Effort to declare Marina Village surplus land, opening it up to housing, implodes

Effort to declare Marina Village surplus land, opening it up to housing, implodes

San Diego's Marina Village Controversy: A $1.2 Billion Development Dream Meets Public Parkland Reality

Powerful developers with deep political ties and billion-dollar ambitions collided this summer with an aroused citizenry determined to protect Mission Bay Park from housing development—exposing fault lines in California's affordable housing laws and a city government caught in a fiscal vise of its own making

In the crystalline waters of Mission Bay Park, where families gather for weekend barbecues and sailboats drift lazily past palm-lined shores, few could have predicted that a 28-acre corner occupied by an aging conference center would ignite San Diego's summer of civic fury.

Yet by July 2025, the Marina Village property had become ground zero in a battle that exposed the combustible intersection of California's housing crisis, a controversial state law meant to address it, billion-dollar development ambitions, and a city government increasingly desperate for revenue after voters rejected a major tax increase and courts invalidated pension reforms that had been approved by a landslide.

The controversy erupted when Mayor Todd Gloria's administration quietly moved to declare Marina Village and two adjacent Mission Bay properties "surplus land"—a designation that under California law could open public parkland to housing development. When an unsolicited proposal surfaced weeks later calling for up to 900 residential units alongside a luxury hotel, suspicions hardened into outrage.

By late July, the City Council voted 7-1 to indefinitely postpone the surplus land designation amid fierce public opposition, and in September, Gloria formally requested a state exemption from the law. But the episode laid bare a web of lobbying, political connections, and financial pressures that critics say exemplifies everything wrong with San Diego's approach to land use and development.

Between a Rock and a Hard Place: The Fiscal Crisis Behind the Land Grab

To understand why city officials appeared so eager to monetize Mission Bay parkland, one must grasp the dire fiscal strait in which San Diego finds itself—a predicament years in the making that came to a head in November 2024.

Measure E, a one-cent sales tax increase that would have generated $400 million annually for city infrastructure and services, failed by the narrowest of margins—just 3,500 votes out of more than 573,000 cast. The measure received 49.7% support, falling just short of the simple majority needed.

The city's independent budget analyst had projected a $1 billion structural deficit—the shortfall between committed spending levels versus expected revenue—over the next five years. With Measure E's defeat, the city faced a $258 million shortfall for fiscal year 2026 alone.

The loss was particularly bitter given that San Diego already had one of the lowest sales tax rates in California. Critics attributed the defeat to a lack of trust in city government, particularly after high-profile debacles like the 101 Ash Street building scandal and the Midway Rising development controversy.

But if the sales tax defeat was painful, the pension crisis proved devastating. In 2012, San Diego voters approved Proposition B by a margin of more than 65%, replacing guaranteed pensions with 401(k)-style retirement plans for most newly hired city employees except police officers. The reform was seen as crucial to controlling ballooning pension costs that had begun crowding out funding for libraries, roads, and core services.

However, in August 2018, the California Supreme Court ruled that the measure had been placed on the ballot illegally because then-Mayor Jerry Sanders had violated state labor law by refusing to negotiate with unions before backing the citizen's initiative. In January 2021, a Superior Court judge invalidated Proposition B entirely, requiring the city to reinstate pensions for all employees hired since 2012.

The reversal carried staggering financial consequences. Incorporating affected employees into the legacy pension system cost San Diego $142 million—most of which became debt—and raised the city's required yearly pension contributions for 2025 by $48 million. In 2025, San Diegans are paying $490 million for city pensions.

Caught between these twin disasters, the Gloria administration scrambled for new revenue sources. The city turned to fees that had traditionally been restricted or free.

In 2022, voters had approved studying a trash collection fee, with estimates suggesting $23-$29 per month. By April 2025, the city proposed charging $53 monthly—nearly double the original estimate—for what had been free trash pickup since 1919. After public outcry, the fee was reduced to $47.59 monthly, still expected to save the general fund $80-$90 million in its first year.

The city also moved to implement paid parking at Balboa Park, with fees ranging from $5 to $16 per day depending on location, projected to generate $14 million in net revenue. The city approved extending meter enforcement to Sundays and installing meters throughout the park, with an estimated $18.4 million in additional revenue from metered parking and $11 million from Balboa Park lots.

