If you missed this Rob Davis story, take a second and read it. The Port of San Diego is doing a little dance on the line between appropriate dissent about a challenge to its authority and the inappropriate use of public funds to oppose a ballot measure.
There are few things more irritating -- and, unfortunately, prevalent -- in San Diego than the use of public funds by its myriad agencies to support or oppose various ballot measure. Long-time readers will remember my angst about Grossmont Healthcare District's 2006 spending on feel-good ads about Grossmont Hospital, which came conveniently at the same time that the entity was asking voters to sign off on a $247 million bond issuance -- a levy of about $40 a year on each East County property owner served by the hospital.
A Grossmont spokesman at the time fully admitted that the taxpayer-funded ads were part of the effort to pass the ballot measure.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with a public agency taking a stand on a ballot measure. Groups from the San Diego City Council to the Community College District have all endorsed or opposed various initiatives. More power to them. But they have to draw the line and avoid spending the public's money to push their efforts.
Officials up and down the state have gotten hammered for crossing that line. But there's a nuance. An agency can legally spend money "educating" the public about its position on an issue.
Too bad the "education" typically goes something like this: "If you want congestion, headaches and a strange foot infection we can't identify yet, you can go ahead and vote against the Initiative to Make Your Life Better Than Ever. If, on the other hand, you want free ice cream every day while you commute, you should vote yes on it."
The San Diego Association of Governments did it with heavy expenditures in 2004 in favor of the Transnet sales-tax extension: You probably won't be able to live in San Diego with all the traffic that will build up unless you approve this sales tax.
The airport authority did it in 2006 with the ballot measure to put a new airport of some kind at Miramar Marine Corps Air Station. You'll be haunted with guilt for years to come because of all the damage you'll do to the local economy if you don't approve this initiative.
And now, the Port. It's so far spent far less on newspaper ads opposing a ridiculously complex initiative that would overhaul the port's planning powers and pave the way for some kind of mega development on the desirable 10th Avenue Marine Terminal.
As Davis writes, the port spent nearly $60,000 on ads opposing the measure:
"Before casting a ballot, the Board urges your careful consideration of this educational message," the advertisement says. "This initiative threatens an important source of regional jobs and well-paying jobs, which we believe you should protect and preserve." .
If they aren't violating the letter of the law, they're coming close to trampling on its spirit. The power of their arguments should be enough. They needn't spend taxpayer dollars on it.
Davis provided some good context about the reason for the ethical line prohibiting public expenditures in favor or against a ballot initiative:
"Such expenditures raise potentially serious constitutional questions," Justice Mathew Tobriner opined in the 1976 ruling, Stanson vs. Mott, which found that a state official had improperly used public money to advocate for a bond package. "The use of the public treasury to mount an election campaign which attempts to influence the resolution of issues which our Constitution leaves to the 'free election' of the people does present a serious threat to the integrity of the electoral process."
The ruling notes that advertisements can be improper even though they may not specifically tell voters how to vote. The state Fair Political Practices Commission, which regulates campaign finance, defines advocacy as "unambiguously" urging a particular result. It can fine public agencies up to $5,000 for violating that law; the local district attorney can similarly investigate whether public funds were properly used.
The lesson is simple: Every time you see an ad for a hospital and you have no idea what the point of it is, look around for a bond measure. No doubt, they're trying to influence your vote, and they are doing it with your money. The same, apparently, goes for random messages about protecting jobs at the port.
Sunday, July 6 -- 6:57 pm
Yesterday, after I got the news that the mayor's spokesman, Fred Sainz, was moving on, I remarked that he was one of the most influential press guys I'd ever run across.
Sainz was a powerful figure at City Hall. He not only shaped the message the public received, he arguably helped shape a lot of the policy that was supposed to be messaged. But it was more than that. It was Sainz's time at the San Diego Convention Center that influenced his thoughts on things like the Gaylord project in Chula Vista. The mayor's hostility to that project and to port Commissioner Steve Cushman, when Cushman was up for a third term at the port, undoubtedly came from Sainz. It was one of the many examples of what Sainz brought to City Hall.
Sainz's influence was also unique for one simple reason: He had license to speak for the mayor. This was a big deal. This was a departure. Former Mayor Dick Murphy, for example, did not allow anyone to speak for him. He may or may not call a reporter back or have a press conference. But if he didn't do that, you didn't have any public statement from the mayor. Period.
That was one of the biggest changes in 2005/2006 when Mayor Jerry Sanders took office. We went from this sober, distant, occasional briefing from the grandfatherly Murphy to this hyper eloquent intense pontificating from Sainz.
He saw how messages could get out much better than they ever had been put out at City Hall and he tried to spit out every observation he had in rapid responses. He made sure the mayor had a statement on everything. He set up scores of press conferences for the mayor for the express purpose of controlling the news cycle and trying to make sure the mayor was setting the debate whenever possible.
But his availability with a response was perhaps the reason he became such a well-known figure in San Diego. When you have someone who will speak for the mayor, you can get the mayor to "speak" in essence, a lot more.
Sainz was perfect for this. Few people can think on their feet and speak as quickly and clearly as Sainz can. But to speak with so much spontaneity and authority, he must have had an unlimited mandate from the mayor. And that means he had to know that whatever twist he made while explaining something, he could probably cover with his influence on policy. In other words, he didn't just have to communicate policy, he got to communicate and then ensure that what he said was reflected in policy.
It was this power, though, that Sainz stumbled over sometimes.
He never met a question he didn't know the answer to. Most famously, when our own Andrew Donohue asked him a couple of months ago if the mayor had uttered an obscenity to his electoral rival, Steve Francis, Sainz characteristically not only knew the answer but was jarring with his certainty and insistence that Sanders had not, in fact, swore at Francis.
Problem was, Sanders did swear at his competitor.
