Tuesday, March 28, 2017

Puny leadership: the San Diego conundrum


I was out for a mindful walk the other morning.  Here's how I once described it: you put one foot in front of the other while you notice what's around you.  First you notice... then you let it go.  Notice… let it go… notice…

Walking through the parking lot of my local Vons I noticed a small card table near the store entrance and, behind it, a (paid) signature gatherer.  Sign this for a new soccer stadium? he asked, offering me a pen.  

I smiled no.  I let it go… went inside… bought three pears plus a squeeze bottle of chocolate syrup (good for any emergency)… emerged from the store… noticed a nice-looking man at the card table talking to the signature gatherer.  

In his left hand he hefted a voluminous ballot proposal (weighed more than a sack of potatoes) to Replace-Qualcomm-Stadium-in-Mission-Valley-With-a-SoccerCity.   He was smiling and shaking the signature gatherer's hand while a nice-looking woman snapped a photo.  


Mindful walking puts me in a genial mood.  Don't tell me you've read the entire backup report! I kidded. Well, he said, still smiling… most of it.

I noticed the sign-in sheet on the table.  At the bottom of a short list of signatures it read: Michael Stone.  Could this be the founder of FS Investors, the promoter of the ballot proposal in question? I meditated on that for a moment.  Let it go?... I couldn't...

Oh, I know who you are, I said.   Your map museum is fantastic.  I just love it.   But I sure don't love your ballot initiative. 

Why not? he asked, maintaining a genial face.  Nothing's perfect… it's better than a huge parking lot... do you have a better suggestion for what to put there?  

It's not that I haven't given a lot of thought to Mission Valley.  It's not that I haven't noticed how we transformed a green riverbed into a noxious, exhaust-laden slapdash of strip-malls, dowdy motels, and cookie-cutter condos – a poster child for neo-blight and terminal urban uglification.  

So what's one more nail in its coffin?  Why not let it go?  One of these days it'll be developer Mike Stone or it'll be one of the others (take your pick: Doug Manchester, John Moores, Tom Sudberry, the Fentons, Oliver McMillin...) wearing a big, fat, satiated smile.

Here's the sentiment I conveyed to the genial fellow smiling at me in front of Vons: no matter the pros and cons, no matter my personal preferences, no matter how you look at it ­– the latest rage of using ballot initiatives for the purpose of city planning and large-scale urban, suburban, and rural development is a pernicious and destructive pursuit.  He shrugged. What else can you do in a city like ours? It was a rhetorical question.

I shook hands with my new acquaintance and went back to my mindful walk.  I tried…  I tried… but I couldn't let it go.  

Is he right? that the only thing you can you do in a city like ours (insider code for puny leadership and nasty NIMBY neighborhoods) is to take matters into your own well-connected, wealth-laden hands and finance a ballot initiative that trashes dependable environmental review, deceives the voters, and blithely ignores the public interest?

It could be that the guy is halfway right.  Puny leadership is a standard staple in a city like ours.

About a week ago I commented on how close our hometown elected officials are to us constituents.  And I noticed that these individuals are not equipped to resolve many of the city's complex problems.  Despite neighborhood planning workshops on local projects, despite city council hearings about city-wide problems, despite appointed committees doing technical work, despite nonprofits and volunteer agencies picking up the slack, despite the mayor's scripted platitudes – we're still left trying to penetrate a sea of silence and blank stares.  

After last Monday's marathon homelessness council session we're still dangling.  Who's in charge? Who's responsible? Who's answerable? Who's identifiable?  Who's voice can we count on?  Who will move our city beyond bandaids?  Where does the buck stop?  Does that sainted buck even exist? 

As for the billion dollar question about Mission Valley/ Qualcomm Stadium – shouldn't mindful planning for the future of our city be in the hands of responsible, sturdy professionals in a reconstituted San Diego Planning Department?  Shouldn't the city have a responsible, sturdy, professional Planning Director and City Architect?  Shouldn't the public and our elected officials have access to independent, informed, realistic, and exciting options for our city's future growth and development that could benefit all San Diegans?

