    People no longer count.

    Read the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire and you will see this country is headed down the same path.
    Corrupt politicians of both party’s leading us to our own demise.

    Just look at the vote for the new AG

  5. Good on ya Elliot! Everyone respects property rights until their neighbor wants to build a better home than they have. In this case, the owner of Del Mar Highlands doesn’t want to compete with One Paseo so he’s funding the opposition. Crony capitalism at its worst.

    I look forward to the bowling competitions, between our families, at One Paseo

  6. Few object to nicer homes; it’s big, ugly, shopping centers and apartment complexes (or any combo thereof) they dislike. What they like is the area they call home, and don’t want to see it ruined. I don’t blame them.
    And the owner of Del Mar Highlands is in good company–plentiful company. Twice as many area residents oppose this project as approve it.
    Again, One Paseo was aggressively pitched to the public as a “smart growth” project, though it’s anything but that. No rail, trolley, even bus stop for four blocks. It was sold, in other words, on the basis of a big lie; but one our public “servants” were, for obvious reasons, only too eager to believe.
    If I were a gamblin’ man, I’d put my money on the opposition.

  7. “If I were a gamblin’ man, I’d put my money on the opposition.”,

    Oh, they’ll stop the project for sure. Whenever the NIMBY mob gathers, they almost always win. Southern Californians’ mantra is “restrict your neighbors’ property to artificially add value to yours”.

    That’s really what this is; a mob gathering to restrict their neighbor from building a better property than they have.

  8. Well, I haven’t seen the architect’s drawings, Brian. But if it’s anything like the artist’s renderings–just another tasteless SoCal mishmash of mission/classical “styles” (and here I’m using the word “style” in the loosest possible sense)–then I think the area’s residents can rest assured: their homes are, and will continue to be, the “better properties.”

  9. Post
    Author

    I think it can’t be understated that Del Mar Highlands Town Center isn’t interested in competing rental space. That’s why all the hype about density and traffic.

    I’ve seen a lot of developments in North County. Same old arguments, too much traffic, eye sore, and so on. In the end once its built people use it and love it. Trust me, even in my own local family I’ve heard them complain when the development near where they live was proposed and now they are there all the time.

  10. The Del Mar Highlands owner (is the) “lone gunman” thesis might hold more water if there hadn’t been such a massive outpouring of popular opposition.
    Of all people, conservatives should beware “since it’s old we can safely dismiss it” style critiques. Some changes are good and some (unfortunately) are bad.
    Future Carmel Valley residents will thank themselves for shooing this developer away before he dumped in their neighborhood.

  11. It’s the “developer’s” neighborhood too. That’s the funny thing about property rights– if you own there, it’s your neignborhood too.

  12. True enough, Brian. And since the code in that area limits one to 500,000 sq. ft. on parcels that size–just over 20 acres–Kilroy should, like every good neighbor, go back to the drawing board and reduce the scale of his project by at least half.

  13. You may have answered my question, Craig but I would appreciate an answer from anyone in the know.

    Is Kilroy asking for a zoning variance (at 1 million sf) or was that provision in place when they bought the property?

Leave a Reply

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