Sainz did that often, speaking with such authority and intensity on a particular issue that it was almost as though he was trying to shame you for thinking the truth could be different. This is fine, as long as you are always speaking the truth. But if someone who speaks with so much intensity turns out to not be telling the truth, it's a bigger deal than it has to be.
And so it was with Sainz. When he was wrong, he was dreadfully wrong.
Sainz, in many ways, defined the public's perception of the mayor good and bad. In fact, Sainz badly mishandled the ugliest stain on the mayor's record, his encounter with the Sunroad building in Kearny Mesa. It was the same recipe as the mayor's obscenity: He authoritatively denied denied denied only to find himself explaining why he was wrong -- never an easy thing to do.
Had the mayor done what he did with the swearing -- just admitted that he was off and needed to work to repair anything that had gone wrong, it never would have become what it did.
Sainz's replacement, Darren Pudgil, is much more low key. Will he still speak for the mayor? Will he advocate like his predecessor did? Will he passively field the daily crises or will he work to craft the mayor's perception in the community proactively? Will he ever say those magic words Sainz struggled with: "I don't know."
It'll be interesting to see.
Thursday, July 3 -- 3:24 pm
Darren Pudgil, the current aide to Congressman Brian Bilbray and former chief of staff to county Supervisor Ron Roberts is going to be taking Fred Sainz's place as Mayor Jerry Sanders' director of communications.
His first day is Aug. 14.
"I’m honored. I'm excited to get started and I’m looking forward to helping the mayor carry out his agenda for the next four years," Pudgil just told me.
Update: In the original post, I left out a word in his quote.
Thursday, July 3 -- 10:49 am
Fred Sainz is leaving the Mayor's Office.
Two sources confirmed for me that he's leaving. Sainz is taking a job at the Gill Foundation in Denver, Colo. It's apparently not that big of a secret as the foundation has been calling around town for references for some time.
No word yet on his replacement.
Sainz has been the director of communications for Mayor Jerry Sanders for some time. But he's been unusually prominent and powerful compared to former holders of that position. Whether it was because his boss was the first mayor in the now-not-so-new, strong-mayor form of government or whether it was the force of his personality, he was the focal point of many discussions.
He had a role in everything the mayor did -- good and bad. And it will be fun to gather the Fred Sainz classic moments.
-- Wednesday, July 2 -- 7:27 pm
It is redevelopment week, apparently, for the news team. Interesting stuff. Let's do a drive by:
- This story about City Councilman Ben Hueso. Sure, I understand the guy has a huge and powerful family in San Diego centered mostly in the Southern neighborhoods of the city. I get that. And yes, of course, they are going to have properties in his district.
What's interesting about the story is that because of his financial interest in the area, Hueso can't participate in discussions about what is probably one of the biggest deals for his district in coming years: Whether this vast section of Logan Heights should become a redevelopment area.
So regardless of any conflict or perception of a conflict, Hueso is out of discussions about this vital decision. And that's too bad for a contentious issue that needs leadership and for a guy, Hueso, looking to become a big-shot leader.
An informal poll of insiders would undoubtedly reveal that Hueso is the leading contender for president of the City Council. And the struggle for that post, as I pointed out earlier, is going to be something to watch over coming months.
And that, to wrap things up, is also why Hueso's endorsement of city attorney candidate Jan Goldsmith, coming when it did, was more interesting than, say, where Angelina's babies will be born.
Hueso's got some wind in his sails. The next six months will be pretty big for him.
- This story about CCDC head Nancy Graham was equally interesting. I have to disagree with the letter that popped up today. This is a big deal. It is debatable whether Graham has a conflict of interest with the company that is putting together an iconic downtown project. And it is debatable whether she should have had to recuse herself.
But she did recuse herself and said she'd have nothing to do with the project. So that could have been the end of the discussion. But when you say you are not going to have anything to do with a project, you kind of have to not have anything to do with the project.
And that's why the story is interesting. She didn't just sign a document that needed her signature, it didn't even have a place for her to put a signature. She was relaying directions on it.
From the story (emphasis mine):
It is unclear why Graham signed off on the memo. The agreement to extend negotiations had already been approved by Janice Weinrick, the city Redevelopment Agency's deputy executive director. She said she was told to sign it by Murray Kane, a CCDC attorney. "I'm a document signer," she said. "I only did what I was told, to sign off."
If she was told to sign it or it was important to be a part of the discussions, then her note had some kind of effect. Yet Fred Maas, CCDC's chairman, said there's been an "absolute Chinese Wall" between Graham and the project.
Either it's a wall or it's not. That's the issue.
- Andrew Donohue made note today of Nick Canepa's column. Canepa's point is to get people to understand the very basic facts that the logic appears to be pointing to the Chargers leaving town. The cost of the stadium they dream of is now well above $1 billion. And nobody seems to be talking about big numbers like that.
And finally, there's only one site being discussed: The Chula Vista bay front, which has a big power plant in the way.
The U-T columnist was most moved by the Chargers' contention that the team can't be competitive without a new stadium. But Canepa should be careful lumping his alarm about this with mentions of the Padres. After all, the Padres used the same argument in the past.
Look how competitive their new stadium has made them.
- And finally, if you somehow missed Ashley's latest, take a look. It was classic, in my opinion. Yeah, I'm hopelessly biased.
Tuesday, July 1 -- 8:07 pm
I was on Editor's Roundtable Friday talking about home prices and the sluggish economy among other things. One of the callers we talked to was a man who had purchased a home right about at the peak of prices for local houses. He said he did it as part of a frenzy, an unbearable pressure to get in on the market before it was too late.
Now he's making his payments but not in the best of shape.
What created that feeling that you just had to buy? What was it that led so many people to feel like they were missing out on this supposed chance of a lifetime? It was ever-present. Between 2002 and 2006 San Diegans were teeming with angst to purchase properties. There were a lot of factors, no doubt.