I've come to a mindful understanding: the elite group of private profiteers, downtown interests, land developers, hoteliers, and the legal and financial services that serve them don't ever intend to relinquish their controlling iron grip on the city of San Diego.  It seems they feel genuinely entitled to run the show.   

Furthermore, they're perfectly right about San Diego's puny leadership.  But for them it's a golden opportunity that yields lucrative benefits and they're adept at eliminating elected officials who dare to flex their muscles.  For those of us on the public side of the fence, puny leadership is a brick wall, a dead end.

They're also right about the nasty NIMBY.  For them, community voices impede private wealth accumulation.  For the rest of us it's one of the few strengths our neighborhoods possess.  It's a defense that isn't easily snookered by genial, fast-talking faces.  


So I'm sure you know what to do when they try to hand you a pen.  Notice… and let it go.

Sunday, March 19, 2017

San Diego's homelessness calamity: You have just entered the twilight zone

I.  Say what you want about the faraway White House.  But watch what you say about City Hall and the people we elect to local government – they're practically family.

They live in our neighborhoods.  We have coffee with them when they're running for office.  We bump into them at the movies or supermarket.  We could hop a trolley downtown and collar them at work.  We elect them to work for us.

Their job is to pave the streets, limit what gets built on that empty lot around the corner, keep an eye on the police department, get the trash picked up, and make sure there are enough fire stations to keep us safe and good air-quality levels to keep us healthy and enough libraries and parks to help make us happy.  

In sum, they're public servants whose job is to create and enforce policies and laws that improve the daily lives of San Diegans.  Their job is to take care of the city so we, the residents, families, taxpayers, students, and workers can get on with our personal pursuits and quotidian endeavors in safe and sound surroundings.  

Sometimes they do a better job than they do at other times.  But who can deny that – when it comes to issues of homelessness-related health, safety, and welfare – the Mayor and City Council have flat-out failed.

II.  Let's say you're out shopping in your local neighborhood.  Or holding tickets
for the downtown Civic Theater.  Or inching around Sports Arena Boulevard and Rosecrans.  Or stuck in the bottleneck at Torrey Pines Road. You'll see clusters of homeless men and women (and occasionally little children) asleep on the sidewalks, or holding up cardboard signs soliciting funds (god bless), or hauling black plastic bags filled with personal goods, or rummaging through trash bins.  Some are drunk.  Some are arguing or mumbling or shouting at invisible foes.  Some are reading yesterday's newspaper.


And even after you've handed over some spare change or a couple of bucks you might wonder, what else can you do? 
Who could you call if you want to do something more?  You might think, there must be someone in charge who has a plan to alleviate this glaring calamity. 

So you turn to the people we elect to city government, the ones whose job it is to take good care of the city. 

You go to the city website but you find nothing on the home page.  You try the link for InsideSan Diego and end up with a bunch of uplifting stories. You type "homeless" in the search box at the top of the main page and Eureka!  You see a link for homeless services and another link for homeless providers and plenty more links to news releases and police responses and the Mayor's press conferences.  

You keep clicking, searching in vain to find out who is in charge.  You try 2-1-1 San Diego, the city's newest public resource.  You try the homeless shelter directory link.  The truth finally hits you: you have just entered the twilight zone.

III.  Let's say it for the record: there's no one in charge.  Not at our County, not in our City.  There is no regional, local, or comprehensive policy to address the needs, impacts, and future of the homeless people living on our streets, along our riverbeds, and in our canyons.  

For years we've relied on nonprofits like the Salvation Army, Episcopal Community Services, San Diego Rescue Mission, Alpha Project, Neil Good Day Center, YWCA, Feeding San Diego, and North County Solutions to pick up the pieces.

For three decades we've given lip service to the mission of the Regional Task Force on Homelessness to pull the pieces together into a utilitarian approach to ending homelessless. 

Then someone masterminded the San Diego Regional Continuum of Care to take all the pieces and put them into a broad data framework.

And the United Way of San Diego County appointed their first "Commissioner" to place all the pieces in a coherent pattern that would meld housing and supportive services and permanently end chronic homelessness.