At the July 2 Land Use Committee meeting discussing Marina Village, Economic Development Director Christina Bibler was blunt about the city's approach: "This is just the first of many you will see coming to this committee in the future," she said, explaining that the cash-strapped city was examining all properties for revenue potential.

"You Don't Sell Parkland": Early Warning Signs

The warning signs came early. As the city's plan began to surface publicly, Bob Ottilie, a lawyer and former chairman of the Mission Bay Park Committee, became one of the first to sound alarms about what he saw as a dangerous legal trap.

In a local television interview, Ottilie toured the deteriorating Marina Village property, pointing to the dilapidated structures. "This is basically a restroom for birds," he said, acknowledging the site's poor condition. But the real issue, he insisted, wasn't whether the property needed improvement—it was the legal mechanism the city proposed to use.

"The city's plan isn't nearly as simple as they're making it sound because state law says cities must prioritize surplus land for the development of affordable housing," Ottilie explained. "You end up with litigation and the person who wants to put low income housing, which is the state's [priority], will go to court and get an order and we could end up with housing in Mission Bay Park. That is absolutely absurd."

Ottilie also raised concerns about the city's financial motivations. Under existing law, most revenue generated in Mission Bay Park must stay within the park system and cannot be diverted to the city's general fund. But declaring properties surplus land could potentially allow the city to circumvent that restriction.

"I think it's to take the money," Ottilie said. "I think they're trying to find ways to get money and so they're going to steal money from the Mission Bay Park."

The television report noted that while some council members like Sean Elo-Rivera were open to the idea—with the city suggesting it could attract new development like a hotel through longer lease terms—opponents were mobilizing. "We have to save Mission Bay Park," Ottilie declared. "This is the most important issue of the year in San Diego."

The fundamental principle driving opposition was simple, as expressed by concerned residents: "You don't sell parkland." As one advocate put it: "Privately owned housing is not appropriate at these locations that are intended to be public access for all on one of our most treasured parcels of land."

Marina Village Deal: Web of Connections

How developers, political appointees, lobbyists, and campaign donors intersect in San Diego's controversial parkland proposal

The diagram makes it easy to see how developers with deep political connections, campaign contributions, and multiple lobbying channels all converge on a single piece of public parkland. Interactive Web of Connection 

The Players: Billion-Dollar Marina Operator Meets Political Powerhouse

The development proposal came from an unlikely partnership: Dallas-based Suntex Marinas, which in April 2024 announced a joint venture with Centerbridge Partners backed by $1.25 billion to acquire marinas nationwide, and San Diego's Monarch Group, a La Jolla real estate firm whose partners have spent decades cultivating relationships in the highest echelons of California politics.

Suntex operates more than 90 marinas across the country and secured a $600 million revolving credit facility from Wells Fargo, Bank of America, and other major lenders to fuel its expansion. Hampus Idsater, senior investment manager at Centerbridge who co-signed the Marina Village proposal, was appointed by Governor Gavin Newsom in April 2025 to the state Boating and Waterways Commission, which exercises jurisdiction over marinas.

But it's the Monarch Group that brings the real political heft. Founded in 1997 by Rodney F. Stone, William "Pat" Kruer, George "Tim" Kruer, and Ryan E. Stone, the firm has developed, entitled, or acquired more than 19,000 residential units since its founding, with approximately two-thirds in San Diego.

William "Pat" Kruer, who died in 2024 at age 78, served on the California Coastal Commission for more than a decade after being appointed in 1999 by then-Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa, serving as chairman from 2006 to 2008. His daughter, Sarah Kruer Jager—now a Monarch partner—served on the state Commission on Judicial Performance from 2016 through 2023 after being appointed by former Assembly Speaker and current Senate President pro Tempore Toni Atkins.

The firm's financial connections to Mayor Gloria also raised eyebrows. Campaign finance records show that in January 2024, Jager contributed $25,000 from Monarch Housing Solutions LLC to an independent committee supporting Gloria's reelection—the second-largest contribution the committee received during the election cycle.

Beyond real estate, Monarch Group partners Rodney and Ryan Stone and Masis Kevorkian are licensed owners of three California cardrooms, including Seven Mile Casino in Chula Vista and two near Sacramento.