Watching friends make more money on their homes than they did with their jobs was certainly one.
Watching friends in the industry make more money than they ever had was certainly another.
But a big factor was the memes -- the simple statements by people speaking authoritatively that became facts in the public consciousness. They were the platitudes of reality. And you could supposedly count on them.
You might have heard a few: Home prices here will never go down because there's a shortage of homes. Buying a home is always a good decision. If you can buy, you should.
That last one should have lost a little of its meaning when it became clear that everyone could buy a home for virtually however much they wanted.
As the housing boom started to peter out, two years ago, in 2006, many were still pushing the greatness of purchasing a home -- whether you listened to your Realtor, who was undoubtedly stocked with factoids sent down from the National Association of Realtors about why buying a house was still a good idea, or read most of the papers, where the same NAR economists were quoted with authoritative and comforting validation of a decision to buy. Then there were government officials like the county assessor, who pulled statistics from everywhere he could to provide Realtors with memes about why the climate was clearly favorable to homebuyers.
And, also in media. You could turn on even sober discussions like Editor's Roundtable, and find some of the effort to sustain the frenzy. There was an Editor's Roundtable, in fact, two years ago that featured my colleague, Andrew Donohue, Bob Kittle, the editorial page editor of the Union-Tribune and Carl Larsen, that paper's real estate editor.
The host that week, Dwane Brown, asked what a person should do if they're thinking of buying a home. Remember this was April 2006. Looking back, it's pretty clear the bubble was bursting. But then, there was still uncertainty for some. It was the point when the evidence was pretty clear that things were changing but some heavy persuading could close a sale.
Each of the editors had a chance to answer the question: What would you advise someone to do who is trying to decide about buying a home?
Larsen went with real estate fundamentals, a safe choice:
Larsen: Being familiar with the comps, trying to make an offer that's ah...being pre-approved for a loan would be a way of going. Knowing what the price is and keeping abreast of the prices because they are rapidly changing and they are easily checked on the internet now then come in with a valid offer with a professional real estate agent.
Donohue went with an informed opinion based the evidence that was coming out every day that this market was in for a change:
Donohue: I certainly wouldn't buy. I would sort of wait it out. I think there's still resounding questions on whether or not we have hit sort of that soft landing that everybody's sort of hoping for and watching or whether there is a bubble.
And Kittle, well, Kittle went with what he knew:
Kittle: The sooner you buy the better. Real estate in San Diego is a tremendous asset and the longer you wait, Andrew, the more it's going to cost you. That's just the way it is here.
Yes, Andrew, that's just the way it is here.
The truth is, like the homeowner who called the show Friday, if you bought in 2006 and can still make the payments on your mortgage, you can make it through just fine. That doesn't mean it is a tremendous asset. But throngs of people who were buying in 2006 shouldn't have been. They could neither afford the agreements they were signing, nor were they aware of the risks they were taking should their home decline in value.
People like Kittle told them, authoritatively, not to worry. That, in fact, the more they waited, the more it was going to cost them.
And the best thing to avoid costs, of course, is to take on massive debt. Right?
Monday, June 30 -- 1:25 pm
As a relatively new owner of a scooter, I took particular interest in the U-T's story today about the mania for the little vehicles. The scooter story has been making the rounds. There was the Wall Street Journal. The New York Times. And, of course, the Louisville Courier Journal.
The UT's piece is a pretty straight forward trend story until I got to the end and this rather disorienting line from the writer of the article, Bruce Bigelow:
The lowest-priced scooters, which are imported from China, cost about $800 and are recommended by local retailers about as highly as anything else made in China these days.
Oh snap! Take that you Chinese losers. Oh wait, I just realized my shoes were made in China. And my bike helmet. Oh and that voice recorder that I love. And my phone. Yeesh.
Looks like Ron Roberts has some more work to do to improve those Sino-San Diego relations he's been investing so heavily in.
Thursday, June 26 -- 12:13 pm
Couple of points of news.
- Ron Saathoff's last day as president of the city's firefighters union is Monday and Frank DeClercq's first day as president is Tuesday.
I just got a hold of DeClercq, who said Saathoff is retiring.
"There was a provision that allowed him to stay on and run again for re-election. He made a decision to move on," DeClercq said.
And DeClercq?
"I'm honored to be in that position and elected by my peers. I did a lot of campaigning and I was happy they believed in my and have given me a chance to lead them for the next three years," he said.
 | | Despite his legal troubles, the firefighters gave Saathoff the thumb's up for years. |
Saathoff has been a unique figure at City Hall for a long, long time. I could ramble on, but Andrew Donohue, in a great piece from 2006, really nailed how -- despite legal troubles from here to the moon -- Saathoff was "still wearing the pants" at City Hall. Saathoff is facing both federal and state criminal charges for his role as undoubtedly the strongest member of the city employees' pension board during the years.
In fact, it was Saathoff's own benefits that are the focus of the U.S. attorney's criminal charges, which allege that he and four others illegally manipulated the system to ensure he could collect the special retirement perk known as the "presidential leave" benefit.
As Donohue wrote after the charges came out:
The benefit allowed Saathoff to combine his union and city salaries to calculate his final retirement checks. Prosecutors said the detail allowed him to increase his pension by more than $25,000 a year. Without the benefit, Saathoff could only have used his salary as a fire captain on leave toward his pension.
He was also charged by the district attorney for violating the state's conflict of interest laws. The charges, though, have been held up now for more than two and a half years as courts wait to decide whether the district attorney has the law down correctly.
- On another front, I've been told that Democratic City Council candidate Marti Emerald has dropped her campaign consultant, Larry Remer, pending dissolution of their agreement.
I called Remer to ask him about it and he said he had no comment.
I asked why.
"I have no comment about that," he said.