These regional efforts have been successful, indeed, in providing temporary subsidized shelter for unmoored politicians waiting for their next election gig to materialize.  But they've utterly failed to facilitate, create, or implement the crucial missing piece: a comprehensive, publicly-accountable policy and plan to address the size and scope of San Diego homelessness.

IV.  Dare we say it? Here at home, Mayor Faulconer has no plan.  Instead, he offers us tentative wishes.  He wishes to add some temporary shelter beds to the city's anemic inventory.  He wishes for a Housing Our Heroes program for 1000 homeless veterans.  He wishes to reunite homeless people with their families.  He wishes that voters would agree to increase the hotel tax (TOT) to pay for an ill-advised Convention Center expansion, street repairs, and homeless services (in that order).  
 
Then he wishes that his newly appointed communications advisor would fabricate a central intake center to hook up homeless people on the streets with various services (however inadequate, it would be a more benign approach than his previous actions to clear homeless people from downtown streets, round up their meager belongings, and lay jagged rocks under sheltering overpasses to prevent reoccupation).


He goes on wishing, but so far the tooth fairy has failed to alight.

V. But don't despair! There may be light at the end of this tunnel!  As it turns out, the city already has what it takes to do the job!  

                We've got elected officials who owe it to us to take better care of the city.
                We've got a Mayor who wants to look as good as possible to prepare for his rumored-run for governor.
                We've got large wads of cash stashed away (the Mayor and other insiders know where to find it) already legally earmarked for low-income and homeless housing needs.
                And we've got a longstanding, well-funded, fully-staffed public agency that could and should have been in charge of meeting the city's low and moderate income and homeless housing needs  from the very beginning.  

We could almost say we're loaded for bear.

VI. Train  your sights on the San Diego Housing Commission, established almost 30 years ago to preserve and increase the city's stock of affordable housing and be responsible for providing rental assistance and related housing services to low-income households.

Over the decades the agency has strayed from its original mission.  It sold off assets, engaged in property investment and development, favored market-rate ("workforce") over low-income housing, artificially sweetened the pot for some in the nonprofit housing industry, snookered the city council about financial activities and intentions, failed to halt or even keep track of the destruction and non-replacement of affordable housing, and evaded public oversight.

A solid case could be made to dismantle the Housing Commission.

A more positive case should be made to reform and restructure the agency and transform it into the city's one-stop-shop, a designated and responsible public-benefit city department with sufficient resources to create public housing and coordinate services and programs for the widest spectrum of San Diego's lower-income and homeless population.  

We can escape from the labyrinthian twilight zone by putting a renewed Housing Commission in charge.  Run it by your elected representatives.  Let's see what these public servants – the ones who are so close they're practically family – are really made of. 

Sunday, February 26, 2017

What would Nancy Drew do?






Calling all sleuths!  There's a murky mystery afoot in the city of San Diego that feels oddly familiar.  In theme… plot… cast of characters… it's nearly a dead ringer for a sordid drama that took center stage in our city a few seasons ago.  

This new case involves an attempt to bump off a local labor leader, someone most San Diegans probably wouldn't recognize if they saw him in a picket line.  

According to a description provided by his associates, the targeted individual is an unshaven, intimidating, middle-aged man with a budding paunch, contentious personality, rough temper, and not-such-great looks.  The perp (aka "dirt bag") is currently in the public square being scourged and pilloried.

His name is Mickey Kasparian.  He's the president of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union (UFCW) Local 135 and board president of the San Diego and Imperial Counties Labor Council. 

This past December two lawsuits were filed against Kasparian, one for sexual harassment that spanned a 15-year period, and the other for gender discrimination.  A third complaint has recently surfaced, this one alleging political retaliation.

The word on the street is that – when confronting a marauding menace – the good citizens of San Diego have the right to settle certain scores with frontier-style justice.  Never mind a person's constitutional right to due process.  Never mind tedious legal procedures.  

Borrowing freely from the Republican playbook (lock her up! lock her up!) some citizens want to see Kasparian lynched.  Other citizens would settle for immediate banishment from his union job.  Others call for excommunication from the ranks of the Democratic Party.   