Sidebar: Sarah Kruer Jager - Smooth Operator

Sarah Kruer Jager joined Monarch Group in 2005 as a founding member of the Monarch Investment Funds real estate private equity funds family and currently serves as a partner at the firm. She works closely with the founding partners to set the firm's strategic direction and oversees day-to-day business activities for all of Monarch's wholly owned and joint venture investments, leading the acquisition, predevelopment, finance, asset management, and disposition functions.

Regarding her service on the California Commission on Judicial Performance, Sarah Kruer Jager served as a member from 2016 through 2023. She was initially appointed by California State Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins in 2016 and was reappointed by the Rules Committee of the California State Senate in 2019. The Commission on Judicial Performance is an independent state agency responsible for judicial discipline in California.

During her tenure at Monarch, Sarah has acquired, developed, and sold over $1 billion in real estate investments, including over 7,800 residential units throughout the Western U.S. Prior to joining Monarch, she worked at UBS Investment Bank in Chicago in the Mergers & Acquisitions and Diversified Industrials Groups.

Sarah graduated from the University of Michigan Stephen M. Ross School of Business with a Bachelor of Business Administration degree with High Distinction and received her MBA from The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. She was a member of the University of Michigan Division I Varsity Women's Golf Team on a four-year full tuition athletic scholarship and was named to the Division I All-American Scholar Golf Team.

Monarch Group is a multi-generation, private real estate investment and development firm located in La Jolla, California, established in 1997. The firm has political connections, with Sarah's father William "Patrick" Kruer having served as a commissioner on the California Coastal Commission for more than a decade after being appointed by then-Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa in 1999.

 

The Lobbying Campaign: Months of Behind-the-Scenes Maneuvering

While city officials characterized the Marina Village proposal as "unsolicited," public records reveal a coordinated lobbying effort that began months before the July proposal materialized.

In the first quarter of 2025, Suntex hired Ledford Enterprises to lobby for a "lease assignment and lease extension" for Marina Village. The firm targeted Lucy Contreras, deputy director of the city's real estate department, and Seamus Kennedy, senior policy adviser to Councilmember Jennifer Campbell, whose District 2 includes Mission Bay Park.

Stone Acquisition Group—a limited liability company registered on May 6, 2025, with Monarch principals listed as managers—retained Southwest Strategies, described in news reports as a "heavyweight firm" involved in major city deals, to lobby city officials for "Marina Village lease extensions."

In September, lawyer Ann Moore, vice chair of the San Diego Port Commission, disclosed her retention by Stone Acquisition for "redevelopment of Marina Village."

When Councilmember Sean Elo-Rivera asked at a July 2 committee meeting whether there was "outside interest" in developing the property, city staff responded that there was "nothing formal in place right now"—despite the lobbying meetings already conducted.

The Proposal: 900 Units, Union Support, and a Sweetener

The July 21 proposal to Economic Development Director Christina Bibler was ambitious: a 500-room resort-style hotel with event center and luxury spa, revised marina facilities, shops and restaurants, and up to 900 residential units with 30% designated affordable housing, with preference for hotel workers.

The developers emphasized union-friendly credentials, committing to Project Labor Agreements with the Building and Construction Trades union and UNITE HERE Local 30 hotel workers union—powerful political players in San Diego.

The proposal included an unusual financial sweetener: a three-year lease extension (one year beyond the current lease expiring in spring 2027) with an additional $500,000 annual payment—$1.5 million total—to give the city extra revenue while master planning occurred.

Notably, the developers asked city officials to hold off on declaring the parcel surplus land and instead consider their short-term lease proposal—suggesting they were well aware of the city's parallel efforts.

The Surplus Land Act: A Tool Sharpened for Housing

Originally enacted in 1968, California's Surplus Land Act was significantly strengthened in 2020 through Assembly Bill 1486, which expanded its scope and enforcement to address the state's affordable housing crisis. The 2020 amendments reduced exemptions, added new restrictions on how agencies can use and dispose of land, and instituted penalties for noncompliance.

Under the law, before disposing of land via sale or lease longer than 15 years, local governments must notify potential developers for a 60-day period. If proposals are received, the government must enter "good faith" negotiations for 90 days, with proposals including affordable housing receiving priority.