It wouldn't be too surprising. Many supporters of Emerald were shocked that she came in second to Republican April Boling in the primary. Remer himself had berated me months ago for suggesting it was going to be a contentious and close race when I ranked the most interesting political stories to look for this year. He was sure it would be a landslide.
So when she finished second in the primary, it seemed there might be a shakeup. I'll keep you updated but look for a little different campaign no matter who's running it.
Wednesday, June 25 -- 6:34 pm
As we continue to grapple with the reality that the city of San Diego is bringing in healthy revenues but, at the same time, cutting services, I'm reminded that I don't know/remember everything.
City Councilwoman Donna Frye e-mailed to remind me of a couple of other places she has noticed the money going. One, to pay for Petco Park. And, two, to pay for increased employee salaries.
The city has to fork over $11 million a year to pay off the debt it incurred to build the downtown ballpark. We will be making payments until 2023. Perhaps the Padres can make it to the World Series before then.
As for raises. The effect is a little tougher to nail down. A 7 percent or 8 percent increase in the total general fund each year should be plenty of money to handle the across-the-board salary raises that governments like to give each of their employee groups. The raises for police officers were the only ones that really went above and beyond normal inflationary jumps.
I could be wrong.
I think there's an interesting point to this exercise. It is to remember the cost of our civic luxuries in the future when we decide to buy them. Do you think the City Council would have been so easy going about a vote to increase city employee pension benefits if it had been clearly articulated what the consequences of it were to the city's budget and future services? Maybe, but they would have at least had to deal with them and they would have had to deal with the reality that if they wanted to give these benefit enhancements, they would have to pass some kind of tax increase at the same time.
Or Petco Park. Yes, I know, it's the sacred cow of 21st century downtown boom. There's no doubt the ballpark provoked the eastside revival of downtown. Petco is a very nice place. I like it too. But the next time you hear someone talk about a "bond" for some big project (think, I don't know, Gaylord maybe?) remember that "bonds" aren't free. They come with consequences like this. If the government doing the bonding doesn't also work to raise money through a higher tax or new fee, then you will feel a pinch like San Diego's feeling now.
You just will.
So all I'm asking is that these decisions about big beautiful projects and extra expenditures be accompanied with realistic outlines of their consequences. And that if we want new stadiums, or if we want to pay our city workers more, great, just accompany that desire with realistic sources of funds.
Pretty simple.
Now, one other point:
- There's a revival of discussion these days about Richard Nixon. I'm engrossed, as a matter of fact, in the new book "Nixonland" by Rick Perlstein. It's great. I can't wait to get home tonight to keep reading.
It's not just history for trivia. As is clear, what Nixon and the 60s did to politics still define a lot of our debates these days. So if that interests you and if you want to read a great story about one San Diegan's Forrest Gump-like encounters with historical figures from the latter half of the 20th century, you've got to read this excellent piece by my colleagues.
And then read Part 2. I like Part 2 the best. Something about Russian oligarchs that just freaks me out.
Monday, June 23 -- 9:34 pm
I made a big deal of this graph in my column Friday:
There just really is no illustration that better communicates the financial trouble the city of San Diego is still dealing with. That you can have a graph like that tracking the city's revenue increases over the years and at the same time still be talking about having to cut city services is just astounding.
I heard from a number of readers who were surprised by that. Was this an indication of some kind of massive fraud or something? Or was I, by not fully explaining where the money is going, implying that the mayor and city were just "pissing" away all the taxpayers' money?
No. There are a couple of main things going on. We are paying a massive bill to the city's employee pension system. Remember, the mantra of the pension crisis: It was never, or never should have been, a question of whether the San Diego City Employees' Retirement System was in jeopardy of complete failure. That's just not an option. The question, and the whole point of the hoopla about the issue, was what strain on the city's budget would saving the pension system cause?
This year, again, the city is paying more than $160 million to its employee pension system. In 2003, the payment was (a now-paltry) $85 million.
And that's what we're feeling now. The mayor, to his credit, is doing the right thing. He is paying the pension bill. But he is also putting money aside to pay for the health care costs of retirees. The city promised years ago that all of its employees would have their medical bills paid for the rest of their lives. With health care costs rising, that's no meaningless promise.
But the city had never set aside money for this in the past. Now it is, putting an additional $27 million aside this year to begin saving for its future bills.
Finally, the city, like other agencies, has a massive backlog of "deferred maintenance." First of all, they need to come up with a better term for this because studies have proven that just saying "deferred maintenance" out loud will completely immobilize rats for up to five hours. The precise effect on humans of hearing the nauseating term is not yet known. So, better said, the city's buildings are falling apart. And we've put off -- "deferred" -- the upkeep on them for years and years. Again, we did this during times of supposed prosperity in the economy. Now we are putting tens of millions into catching up. If you want to know why we have to get rid of librarians and others this year, there's really nothing else you need to know. Does the mayor deserve a parade for paying for these things? No. It's simply the right thing -- and only thing -- to do if you care about the city and its future. I sometimes expect my wife to notice and praise me for doing the dishes. But that's lame. I'm just supposed to do the dishes and she's supposed to do other things. The mayor is supposed to do this. He doesn't need someone to pat him on back and say nice job for doing something that he simply has to do. I suppose we can be happy that he's not further "deferring" all of these costs. Yay. Sunday, June 22 -- 6:41 pm
Sorry, this took a bit longer to get to than I wanted. I was working on a column that should go up tonight and a couple of other pressing things.
But to follow my last post, I'd like to make it simple: There's two great, though majorly flawed, assumptions underlying the Union-Tribune 's and others' insistence that we construct a massive new airport somewhere within 50 miles of the city's center.
The assumptions are dependent on each other.