I've never met the man.  I have no insider information about his behind-the-scenes conduct in the labor union universe, but I do have some questions:

Has Mickey Kasparian been doing a good job as labor leader?  I haven't heard, one way or another.

Does Mickey Kasparian engage in illegal or criminal activity?  He hasn't had his day in court yet so I wouldn't know. 

Is Mickey Kasparian so obnoxious, uncouth, arrogant, and ineffective that union members should vote him out of his top-dog position?  That's up to them, I would think.

Here's what I do know: there are ladders in the backrooms of union halls.  They interconnect with ladders in the backrooms of political parties.  That's where combatants clamber over one another to reach the top.  It's where political ambitions and party politics and personal grudges engage, mano a mano

Another thing I know is that Mr. Kasparian is no novice in the political chess game.  Maybe you've seen him at pro-labor events standing in unity alongside state assemblymember Lorena Gonzalez.   


Maybe you've also seen him step down hard on her toes to block Nathan Fletcher's second attempt to replace Bob Filner as San Diego's mayor.

And maybe you noticed that Kasparian put his money on David Alvarez in that mayoral race.  

But did that prevent him from turning his back on councilmember Alvarez in the recent skirmish over who would become this year's city council president?   

One thing you can say about Kasparian– he's got an unusual way of making friends.  And unmaking them.  Do we detect more clues to what has put him center stage in the current well-orchestrated facsimile of a kangaroo court?

So tell me, what would Nancy Drew do with these clues?

  • First, she'd probably refrain from premature judgment about whether Mickey Kasparian is a scoundrel and/or a rat and encourage our good San Diego citizens to keep our own incisors in check.
  • Second, she might suggest that internecine dogfights within the local Democratic Party and within the local unions threaten to become a self-imposed death sentence.
  • Finally, she'd try to convince the good citizens of San Diego to cancel any and all reruns scripted by activist judge/ jury/ executioners.  She'd advise us to settle for the dry drama of lawful procedure, courtroom hearings, and election ballots to vote the bastards in or out.  And she'd plead with us to resist the addictive and very bad habit of frontier-style justice.  Too many wrongs won't make it right.




Monday, February 20, 2017

Mayor Mayor on the Wall

PART I

Blue ties red ties
We'll start with a trick question: Is Mayor Kevin Faulconer the mirror image of President Donald Trump?  No, of course not! you'd probably say.  

Kevin Faulconer is a pleasant, if unremarkable, go-along-to-get-along San Diego city councilman turned mayor: 

"…born and raised in Oxnard California… learned to speak Spanish in grade school…  San Diego State University… member of the Kappa Sigma fraternity… one year as Student Body President of Associated Students. He and his wife Katherine, a small business owner, live in Point Loma with their two children. Before running for office… executive with the public relations firm NCG Porter Novelli and volunteered  on the Mission Bay Park Committee…" (see Wikipedia)

Red ties blue ties
You might say that Kevin Faulconer is a lightweight Republican who goes down nice and easy in a city like San Diego.  He is decorum incarnate – never an unguarded sneer, never an unscripted rant.  

You might even say that he mirrors Melania Trump more than the Donald.  Melania's insouciant aura serves as a glamorous distraction from her husband's crude and reckless nature.  Likewise, Faulconer's low-keyed persona serves as a disarming distraction from the leadership vacuum on the 11th floor of City Hall.

Kevin Faulconer's problem is that he's an embarrassment to his constituents.  For how many years did the Spanos syndicate manipulate and extort this mayor?  How many times did they slap him silly while he kept coming back for more?  

But Faulconer's problems go far deeper than being dumped by the Chargers. We've got a mayor who is incapable of taking clear, decisive stands on big civic issues, whether it's a sports stadium, or Convention Center, or racial profiling by city police officers, or actualizing strong environmental programs.  He walks on eggshells, even over keeping our police force out of the immigration enforcement business.  He shuns the stage at city demonstrations and marches.  Ribbon cutting events, that's where you'll usually find him.  (So who can explain why he ignored public outcry and readily mounted the stage to meet and greet at the super-conservative American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) conference held in San Diego a couple of years ago?)  