Local agencies that violate the act face serious consequences: 30% of the final sale price for first violations, rising to 50% for subsequent violations, with penalty money deposited into local housing trust funds.

Nothing in the law obligates governments to make deals, and if negotiations fail, property can be marketed publicly.

The Quiet Push: Burying It in the Consent Calendar

On July 2, the City Council's Land Use and Housing Committee approved designating Marina Village surplus land with little fanfare. The proposal included waiving a requirement that properties first be circulated among city departments to determine potential municipal uses, allowing the city to proceed directly to issuing public notices.

Economic Development Director Christina Bibler told the committee the city had assembled a list of underperforming properties with expired or soon-expiring leases, and that while Marina Village's lease doesn't expire until spring 2027, "technically the department has been working on it since about December."

The item was scheduled for final approval on July 29—the last City Council meeting before summer recess—buried in the consent calendar where items typically pass without individual discussion.

But former City Councilmember Donna Frye had sounded the alarm weeks earlier in articles for the OB Rag publication. When Frye learned the city was considering declaring Mission Bay Park property surplus land, her immediate reaction was: "Mission Bay Park is not 'surplus land.'"

At the July 29 meeting, Councilmember Marni Von Wilpert pulled the item from consent, triggering heated debate. When Councilmember Stephen Whitburn questioned whether urgent action was necessary for a lease not expiring until 2027, the council voted 7-1 to continue the item indefinitely.

Public Fury: "This is Frankly Scandalous"

On August 5, the Mission Bay Park Committee—which advises the city on park policy but hadn't been consulted before the July vote—voted 7-2-1 against the surplus land proposal following impassioned public testimony.

Public meetings erupted with passionate opposition. At community gatherings, including one at Paradise Point Resort designed to inform residents about the city's plans, opponents mobilized to stop what they saw as a threat to public trust.

At the Mission Bay Park Committee meeting, Council President Joe LaCava defended the designation by arguing housing development was "highly unlikely" given master plan restrictions and a city charter provision requiring two-thirds voter approval to repurpose parkland dedicated "in perpetuity." Conspicuously absent from the discussion: any mention of the 900-unit proposal the city had received weeks earlier.

When the Suntex-Monarch proposal became public in late August through documents released under Public Records Act requests, critics felt vindicated. Ottilie called the situation "frankly scandalous."

"You're going to take one of our two most prized parks and turn it into a housing development," he said, later adding: "This is the most incredible proposal I've ever seen come to the council."

Frye, who witnessed Mission Bay's development as a girl in the 1950s and 1960s, argued: "The city needs parkland, and places to take their kids and families. Mission Bay is one of the largest aquatic parks in the United States. We are not growing more parkland."

The Hasty Retreat—and Lingering Questions

On September 3, Gloria wrote to state officials requesting an exemption from the Surplus Land Act for Marina Village, arguing the land "is governed by charter, general plan, and master plan restrictions that exclude housing as a permissible use." State officials have not yet responded.

Gloria spokesperson Rachel Laing said if no exemption is granted, the city may pursue legislative changes to exempt Mission Bay and possibly other parkland. She added there are no plans to bring Marina Village back to the City Council.

But skeptics remain unconvinced. "I think these people are very serious, because I don't think they would've put together the proposal if they weren't," Frye said. "And I don't think that they would be hiring lobbyists to go and meet with city staff."

She noted that city officials lobbied by the developers were "the very people that are saying, 'We can't get an exemption. We have to comply with this Surplus Lands Act... But not to worry, because nobody's going to take it seriously. And we don't think anyone's gonna come up with a proposal.' But they already have. And they knew that."

A Broader Pattern: Trust Deficit at City Hall

The Marina Village controversy unfolded against a backdrop of growing distrust toward San Diego city government's real estate dealings.

The city's acquisition of the 101 Ash Street office tower has become a full-blown scandal. Originally leased in 2016 during Kevin Faulconer's administration, the building proved unusable due to asbestos contamination. In July 2022, Gloria recommended—over City Attorney Mara Elliott's objections—that the city purchase the 19-story building and a nearby property for $132 million, even though 101 Ash cannot be safely occupied.