The first is that demand will go up so much and so fast that Lindbergh Field will, within the next ten years, reach capacity. And then, it will become congested. And then, our economy will suffer. The second major assumption is that you have to build a massive, two-runway, Denver-like aviation wonderland in order to handle all this traffic. The collective acceptance of these two assumptions by a few relatively powerful people led us to that stupid ballot measure in 2006 that advocated some kind of bizarre partnership between the Marines and the city to share the only plot of land within 50 miles that could possibly have enough room for this dream: Miramar. But enough on that. We've already challenged the first assumption appropriately: There is simply little evidence that the airport is rapidly approaching capacity. But let's just roll over for it. Regardless of the argument, let's drink it in, swish it around and swallow it like any ol' mind-altering drug and delight in the delusions that follow. If we accept that Lindbergh is on a crash course to insufficiency, then what do we do. We first need to accept some truths about our community. First off: Miramar Marine Corps Air Station is out as a possible site for a new airport. It's just not going to happen. Maybe in the past it would have worked out -- it was far enough away from the city proper that its neighbors couldn't kill it. But even if the Marines leave, the neighbors and surrounding businesses just won't let it happen. Qualcomm, the region's biggest business, basically threatened to leave if the powers that be tried to put an airport at Miramar. It was unworkable even without the fact that the Navy and Marines were intolerant of the concept. The "joint use" idea was predicated on the idea that Miramar eventually phased out fighter jet training on the land. That's not going to happen. So get over it. Secondly, accept that there is no other place within 80 miles where a major airport like the one they dreamed of could fit. Nowhere. As we're told in countless luncheons and conferences, San Diego is bound by borders, mountains, oceans and Marines. So, we don't have to decide where to move the airport in the county. We have to decide whether to build an airport outside the county or not. Very simple. Imperial County wanted the big airport. Either we build it out there or we don't. That's it. So given that reality, we don't need to keep fretting at all. We can either start to truly decide whether we want to build a rail line or drive all the way to Imperial County to be able to enjoy a massive airport, or we can look at our situation and try to make the best of it. Other communities in the world do that all the time. They take their unique geography and just deal with it. In Japan, they decided they needed a huge airport, so they built an island for it. I don't think that's going to work here, but we can adapt. We have to decentralize the airport and its authority. Perhaps the airport authority itself should be housed in, say, Kearny Mesa. There it can really see its job as maximizing and making efficient all of the region's airports -- Lindbergh being the biggest asset of them all but not the only focal point. Looking at the region as a whole, they can decide where they should put general aviation, cargo and other major operations to ease congestion at Lindbergh. They can work on innovative proposals like the cross-border terminal. But their mission would be to maximize the efficiency and convenience of Lindbergh while evaluating other assets and ensuring we are using them to their full potential. If you are afraid of congestion at Lindbergh, take a look at the stats, chill out, and then go support a region-wide evaluation of how each and every asset can be used more and better. Thursday, June 19 -- 4:43 pm
The Union-Tribune's Penni Crabtree wrote up an interesting bit of news this weekend (emphasis mine):
At San Diego's Lindbergh Field, the number of departing flights is expected to decline by 7.35 percent by the end of the year, compared with the same fourth-quarter period in 2007, according to a breakdown prepared for the Union-Tribune by the Official Airline Guide, which tracks airline flight schedules covering about 28 million departures each year.
This is news from the reality-based world.
A couple of days before this, though, the paper published opinion from somewhere else.
Embracing yet another dubious claim, (airport authority) Chairman Alan Bersin flatly asserts that opposition from the military and surrounding residents forever removes from further consideration the sensible joint use of Miramar Marine Corps Air Station.
Bersin is certainly capable of embracing dubious claims but I think he's on pretty solid ground with this one. I mean, did I miss something? The airport authority put a measure on the ballot for county voters in 2006 asking whether they wanted to consider joint use of Miramar. The measure lost by more than 23 points. Nobody could get behind it. Even the groups that had been instrumental in getting the measure put on the ballot in the way it was were reluctant to endorse it. The whole thing was a flop.
If you were trying to send a message that this idea of "sensible joint use" at the military base was unacceptable to this county and its residents, you could not have sent it clearer. Even the biggest champion of this sensible joint use -- Bersin's predecessor, Joe Craver -- was forced to admit that joint use just wouldn't work. The base would have to be abandoned by the military. The idea that a major airport and a military air station could work together on that patch of land was just as radical as building an airport in Imperial Valley. The difference is, putting an airport in Imperial Valley would have been welcomed by its neighbors.
But back to the basics. The number of flights out of Lindbergh Field has not increased markedly in the last 15 years. Roughly the same number of flights came in and out of the airport in 2005 as did in 1994. And the news this week, that flights would be cut this year, does add more facts to our little reality-based world.
So where, exactly is the U-T? The paper's broadside of Bersin's "dubious claim" came within a two-day series of editorials about the future of the airport, which tried to make the case -- again -- that an expansive new airport needed to be built at Miramar. Ironically, the first edition of the editorials carried the headline "The Grand Delusion."
The fundamental problem with the airport board's myopic, circular thinking is that what we have in cramped Lindbergh Field -- 661 acres, a single, truncated runway and no room to build another one -- is not nearly enough acreage for an airport to support San Diego's burgeoning economy in the decades ahead. San Diego has the busiest single-runway commercial airport in North America. ...
... Within the next 10 years, or possibly 20 or more if the regional economy turns less robust, the single, shorter-than-normal runway at Lindbergh Field will reach capacity.
Though the paper's doom and gloom is not supported by facts and history, like any random prediction, it may be proven correct.
But the editorial board's myopic, circular obsession with an unworkable, untenable and unacceptable proposal to put a gigantic new airport on Marine Corps land makes one wonder who, exactly, is suffering from the grand delusion.
Next: Another way to think about Lindbergh and the future of San Diego air travel.
Sunday, June 15 -- 6:01 pm
If you follow San Diego City Hall, you should keep your eyes open for a coming polemic. Council President Scott Peters is driving in the fast lane on the way to lame-duckville. He will need to be replaced, not just by the new representative of District 1, but also by a new council president.