We've got a mayor who, since the day he stepped into office, has neglected the city's festering problems of relentlessly worsening homelessness; rising poverty levels; looming budget cuts; a housing crisis that turns rent and mortgage payments into a monthly scramble… 

We've got a mayor who issues limp declarations of Action! Accountability! A New Day in San Diego! in response to the ballooning backlog of street and road repairs, or spiking pension obligations and chronic threat of municipal bankruptcy, or burst water mains and standstill traffic in already overburdened neighborhoods (laughably slated for increased density and development).

In his latest State of the City address the mayor's to-do list is a hodgepodge of sound-bites.  But where are the concrete remedies?  For him, Action means making the city an Official, Regional Autonomous Vehicle Pilot Location.  For him, Accountability means installing jagged rocks under freeway overpasses to get rid of homeless sleepers.  

For him, A New Day in San Diego! might mean the Camp Hope approach of clearing the homeless off the streets and stowing them in a tarted-up tent city at the Mexican border, out of sight and out of mind.  Will this mayor really give his blessings to our very own Hooverville? 

We've got a mayor who has not delivered the goods.  Pleasant though he may be, he lacks the independence, imagination, backbone, and political moxie to do right by our city.

PART II

Once upon a time when I was an active player with the League of Women Voters, the powers-that-be convinced the San Diego public that it was time to become a dynamic metropolis like Los Angeles or Chicago or even New York City.  So voters agreed to replace our purportedly provincial city manager form of government with a strong mayor system.  

Back then the big worry for the LWV was that – in a politically low-energy city like ours – concentrated power in the hands of a strong mayor would decrease public accountability and invite corruption. 

Back then we also worried about how trading in an independent, professional city manager for a political appointee to run city departments, operations, contracts, budgets, and workers would work out.  Turns out we were right to worry. 

Our first "strong mayor" was Jerry Sanders.  He never succeeded in being his own man.  During his two terms in office he dutifully kept the city exactly where it had always been: in the hands of an ossified downtown fraternity of hoteliers, developers, bankers, and assorted business interests.  He persists to this day as a well-compensated mouthpiece for the Chamber of Commerce. 

Our second "strong mayor" was Bob Filner.  He was willing and able to express his independence, imagination, backbone, and political moxie to promote a politically liberal agenda for the city.  But he proved too undisciplined for his own good.  And too threatening to old-guard Republicans.  

As it turns out, he was also too threatening to self-professed progressive Democrats like then-councilman (and current California state assemblymember) Todd Gloria and then-San Diego/Imperial Counties Labor Council secretary-treasurer (and current California state assemblymember) Lorena Gonzalez and her clandestine mayoral ambitions for then-close companion (and current husband) Nathan Fletcher.  In an unprecedented palace coup, the city's first bona fide strong mayor was unceremoniously drummed out of office.

Our third "strong mayor" is Kevin Faulconer.  He's a chip off the old Sanders block.  We are back to waiting for the basic benefits promised to us when we gave up the old city manager government and brought in the strong mayor system – things like transparency, accountability, government efficiency, and dynamic governance. 


We were promised we'd know where the buck stops… we'd know who is in charge.  Do you know who's responsible for what goes on in our city?  Do you know who's in charge?  Do you ever think to pick up your phone to call your mayor?


PART III

We'll wrap up with the trick question: Is Kevin Faulconer the mirror image of Donald Trump?  Of course not! you'd probably still say. There's a world of difference between a public relations puppet and a dangerous, unstable, bullying megalomaniac. 


But look again at the uncanny similarities.  You'll see that neither is doing right by our citizens.  You'll see that, so far, neither deserves the public trust.

Here's the big difference: our mayor is within reach, right at our fingertips.  We elected a "strong mayor" to be in charge, to be accountable, and to be responsible for what goes on in our city.   

We voters need to check our own mirrors, if only to remind ourselves that we elected our mayor to do right by our city.  And it's our job to hold his feet to the fire and not let him forget that HE is where the buck stops.