Real estate magnate Doug Manchester, one of Faulconer's biggest financial supporters, gained $5 million through the 101 Ash deal, with his involvement initially hidden from public view.

The Midway Rising controversy added fuel to the fire. Brad Termini and his wife contributed $100,000 to help elect Gloria mayor—the two single largest personal donations to the effort—months before Termini's company, Zephyr Partners, was selected to redevelop the city-owned Sports Arena and surrounding property. Questions arose about whether the team was qualified, having never completed a project of similar scale, and about a payment by Midway Rising to political consultant Dan Rottenstreich, whose wife heads the powerful San Diego-Imperial Counties Labor Council.

The January 2024 floods that displaced 1,000 families raised further questions when critics noted that budget allocated for stormwater maintenance had been reallocated to purchase 101 Ash Street.

The Vise Tightens: No Easy Path Forward

The Marina Village lease is currently held by the Southern California Pipe Trades Retirement fund, which has operated it since 1977. The property remains in limbo as the city awaits state response to its exemption request.

"This is not only a Mission Bay Park issue," Frye said. "It's an issue of citywide concern for any public park land."

The city's fiscal desperation shows no signs of abating. With voters rejecting new taxes, courts invalidating pension reforms, and traditional revenue sources like parking and trash fees generating public backlash, San Diego finds itself in an increasingly untenable position—squeezed between ballooning obligations to fund city pensions and infrastructure needs, and a citizenry unwilling to trust city government with additional resources.

The Marina Village controversy may be the most visible symptom of this deeper malady: a city that for decades avoided making hard choices about pension obligations and infrastructure investment, instead relying on accounting gimmicks and deferred maintenance. As one analysis noted, "the city's budget is increasingly dedicated to paying for past commitments, forcing today's taxpayers to finance the retirements of yesterday's workforce at the expense of current and future investments."

As California grapples with intersecting crises—a housing shortage demanding 3.5 million new homes, local budget deficits, and demands for affordable development—Marina Village previews battles to come. The collision between urgent housing needs and cherished public spaces raises fundamental questions about whose interests prevail when powerful developers with deep pockets and political connections propose to reshape the civic landscape, and when city governments lack the fiscal flexibility to say no.

For now, San Diegans have successfully defended their park. But with the city's fiscal pressures mounting, pension costs rising, and state housing laws increasingly muscular, the question isn't whether such conflicts will recur—only where, when, and whether residents will continue to have the resources and resolve to resist. 

Sidebar: Creative Lease Alternatives 

The Investment Dilemma

The core challenge facing the city is straightforward: developers won't invest millions in improvements without long-term lease security, but leases longer than 15 years automatically trigger California's Surplus Land Act, which prioritizes affordable housing development.

"The standard approach would be to offer 30 to 50-year leases to attract quality developers," said a city planning official who requested anonymity to discuss ongoing negotiations. "But that immediately puts us in surplus land territory, which nobody wants for Mission Bay Park."

The 23-acre Marina Village site has been operating as a conference center and marina since 1962. The Mission Bay Park Master Plan designates the location for a 500-room hotel and conference center, but achieving that vision has proved elusive under current lease restrictions.

Creative Solutions Emerge

Among the alternatives being considered:

• Reimbursement Guarantees: Even with shorter 14-year leases, the city could offer tenant improvement allowances that reimburse operators for approved upgrades. If the lease isn't renewed, the city would pay for unamortized improvements, protecting the tenant's investment.
• Improvement Ownership Rights: Under this model, tenants would own their improvements as personal property during the lease term. If the lease ends, they could sell the improvements to the next operator or the city at fair market value.
• Revenue Sharing Partnerships: Instead of traditional lease payments, operators would share a percentage of gross revenues with the city. This aligns incentives and allows operators to recoup investments through operations rather than requiring long-term lease guarantees.
• Phased Development: Breaking large projects into smaller phases that align with shorter lease terms. Each completed phase would trigger the next lease period, reducing risk for both parties.

Political Path Forward

Meanwhile, Mayor Todd Gloria's administration continues working with state officials on a more permanent solution. The city is lobbying the Governor's Office, state housing officials, and legislators for an exemption from the Surplus Land Act for Mission Bay Park properties.

"We're still waiting to hear back," mayoral spokesperson Rachel Laing said about the exemption efforts.