So here's the question: Who the heck is that going to be?
 | | 'Hmm ... carry the one, three, four ... I have exactly 118 days until I'm a lame duck' |
That will be interesting to watch. But another controversy will arise as we wait. After all, who gets to decide? The president has been chosen, the last three times, in November. But if that happens this year, it will be one of the last actions of four members of the City Council who are being termed out. Should they get to choose the leader of the council that they won't be a part of? It's a great question. City Councilwoman Donna Frye has made it known that she wants the new City Council to vote on the choice, which would mean the vote would have to be put off until at least December. City Attorney Mike Aguirre said city law only requires the choice to be made before the first session in January. But would the four departing council members like to leave their mark on it for the next year? Some great questions. But the best one is trying to get your mind around who could be City Council president. Frye obviously would have a shot. But so would others. She said she would be very happy to be the City Council president but she also wants to "de-politicize" the selection of the post. What does that mean? That would mean that, like the chair of the county Board of Supervisors, the title would rotate every year between City Council members. I don't personally think that's such a good idea. I asked her if that would mean that the position would lose some of its power. Unlike the council president, the chairmanship of the county board of supervisors is almost wholly a ceremonial position. It hardly matters that they rotate it. The City Council president, however, comes with staff. The president gets to set the agenda and serve as the head of the legislative body, who, with the mayor and city attorney, is one of the most powerful people at City Hall. If each member of the City Council got to be the council president at some point -- and there would hardly be a way to ensure that all eight of them all got to do it when they all serve only four year terms -- then the power of the post would be diluted. Each person would have to get to know the true potential of the position for a time before maximizing their effect. By forcing the council president to have gotten the support of a critical majority of his or her colleagues, you ensure they learn a bit about building a coalition. And it would not be a bad thing for Frye and the others to show they can do that. -- SCOTT LEWISFriday, June 13 -- 6:40 pm
Nice. Looks like the city's Ethics Commission is recommending a boost in campaign contribution limits for city candidates from $320 per individual to $1,000. Here was my argument in favor of just such a bump.
The facts are simple: Under the current limits, you can't raise enough money to compete in these races unless you enroll the help of big-time bundlers and special interests. If you just hope to cobble together a coalition of independent thinkers to support you, you had better have a few hundred thousand dollars in your checking account and your spouse better not mind you spending it.
Many will say that the last thing this city needs is more money in the political process, and that those supported by wealthy individuals will just be able to outspend their rivals even more with higher limits.
To that, I counter with a simple argument: If one candidate has far more money than another, it is not certain he or she will win. I mean, one only need look at Steve Francis' recent history.
No, you don't need a lot of money. But you do need enough money to compete. You just do. And at $320 or $250 a pop, you can't raise it without turning to bundlers.
If you don't raise the limits, it's not like you're keeping money out of the system. The individual donations are the most transparent and easily traced forms of campaign funds out there. The more we enforce artificially low limits on these funds the more we encourage money to be spent through back channels -- unlimited donations to the political parties for example.
The only alternative to ensuring that people have a chance to win in these elections would be to raise some sort of public financing system. I'd be willing to engage that idea as well. But if neither of these things happen, we will further entrench a reality in San Diego that you either need to have vast personal wealth to run for office or you need to promise the world to the people who want to buy it.
Thursday, June 12 -- 8:45 am So it appears as though Councilwoman Toni Atkins has decided to withdraw her application to become the CEO of the city's Housing Commission.
Looks like the city's ethics laws would have prevented her from getting the gig anyway. Atkins applied for the job but she is a member of the City Council. The City Council also serves as the board of directors for the Housing Authority. The Housing Authority is setting up the process to hire a new CEO of the Housing Commission.
And state law prohibits a government body, like the Housing Authority, from signing a contract when one of its members has a direct financial interest in that contract. It doesn't matter whether that person recuses herself or doesn't show up to the meetings.
The Ethics Commission, you remember, had told Atkins that she should refrain from participating in discussions about the Housing Authority while she was applying for the job.
The commission's executive director, Stacey Fulhorst, said that after they advised Atkins on the matter, the commission learned about the process the City Council goes through to hire a new Housing Commission CEO -- that it might be more involved than they thought. When they were informed that the state law 1090 regulating conflicts of interest might also be a problem, they produced an amended letter. Atkins had already withdrawn her application, though.
"We weren't asked about 1090 nor were we provided with the facts regarding the City Council's involvement in recruiting and filling the position," Fulhorst said.
I called Atkins for comment today. Her aide said she will make a statement about it this afternoon at City Council. The council is set to do some work as the Housing Authority as a matter of fact and she'd like to clear it all up.
Tuesday, June 10 -- 1:27 pm
A mea culpa: With 100 percent of the precincts counted, I made the observation that fewer people voted in this mayoral election than in any since 1979.
All the precincts may have been counted but not all the votes. Thousands of so-called provisional ballots remained. These are the ballots that remain behind, for example, when someone isn't on the voter list at a precinct but should be. They fill out the ballot but it's not counted until they can be verified. And there are other reasons.
I should have known better. It was the excruciatingly methodical count of these provisional ballots in 2004 that everyone was watching to see whether Donna Frye had indeed won the mayoral election that year.
So, with the count where it's at as of Sunday, fewer people voted in this mayoral election than any since 1986. But if the count keeps adding votes at this pace, it will probably mean that more people voted in this election than in 1996 -- barely -- when Susan Golding ran for re-election against no major opponent.
You can keep up with the numbers here and the history here.
Sorry. I'm glad all I did was note the "history" of the turnout, make a big deal of it and repeat it on television and in public forums.