Wednesday, October 26, 2016

Ballot on steroids: the burden of direct democracy

Still haven't tackled those 31 propositions on your bloated November ballot?  I counted 17 state, 2 county, and 12 city proposals on my sample ballot – enough to drive anyone nuts. 

If you've been beating up on yourself for procrastinating  – STOP!  You are not the problem.  The problem is the way we're overusing and abusing the supercharged, direct-democracy ballot tools we call the initiative and the referendum.  

Yes, let's debate the value of representative democracy versus direct democracy.  And weigh the pros and cons of ballot-box planning.  Let's juggle reform options for the signature-gathering process.  And agonize over how to finance ballot initiatives and candidates.  But let's save it for another day.


Today, let's get down to business, starting with some facts about ballot propositions:
  • Ballot propositions are an exercise in direct voter control over the political process (call it direct democracy or government by petition).
  • Ballot propositions deal with laws and statutes – legislative matters.  Once a ballot measure is approved by voters, elected representatives cannot make even minor adjustments or modifications to it, much less rescind it (not even when changes are clearly needed) unless language in the proposition explicitly permits legislative changes.
  • Ballot propositions involve complex issues.  But during the campaign season they're invariably reduced to superficial sloganeering and misleading advertising.  
  • Ballot propositions are often opaque and deceptive, which makes it crucial for voters to be aware of who was responsible for putting a particular proposition on the ballot.  Look long and hard to identify the one(s) behind the curtain.  It'll be more of an eye-opener than relying on lists of supporters and opponents. 
Ballot propositions come in two forms: the initiative (for creating new law) and the referendum (for confirming a legislative act or reversing a recently adopted law).

Here are 6 ways that ballot propositions (initiatives and referenda) find their way onto the ballot:
  1. Registered voters can put a proposition on the ballot to initiate a new law or bond measure by submitting a written petition and a specified number of valid signatures. The term "registered voters" includes well-financed business groups, corporate entities, or your neighbors down the street.  On your ballot it's called an Initiative Statute.  (Measures B, C, D and State Propositions 51, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66 are Initiative Statutes.)
  2. Registered voters can place a proposition on the ballot to initiate an amendment to the state constitution/municipal charter by submitting a petition and a specified number of valid signatures.  This is called an Initiative Constitutional Amendment.  (State Propositions 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57 are Initiative Constitutional Amendments.)
  3. Registered voters can place a proposition on the ballot to nullify a law (or portion of a law) recently passed by state, county, or local legislators by submitting a petition and requisite signatures.  This is called a Referendum or "People's Veto."  A People's Veto can be put on the ballot by corporate, development, or large business interests as well as by community activists.
  4. State, county, and city lawmakers can place a measure on the ballot to amend the state constitution/municipal charter, to propose tax and bond measures, or to amend a previous initiative.  These types of measures must, by law, be put to the voters for approval. This is called a Mandatory Referendum.  (Local Measures A, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, and N are Mandatory Referenda.)
  5. State, county, and city lawmakers can place a measure on the ballot that transfers approval of a particular piece of legislation directly to voters.  This would be called a Legislative Referendum. (State proposition 67 is a Legislative Referendum).
  6. State, county, and city lawmakers can place a measure on the ballot as a symbolic gesture that does not create binding law.  This would be an Advisory Referendum.  (State Proposition 59 is an Advisory Legislative Referendum.)
Okay fellow procrastinators, it's decision time.  Here's how I went about it:

First, I did a sniff test on each ballot proposition with questions like: Does a particular issue have too many moving parts? Could it have been resolved by our lawmakers without turning it into a ballot measure? Who is the main beneficiary?  Does it even belong on the ballot? Do I understand what it says or does it confuse the heck out of me? Is this a rat I smell?

Then I drew a big black dot in the NO oval next to the local propositions that failed the sniff test.  

The first to bite the dust was Measure B (Lilac Ranch: developer-driven ballot-box planning), then Measure C (Chargers Stadium: football planning fiasco), then Measure D (Cory Briggs-Donna Frye-John Moores: unsustainable packaging of numerous disparate issues). 