Some officials are also exploring whether special legislation or a charter amendment could provide Mission Bay Park with unique leasing authority similar to what exists for tidelands, which can be leased for up to 66 years for harbor improvements and public purposes.

Clock Ticking Toward 2027

With the current lease expiring in less than two years, pressure is mounting to find a solution. The existing lessee, the Southern California Pipe Trades Retirement Fund, has held the lease since 1977, but the facility's deterioration has become increasingly apparent.

Bob Ottilie, former chair of the Mission Bay Park Committee, called protecting the park "the most important issue of the year in San Diego" and warned against any moves that could redirect park revenues to the city's general fund.

City officials stress they're committed to improving Marina Village while protecting its status as public parkland. The challenge is finding a structure that attracts investment without triggering state housing requirements — a needle they're still trying to thread.

"We want to fulfill the Mission Bay Park Master Plan," Laing said. "We don't believe housing makes sense there."

As negotiations continue behind the scenes, one thing remains clear: any solution will require careful balancing of investment needs, public access, and community concerns about preserving one of San Diego's most treasured public spaces.

The City Council is expected to receive an update on alternatives for Marina Village redevelopment in early 2026, though no formal proposal has been scheduled for consideration.

 

---

Sources

Primary Investigative Reports

1. Moran, Greg. "Effort to declare Marina Village surplus land, opening it up to housing, implodes." inewsource/Times of San Diego, October 15, 2025. https://timesofsandiego.com/life/2025/10/15/mission-bay-park-surplus-land-housing/

2. Moran, Greg. "How the Mission Bay Park housing controversy developed." inewsource, October 14, 2025. https://inewsource.org/2025/10/14/san-diego-mission-bay-park-housing-controversy/

3. McDonald, Jeff. "Developers want hundreds of homes on a chunk of Mission Bay Park the mayor wants declared surplus." The San Diego Union-Tribune, August 31, 2025. https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/2025/08/31/developers-want-hundreds-of-homes-on-a-chunk-of-mission-bay-park-the-mayor-wants-declared-surplus/

4. McDonald, Jeff. "San Diego walks back Mission Bay surplus property bid, for now." The San Diego Union-Tribune, September 27, 2025. https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/2025/09/27/san-diego-walks-back-mission-bay-surplus-property-bid-for-now/

5. McDonald, Jeff. "Big changes could soon come to southwestern Mission Bay Park, if the city gets its way." The San Diego Union-Tribune, July 28, 2025. https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/2025/07/28/big-changes-could-soon-come-to-southwestern-mission-bay-park-if-the-city-gets-its-way/

6. "City's surplus land plan in Mission Bay receives resistance." Times of San Diego, August 12, 2025. https://timesofsandiego.com/politics/2025/08/12/citys-surplus-land-plan-in-mission-bay-receives-resistance/

7. Local television news report on Mission Bay Park surplus land controversy (video transcript provided). San Diego television news broadcast, 2025.

Opinion and Analysis

8. Frye, Donna. "Mission Bay Park is Not Surplus Land: A Noteworthy Update." OB Rag, October 1, 2025. https://obrag.org/2025/10/mission-bay-park-is-not-surplus-land-a-noteworthy-update/

9. Frye, Donna. "Opinion: Mission Bay Park is not 'surplus' land." The San Diego Union-Tribune, August 15, 2025. https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/2025/08/15/opinion-mission-bay-park-is-not-surplus-land/

10. "Developers Want 100's of Homes On a Section of Mission Bay Park Mayor Gloria Wants Declared as 'Surplus Land'." OB Rag, August 31, 2025. https://obrag.org/2025/09/developers-want-100s-of-homes-on-a-section-of-mission-bay-park-mayor-gloria-wants-declared-as-surplus-land/

San Diego Fiscal Crisis

11. "San Diego city, county's tax measures appear headed for failure in early 2024 election results." NBC San Diego, November 7, 2024. https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/san-diegos-tax-measure-appears-headed-for-failure-in-early-2024-election-results/3668640/

12. "Budget Consequences of the Defeat of the City's Sales Tax Ballot Measure." San Diego Municipal Employees Association, January 10, 2025. https://www.sdmea.org/uncategorized/budget-consequences-of-the-defeat-of-the-citys-sales-tax-ballot-measure/