Monday, June 9 -- 7:04 am I talked to Deborah Seiler, the registrar of voters, Thursday. She said that fully 57 percent of voters countywide (199,543 of the total 370,771) Tuesday were absentee.
Wow. That would explain why the volunteers at my precinct looked so bored. My neighbors, like most voters, were voting by mail.
If a substantial majority of voters are voting before Election Day in San Diego now and if they appear to reflect the greater total vote -- as indicated by the fact that the numbers didn't change throughout the night -- then we have a new reality. Not only is it smart to target absentee voters -- it's essential. And if you are going to make a last minute push for votes, you might have to scratch your head for a while to figure out when, exactly, the last minute is.
Friday, June 6 -- 7:09 am There's a buzz around town that Walt Ekard, the administrator of the county of San Diego's government is being, or about to be, recruited by Riverside County.
Apparently Riverside County Chief Executive Officer Larry Parrish is retiring June 30.
When I found Ekard Tuesday night at Election Central, he wouldn't comment.
Stay tuned. Ekard is pretty popular. I caught up with Supervisor Dianne Jacob -- who was beaming from her landslide re-election. She said she would "absolutely" want to keep Ekard.
Not sure what that means, but if you see a raise go his way soon, you'll know why. Riverside has a reputation for "competitive" pay packages.
Friday, June 6 -- 12:05 pm 170,495 -- That's how many people voted in yesterday's mayoral election.
That's the fewest number of people to vote in a mayoral election since 1979 when then-Mayor Pete Wilson ran for his third term.
This, of course, includes the special primary election to replace Mayor Dick Murphy in 2005 -- when that was the only race for an elected office on the ballot.
Update: This post has been corrected.
Monday, June 9 -- 7:26 am So, if there's any sure thing tonight -- based on the absentee vote totals now released -- it looks like we will have a new member of the City Council: Carl DeMaio.
This will be interesting and few have really pondered what it will be like to have DeMaio on the council.
There are few people more excited about being in the spotlight than DeMaio. He will be a complete change from the current representative from District 5: Brian Maienschein.
I'll make a few predictions: DeMaio will hold more press conferences than any City Councilman ever has. He will propose more laws (or changes to the laws). He will write more reports and his staff will need more caffeine than any other in this city's history.
Is that good? Depends, I suppose. He could easily be a leader or he could be a polarizing force. In many ways, it's like when Mike Aguirre won the City Attorney's Office. Aguirre held a lot of promise for a lot of people.
DeMaio could be the Mike Aguirre of the City Council -- it just depends on which side of Aguirre. He could be an affable, though excitable, leader working his staff to death with a sincere purpose. Or he could make enemies instantly and forever with an unworkable style.
We'll just have to see.
Tuesday, June 3 -- 10:16 pm Reader Simple Guy writes:
Jeez Scott. On Saturday the Voice slams Jerry for raising boatloads of cash from people who do business with the City (which turns out to be a whopping 2.5% of the total amount he raised). Then today you slam him for 'lackluster fundraising' that was so pathetic it was 'shocking'. Meanwhile the poor guy has to compete against a rich guy who whips out his checkbook when he wants some more TV airtime, is spending 5 to 10 times as much as Jerry, and gets to claim he's 'independent' because he's rich enough to not have to ask for money from the dirty public. Can't a mayor get a break?"
I'm glad Simple Guy wrote this in. A couple of points: The Saturday Sanders story about him raising money from people with business in front of the city would not have been a story at all had Sanders not said (promised actually) that he wouldn't take money from such people. I have no problem with him raising money from people with business at the city -- he just has to deal with the consequences of community criticism about it. And I know he's facing an extremely wealthy opponent, so how could he compete without donations?
What I don't understand is why Sanders or his campaign would ever promise not to raise money from people like that. I mean, Francis wins that argument. Go ahead and give it to him. The mayor shouldn't have even tried to play that game and pledge to not take donations from this hot list. But he did. Reporter Rob Davis merely decided to check on the pledge.
On the second point, I didn't "slam" the mayor for not raising much money. I am shocked more that people didn't give it to him. Maybe I should have made it clear. But I think even the mayor has said that he was surprised at how difficult the fundraising has been this year.
So yeah, the mayor can have a break. But if he says he doesn't want one, and then takes it, that's when it's interesting.
Tuesday, June 3 -- 6:11 pm A friend (you remember young genius Vladimir Kogan don't you?) had a great response to the turnout hypothesis I put forth other day:
- The only people voting today are people that actually care about their candidates (i.e., not the low-information voters). This would only hurt Francis if we believed that Sanders has more hard-core committed voters, which is not what his fundraising figures indicate. On this criteria alone, there is not necessarily reason to think Francis will be hurt.
- If there's low turnout, it amplifies the effects of organized get-out-and-vote efforts -- which bring out people who wouldn't normally vote. And who excels at this? Labor unions. And who are the unions backing? Those that endorsed are backing Francis. So on this criteria, Francis actually stands to benefit.
On point one: I'd say it's pretty hard to determine who has the more "hardcore" supporters between those two candidates. My point was that Francis' relentless television ads would do a lot to sway those "low-information" voters. That's the whole point of television ads, no? But Vlad makes a good point: Sanders' lackluster fundraising was shocking.
On point two: I think Vlad's correct about the assumptions underlying it. But does Francis have the kind of phone-banking, hard-charging, district-walking, passionate get-out-the-vote union support that does make a difference? Or does he have the cerebral, effortless, wanting-to-stand-on-this-side-of-history union support?
Only a few hours until we find out.
Tuesday, June 3 -- 1:11 pm Update: The Union-Tribune officially retracted its 2004 endorsement of City Attorney Mike Aguirre on Sunday but refused to take a stand on who should replace him because the race "is virtually certain to go to a runoff." The virtual certainty (isn't it either "certain" or not?) that the 2004 race would go to the runoff didn't stop the U-T from endorsing one of the three candidates for city attorney then.