Then there are the 8 City Charter amendments that were put on the ballot by the City Council under the pretext of "it's only a cleanup."  The City Council and City Attorney made substantive changes to the City Charter without the benefit of a Citizens Charter Review Commission for ensuring balanced community input, analysis, and recommendations – an unacceptable way for city officials to do the public's business.  

There's more mischief here than meets the eye, which is why I marked NO on Measures E, F, G, H, J, K, L (a public Citizens Commission is the democratic way to go to when initiating changes to the city charter).

But I have a confession to make: I'm not as pure and ruthless as I sound.  I did mark YES on Measure I (to retain San Diego High School location at the edge of Balboa Park).

Finally, I marked a reluctant YES on Measure A (SANDAG  traffic/road/transit tax: transit also needs road work), YES on Measure M (Affordable Housing Limits) and NO to Measure N (Recreational Marijuana Business Tax: unwieldy, unworkable, unenforceable).

The 17 State Propositions also have us trapped by the shorthairs.  Only a few passed the sniff test.

Big fat dots in the NO ovals went to Prop 51 (school bonds: ignores equity issues),  Prop 53 (revenue bond approval: backhanded approach to block 2 particular projects re. water and rail), Prop 54 (legislative bill approval: undercuts open government with dubious regulations), Prop 60 (condom use: no way does this belong on the ballot), Prop 61 (state prescription drug purchases: benefits the creator of the measure, not the general public - Bernie Sanders didn't do his homework before backing this one), Prop 64 (marijuana legalization: creating this particular  industry belongs in the hands of legislators, not a popularity contest), and Prop 65 (charges for carryout bags: would eliminate plastic bag ban if 65 wins over Prop 67).

And just to prove I know how to say yes, I marked YES on Prop 52 (MediCal funding fees), Prop 55 (income tax increase on $250K individuals), Prop 56 (cigarette tax increase), Prop 57 (sentencing reform), Prop 58 (Bilingual education option), Prop 59 (advisory vote on political spending: sends a clear message that we oppose Citizens United), Prop 62 (death penalty repeal), Prop 63 (background checks for purchase of ammunition), and Prop 67 (plastic bag ban: affirms state legislation to ban single use plastic bags).

That's it.  Congratulations for hanging in there.  The rest of the day is all yours.

Wednesday, August 24, 2016

To the victor belong the spoils



What is it about brute force and macho swagger that mesmerizes so many people? 

Picture this: you're at a crowded carnival.   See that big beefy guy up on stage – the one with bulging pecs and thighs like a steel vise?  Watch as he picks up that mallet, swings it high overhead, and smashes it down – smack on target.  The bell at the top almost shatters with a ringing endorsement of this big tough guy.  We all cheer.

Picture another carnival.  Onstage is an international lineup of muscle-flexing politicians.  See the iron-fisted man of steel Vladimir Putin? the vicious hanger-on Bashar al-Assad? how about the take-no-prisoners Kim Jong-un?  And whoa! there's a joker in the pack – the one with a muscle-bound mouth.  Could it be the Donald, our very own wild card?  Even he gets cheers.

Now picture a different carnival setting.  Let's make it city hall in sunny San Diego.  Man-o-man, the politics on this stage are a feminist fantasy come true – not a grandstanding, fulminating, intimidating, testosterone-laden blowhard in sight (at least, not since Papa Doug Manchester pulled out at the U-T).

After ten years under our adopted "strong mayor" system… after dire predictions that abandoning our old city manager form of government would lead to sordid corruption… after gloomy forecasts that venal forces would dominate city affairs… the naysayers were left eating crow.  Brute force? macho swagger? never happened. 

For proof, just look at our mayor Kevin Faulconer – one of the most genteel, photo-ready manikins ever invented by the public-relations industry. 

This gentlemen's gentleman has managed to convince San Diegans that nothing out of the ordinary – nothing unseemly – goes on in our city (give or take some boys-will-be-boys antics over a new billion dollar downtown football stadium).

But the fact is, there is something unseemly going on. When Kevin Faulconer became the city's heir apparent following the not-so-bloodless coup that rudely exiled mayor Bob Filner, the spoils of that peculiar political battle were immediately deposited into the hands of San Diego's old guard – the city's business-as-usual, self-serving, elite club.