13. Grumbach, Max. "How Measure E failure affects San Diego's budget." Axios San Diego, November 22, 2024. https://www.axios.com/local/san-diego/2024/11/22/measure-e-failure-impact-san-diego-budget

14. Garrick, David and Alvarenga, Emily. "Voters appear to reject countywide, citywide sales tax hikes." The San Diego Union-Tribune, November 22, 2024. https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/2024/11/21/voters-appear-to-reject-countywide-citywide-sales-tax-hikes/

15. "Measure E vote shows stark divide between have and have-not neighborhoods in San Diego." KPBS Public Media, December 16, 2024. https://www.kpbs.org/news/politics/2024/12/10/san-diego-measure-sales-tax-neighborhood-vote

San Diego Pension Crisis

16. "California courts reversed San Diego pension vote for lack of union input." Crain's Chicago Business, July 3, 2019. https://www.chicagobusiness.com/crains-forum-pensions/why-you-should-care-about-pension-vote-california

17. Warth, Gary. "San Diego begins to unwind illegal pension reform measure." KPBS Public Media, February 2, 2022. https://www.kpbs.org/news/local/2022/02/01/san-diego-begins-to-unwind-illegal-pension-reform-measure

18. Garrick, David. "State Supreme Court rules San Diego skipped key legal step in taking pension reform to voters." The San Diego Union-Tribune, August 3, 2018. https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/california/la-me-ln-san-diego-pension-ruling-20180803-story.html

19. "Opinion: San Diego literally can't afford to ignore pension reform." The San Diego Union-Tribune, August 5, 2025. https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/2025/08/05/opinion-san-diego-literally-cant-afford-to-ignore-pension-reform/

20. Trujillo, Jordan. "Opinion: Why are so many of San Diego's needs going unmet? Extreme pension costs." The San Diego Union-Tribune, February 7, 2025. https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/2025/02/07/opinion-public-pension-costs-are-driving-deficits-eating-up-san-diegos-budget/

21. "San Diego, California, Proposition B, Changes to Retirement Plans for City Employees Initiative (June 2012)." Ballotpedia. https://ballotpedia.org/San_Diego,_California,_Proposition_B,Changes_to_Retirement_Plans_for_City_Employees_Initiative(June_2012)

Trash and Parking Fees

22. "Despite Pushback from Residents, City of San Diego Is Moving Ahead With $53 a Month Trash Fee." OB Rag, April 3, 2025. https://obrag.org/2025/04/despite-pushback-from-residents-city-of-san-diego-is-moving-ahead-with-53-a-month-trash-fee/

23. "San Diego has revised its proposed trash collection fee: How much it is now." FOX 5 San Diego, April 9, 2025. https://fox5sandiego.com/news/local-news/san-diego-has-revised-its-proposed-trash-collection-fee-how-much-it-is-now/

24. Bowman, Jennifer. "Why It Matters: Why San Diegans Could Soon Pay $50 a Month for Trash Pickup." Voice of San Diego, March 24, 2025. https://voiceofsandiego.org/2025/03/24/why-it-matters-why-san-diegans-could-soon-pay-50-a-month-for-trash-pickup/

25. Moujaes, Giovanni and Bowman, Jennifer. "San Diego's new parking fees and rules, explained." inewsource, September 22, 2025. https://inewsource.org/2025/09/22/san-diego-parking-fees-restrictions-balboa-park/

26. "San Diego City Council approves parking fees in Balboa Park." KPBS Public Media, September 16, 2025. https://www.kpbs.org/news/quality-of-life/2025/09/16/san-diego-city-council-approves-parking-fees-in-balboa-park

27. Garrick, David. "San Diego will charge to park in Balboa Park starting next year. Some wonder: Why not sooner?" The San Diego Union-Tribune, May 21, 2025. https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/2025/05/21/san-diego-will-charge-to-park-in-balboa-park-starting-next-year-some-wonder-why-not-sooner/

Corporate and Legal Sources

28. "Suntex Marinas and Centerbridge Partners Announce Joint Venture to Acquire Over $1.25 Billion in New Marinas." PR Newswire, April 3, 2024. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/suntex-marinas-and-centerbridge-partners-announce-joint-venture-to-acquire-over-1-25-billion-in-new-marinas-302107386.html

