San Diego is trapped by a 50-year-old decision.<\/p>\n
In 1972, the same year the city voted for Richard Nixon for president, voters passed Proposition D<\/a>, creating a drastic 30-foot height limit west of Interstate 5. But today\u2019s San Diego \u2014 grappling with a severe housing crisis \u2014 bears little resemblance to the city of a half-century ago. Proposition D was never about the coastline; it was about a highway line.<\/p>\n We deserve a vote on a new path forward, and the City Council has the power to give it to us.<\/p>\n The council must act to fix the core failure of Proposition D: its irrational geography. The arbitrary \u201ccoastal zone\u201d is a blunt instrument that blocks homes in job-rich, well-connected areas. This 50-year-old rule is politically inflexible \u2014 a public vote is the only way to modernize it.<\/p>\n The Court of Appeal decision<\/a> on Friday striking down a Midway District height-relief ballot measure for a second time reveals a deeper truth: Our piecemeal approach is a guaranteed failure. This legal quagmire proves we need a comprehensive, citywide solution \u2014 not endless battles in the courtroom.<\/p>\n Furthermore, this isn\u2019t just a housing policy \u2014 it\u2019s fiscal policy. By artificially limiting growth in our most prosperous corridors, we are denying the city millions in annual revenue that could be funding paved streets, improved parks and essential public services for every neighborhood. The status quo isn\u2019t free; it\u2019s a costly choice that deprives all San Diegans.<\/p>\n The council should place a measure on the 2026 ballot. Using public hearings, we can redraw this capricious boundary with residents at the table. Through this process, we can determine the best solution \u2014 a smart revision or, as a simpler democratic option, letting voters decide a simple question: Does the I-5 Divide created by Proposition D still serve San Diego?<\/p>\n The cost of this arbitrary divide is measured in more than legal fees. It\u2019s measured in lost homes and lost opportunities. The city\u2019s 2025 Annual Report on Homes<\/a> reveals a tale of two cities. While communities like San Ysidro permitted 468 affordable homes and even high-income Rancho Bernardo permitted 274, coastal neighborhoods west of I-5 \u2014 La Jolla, Pacific Beach, Ocean Beach and Mission Beach \u2014 approved a mere 25 from 2021 to 2024.<\/p>\n This isn\u2019t just an imbalance; it\u2019s a failure of vision. Think of the teacher in a La Jolla school who can\u2019t afford to live in the community where they teach, or the family raised in San Diego but forced to move away.<\/p>\n By blocking housing in desirable, well-connected areas, this rule forces a disproportionate share of development to concentrate east of the highway, fueling regional sprawl, pushing building into fire zones, increasing commutes and inflating housing costs for everyone.<\/p>\n It forces vital projects \u2014 like the 100% affordable housing for older adults and veterans at Rose Creek Village<\/a> \u2014 to resort to state laws to provide homes. This is because their fate is dictated not by smart growth, but by a redline that\u00a0codified an old route<\/a> when Highway 101 gave way to the I-5 originally laid out for open-air roadsters a century ago.\u00a0The 30-foot rule doesn\u2019t preserve; it excludes.<\/p>\n