The problem is, the political spoils happen to be us… you and me… residents and voters… neighborhoods and communities... the city's future.

But – to the victors – the public voice is a nuisance.  Bad for business. Expendable.

Sure enough, a process has been set in motion that overrides, marginalizes, shoves aside, and manhandles the San Diego public by systematically eliminating city laws and procedures that once guaranteed the public right to be heard.  And honored.  
Rape is not quite the word for it.  Let's call it a violation of the public trust.  It involves the methodical dismantling of years of progress by neighborhoods, community groups, and dedicated public advocates who once worked alongside city officials as partners to promote good public policy and better decision-making. 
Could it be that those "strong mayor" naysayers had a point, after all? 
Here's a short list of civic assaults, with more to be exposed.

Government accountability to the public has all but disappeared.  The proverbial buck stops nowhere.  In fact, it seems that no buck exists anymore.
  • Our duly elected mayor, Kevin Faulconer, is the city's CEO but he's AWOL when it comes to taking responsibility for or even acknowledging the documented lack of oversight within city departments; a series of critical reports from the independent city auditor; non-disclosure about how the city conducts business… chooses its vendors... monitors its contractors… sells off public property… ignores building code violations… puts public safety at risk…
  • In the old days, an experienced well-trained manager – answerable to the full city council and to the public – was responsible for running city business.
  • Nowadays, ever since voters traded in the city manager system for a "strong mayor" system, the mayor is the official head of city operations.  He hires a personal appointee to do the job.  This appointee is answerable solely to the mayor.  
  • Do you have any idea who runs the city for mayor Faulconer?  
  • Do you have any idea to whom is the public can turn with community grievances?  
  • Do you have any idea why no one seems willing to disturb our likable mayor with questions, complaints or demands?

 Then there's the egregious public insult called Civic San Diego – the urban renewal non-profit corporation that replaced San Diego's former redevelopment agencies. 
  •  Civic San Diego was created by the mayor, the city council, and downtown developers and financiers.  It's a means of privatizing lucrative real estate activities  in our downtown and adjoining neighborhoods. 
  • It replaces the former public planning process overseeing growth and development in our city.  
  • To the shock, dismay, and detriment of neighborhood residents and interested citizens, there is no longer an enforceable process where the public can be heard and heeded on big decisions affecting their own communities.  
  • The rules were changed and locked into place when no one was looking.


Then there's the process called Charter Change, which voters will confront this November on an obscenely long and complex election ballot.
  •  The City Charter is San Diego's basic constitution.  In contrast to our concise U.S. Constitution, our City Charter is in need of a good cut and shampoo.  Some styling, as well.  But our city's elected officials have quietly sabotaged public rights to knowledgeably review and revise our local constitution.
  • Rather than opening the process to public scrutiny, rather than actively engaging the public in a representative Charter Review Commission, rather than distinguishing between simple editing fixes and far-reaching policy changes, we will be blindly voting on City Charter strike-outs and insertions that will, in many cases, pull the rug out from under longstanding public protections.  
  • Once upon a time many decades ago, San Diegans created a City Charter in their own image. Today, the face of the public is being blotted out.

Then there's the blatant reality that we have no coherent policy or plan to ameliorate our mushrooming homeless population.

Then there's the careless support for a multi-headed "citizens" ballot initiative, created behind the scene by a select few in the absence of public debate or input – that would rearrange huge tracts of land in Mission Valley and downtown, along with creating an ungovernable hodgepodge of private spheres of influence.  (Ironically, support is coming from groups that pride themselves on government openness and transparency.) 

Then there's the disappearance of a well-functioning, adequately-funded planning department, staffed by city planners who were once permitted to put the public (neighborhoods, communities) interests first.

Then there's the Balboa Park - Laurel Street Bridge imbroglio that denies public participation in the decision-making process governing major structural changes to one of our most treasured public assets.

The list goes on.  But let's end, for the moment, with a cautionary political truism:  If you're not at the table, chances are you'll end up on the menu.   

Which means if we, the public, don't demand to be seated at the victors' big-boy banquet... we're lunch.