29. "Suntex, Centerbridge announce joint venture in marina acquisitions." Boating Industry, May 6, 2024. https://boatingindustry.com/top-news/2024/04/04/suntex-centerbridge-announce-joint-venture-in-marina-acquisitions/

California Surplus Land Act Documentation

30. "Updated Surplus Land Act Guidelines." California Department of Housing and Community Development, 2024. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/final-updated-surplus-land-act-guidelines-2024.pdf

31. "LUENR Update 2024: Recent Amendments to the Surplus Land Act." Allen Matkins Legal Alert, 2024. https://www.allenmatkins.com/real-ideas/luenr-update-2024-recent-amendments-to-the-surplus-land-act.html

32. "California's 2020 Housing Laws: What You Need to Know." Holland & Knight Insights, October 2019. https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2019/10/californias-2020-housing-laws-what-you-need-to-know

33. "Staying on Top of the Surplus Land Act – Practice Tips After Recent Updates." Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP, July 27, 2023. https://www.smwlaw.com/2022/07/27/staying-on-top-of-the-surplus-land-act-practice-tips-after-recent-updates/

34. "Surplus Land Act (SLA)." Kosmont Realty, February 23, 2023. https://www.kosmontrealty.com/services-expertise/surplus-land-act-sla/

35. "Bill Text - AB-1486 Surplus land." California Legislative Information. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB1486

Developer Background

36. "Real Estate Investment | About | Monarch Group." Monarch Group website, December 6, 2021. https://www.monarchgroup.com/about/

37. McDonald, Jeff. "Longtime San Diego developer, political activist William 'Pat' Kruer dead at 78." The San Diego Union-Tribune, June 13, 2024. https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/2024/01/06/longtime-san-diego-developer-political-activist-william-pat-kruer-dead-at-78/

38. Potter, Matt. "La Jolla blackjack king kicks in for Jerry Brown." San Diego Reader, July 8, 2013. https://www.sandiegoreader.com/weblogs/news-ticker/2013/jul/08/la-jolla-blackjack-king-kicks-in-for-jerry-brown/

39. Krueger, Alex. "Commissioner bows out of vote on bayfront." The San Diego Union-Tribune, April 29, 2017. https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-commissioner-bows-out-vote-bayfront-2010apr13-htmlstory.html

San Diego Real Estate Controversies

40. Reed, Matthew T. "The grim parallel paths of Todd Gloria and Kevin Faulconer." The San Diego Union-Tribune, February 26, 2023. https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/columnists/story/2023-02-26/column-has-todd-gloria-become-kevin-faulconer

41. McDonald, Jeff. "Proposed Midway developer donated more than $100,000 to elect Todd Gloria mayor." The San Diego Union-Tribune, September 10, 2022. https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/2022/09/10/proposed-midway-developer-donated-more-than-100000-to-elect-todd-gloria-mayor/

42. Krueger, Paul. "Opinion: The Key Issues Mayor Gloria Didn't Mention in His State of the City Address." Times of San Diego, January 14, 2024. https://timesofsandiego.com/opinion/2024/01/13/opinion-the-key-issues-mayor-gloria-didnt-mention-in-his-state-of-the-city-address/

43. "Mayor, Key Councilmembers Announce 101 Ash Settlement, But City Attorney Opposes." Times of San Diego, June 22, 2022. https://timesofsandiego.com/politics/2022/06/20/mayor-councilmembers-announce-settlement-in-101-ash-street-dispute/

44. Castañares, Arturo. "Gloria Joins Infamous List of Damaged Mayors – Dick Murphy and Roger Hedgecock." La Prensa/OB Rag, March 25, 2024. https://obrag.org/2024/03/gloria-joins-infamous-list-of-damaged-mayors-dick-murphy-and-roger-hedgecock/

45. "Mayoral Poll Results Show Change May Be Inevitable." Presidio Sentinel, 2024. https://presidiosentinel.com/local-news/mayoral-poll-results-show-change-may-be-inevitable

46. Showley, Roger M. "Mayor Gloria is having a tough run." The San Diego Union-Tribune, October 12, 2022. https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/2022/10/02/mayor-gloria-is-having-a-tough-run/