The U-T editorial board suffers from the same malady that many politicians do: Its members are collectively afraid of looking weak. So they don't account for their changes of heart. They routinely refuse to explain themselves when they realize they are wrong. And here, they don't admit the obvious: They can't decide who should replace Aguirre. In the editorial, the U-T criticizes all but Judge Jan Goldsmith. Obviously, a significant portion of the editorial board wants to support Goldsmith. Another wants to support Council President Scott Peters or Councilman Brian Maienschein.
They could just explain this but rather they retreat to the explanation that it's "virtually certain" the race will continue so they can step away. They're afraid to admit that they can't decide because that would look weak. If you want to have the influence that comes with endorsing candidates, you should have the courage that is needed to actually do it and face the consequences.
The next time they give a politician grief for balking at a tough decision or vote because of fear of the consequences, remind them of this.
But this indecision complex is not only infecting the U-T's editorial writers. It seems like many anti-Aguirreites have had trouble deciding who the preferred alternative is. I have no idea what's going to happen tomorrow.
Update: Another non-endorsement endorsement here. Seems like Donna Frye, for all her reputation as being straightforward, is trying to maintain some plausible deniability in the future. Why else would she "come right up to the edge" of endorsing Steve Francis but not actually do it?
Monday, June 2 -- 4:28 pm I am surprised that the U-T hasn't yet endorsed a city attorney candidate. The paper has let it be known who it supports for mayor, most of the City Council districts and countless other seats. I figured it was a given that the majority of the paper's editorial board would support Superior Court Judge Jan Goldsmith given how much they've trashed incumbent City Attorney Mike Aguirre and Council President Scott Peters. They've been less harsh to Maienschein but I figured their constant reminder that he was part of what they dubbed the "Negligent Five" would mean they ruled him out as well.
That left Goldsmith, who seemed like the Republican they would like.
Maybe not. Or maybe it will come Sunday.
The paper has endorsed for the city attorney primary before, of course. In 2004, there were three candidates in the city attorney primary: Aguirre, Leslie Devaney and Deborah Berger. The paper endorsed Berger in the primary.
Here were its reasons (emphasis mine):
Although San Diego's city attorney is popularly elected, the job is not to set public policy. It's to provide expert legal counsel to the city so taxpayers don't wind up paying for municipal mistakes. The main responsibilities are to keep the city out of court or, if that fails, to win legal cases. It's not a soap box.
Deputy City Attorney Deborah Berger has the best credentials, commitment and proper attitude for this job. Attorney Mike Aguirre doesn't, and he also has the wrong idea about what the duties of the job are ...
And there was more:
Aguirre would wind up costing the city money rather than saving it money.
Everyone remembers the bizarre change of heart the paper had when more than seven months later, the editorial board endorsed Aguirre over Devaney, who had continued with him to the general election:
In our judgment, Devaney lacks the depth to deal with the broad-ranging crisis at hand. Aguirre, on the other hand, is ideally suited -- provided he remains focused constructively on the proper role of the city attorney and does not try to exploit the office for political self-aggrandizement.
He went from not having the "credentials, commitment and proper attitude" for the job to being "ideally suited."
Now of course, he's persona non grata to the paper.
The U-T's editorial board recently gave Steve Francis some grief about his lack of consistency. They are one to talk.
Friday, May 30 -- 6:11 pm Blogger and activist Pat Flannery made an interesting slip here in his horse race discussion about the mayoral campaign and undecided voters (emphasis mine):
Has Steve Francis done enough to educate that 15% of San Diegans that a powerful cadre of developers want Sanders elected so he can to give away as much as possible to them? McMillan (NTC), Moores (Petco Park), Manchester (Navy Broadway), Pardee (San Ysidro), Sunroad (Kearny Mesa, Kensington) never have enough.
Hmmm. "A powerful cadre of developers want Sanders elected." That could be true. But it is ironic that Flannery includes Doug Manchester in this list of developers.
Mr. Manchester is actually a supporter of Francis. He's a die-hard devotee of the Republican-turned "independent" who wouldn't let his notorious distaste for the hotel workers union or other labor groups get in the way of his support for Francis.
Why does this matter? I just have found this little phenomenon to be particularly intriguing. Flannery represents a vehement slice of neighborhood activists perpetually dismayed by the state of City Hall. But one thing they've been most upset about is Manchester and his plans for the Navy Broadway Complex. This includes Katheryn Rhodes, a particularly passionate activist who is serving a major role in City Attorney Mike Aguirre's re-election campaign. She's working as hard as she can for Francis.
Perhaps it's just indicative of his appeal that Francis can unite Manchester and Flannery -- or just another indication of how weird this race has become.
Wednesday, May 28 -- 10:46 am |
One of his first initiatives is going forth -- but on a smaller scale.
Thursday, July 3 -- 3:43 pm
What would a new bond do? Check it out.
Thursday, July 3 -- 3:00 pm
Bond advocates are trying to clear up the confusion -- and the controversy.
Thursday, July 3 -- 2:18 pm
SURVIVAL IN SAN DIEGO
My dad caught some salmon, my sister's getting hitched and the Great White North beckons.
Friday, June 27 -- 5:42 pm
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Despite troubled recent past, there is still hope for public broadcasting.
Sunday, July 6 -- 3:25 pm
CAFÉ SAN DIEGO
And how did you get Susan Golding to talk? More reader questions on the George Gorton profile.
Wednesday, June 25 -- 1:28 pm
COMMENTARY: SLOP
The agency joins a long list of San Diego governments willing to spend the public's money telling them how to vote.
Sunday, July 6 -- 6:57 pm
COMMENTARY: RICH TOSCANO
The spring selling season has come and gone with no hint of the the typical seasonal rally in home prices.
Friday, July 4 -- 1:35 pm
|
|
|
|
E-MAIL POST
