Voter suppression--San Diego style

I have a secret to confess.  When I was a little kid and couldn't figure out how to deal with a really big problem (like, for example, how to get my mom and dad to play nice with one another), a murderous thought sometimes crossed my mind:  One of them would have to disappear… permanently.  There seemed no other way.  

Not very mature of me, I guess.  Not too practical, either. Then again, what do you expect from a seven-year old?

But, when adult politicians and wannabe decisionmakers propose options to resolve San Diego problems, would my childish approach be considered a rational, responsible, appropriate course of action?

And yet, two weighty proposals are currently percolating in the bowels of San Diego that--in some screwy way--are as irrational, irresponsible, and counterproductive as anything a reckless seven-year old could dream up.

Anti-voter proposal #1 would put an end to the longstanding ability of San Diego voters to elect their City Attorney--the legal head of city government. 

Remember this: Way back in 1931, reform-minded San Diego voters decided that the best way to protect the public interests of all city residents--not just the particular interests of the Mayor and City Council--was to amend the city charter to establish an elected, independent City Attorney who would be directly answerable to the people of San Diego.

Proposal #1 would eliminate San Diego voters from the equation and give the Mayor the power to appoint his/her own private sector City Attorney. 

But why resort to such an extreme proposal that would deep-six an elected official and reincarnate her/him as a political appointee?  

Apparently, some people don't like the way our city's current first female/Latina City Attorney--has been doing her job.  

Apparently, some of them decided that Mara Elliot had to go… disappear… permanently.  And maybe the entire City Attorney's office, to boot. 

Apparently, they figured that voter suppression isn't too high a price to pay if you call it "streamlining city government."  

It's unlikely that even an irrational, irresponsible seven-year old would go along with a proposal as off-the-wall and vindictive as this one.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`~

Anti-voter proposal #2: Most likely, you've already read my impression of the mayor's Complete Communities Initiative.

Proposal #2 does an additional whack job on San Diego voters, this time by eliminating citizens' rights to guide the future of our growing city--our streets, sidewalks, neighborhoods, communities, coastline, parks, canyons, bus and trolley lines…. 

The Mayor's Complete Communities proposal would eliminate San Diego voters from the equation and transfer control directly to builders, speculators, and developers (local, out-of-state, or overseas) to decide where, when, what, and how much gets built in neighborhoods throughout the city.

Remember this: Decades ago, City Council 600-24 created a system of elected community planning committees to advise the City Council on planning issues in their respective communities. 

For more than 54 years, San Diego voters operated with official assurance that "once a community plan is adopted, the community planning group and the City must make sure that development projects adhere to a community plan's policies and that a community plan continues to be a valid projection of the future…."

And yet, even a seven-year old might notice the reek of voter suppression when:

•  Under cover of today's health crisis, budget crisis, jobs crisis, and housing crisis, our City Council members are taken out of the planning and land-use decision-making loop...  
• The Mayor's team shuts down direct public participation in matters of vital public business...
•  Our elected representatives relinquish their role to act in the best interests of us--their voting constituents--rendering district elections more or less a farce...
• Developers are given license to call the planning shots, leeaving residents with no recourse.
• Voters are denied a voice to resist ever-worsening neighborhood displacement when San Diego already leads the pack (just behind Washington DC) of US cities with the highest percentage of gentrifying neighborhoods.

 The merits of the Complete Communities plan may be plentiful: 

+ Of course we need more affordable housing!

+ Of course we need well-planned, efficient transit!

+ Of course many neighborhoods need better parks!

+ Of course we must arrest destructive impacts on the environment!

The demerits of the Complete Communities plan are numerous and unsupportable: 
^Surely we know that exclusionary housing policies are unethical and illegal!

^Surely we know that growth impacts on climate, water, and utilities need better, more complete analysis!

^Surely we know that San Diego voters and city officials must remain inseparable partners!

^Surely we know that community input addressing the impacts of densification must be mandatory!

And surely we can forgive a confused child for her poor judgment and reckless and desperate fantasies.  The same does not hold for our politicians and city leaders.

Until citywide debate and planning for the future of our city is open to San Diego citizens and community groups, Complete Communities will continue to be a highly flawed and incomplete initiative.  Shutting out the voice of the voter must be a non-starter.

Complete Communities: Scourge or Savior?

Part I: Complete Communities

Over the past six months, the international scientific community has been working its tail off to subdue the coronavirus scourge wreaking havoc on the world population. 

Meantime, Americans are taking to the streets demanding the annihilation of other malignant viruses infecting our nation--namely, racist violence by the police and the embedded racism that underlies too many of our country's institutions.

How are San Diego leaders responding to this pandemic moment of economic, political, and life-threatening upheaval?  The answer won't make you proud.  It could make you angry.

Throughout these past months of social turmoil, racial reckoning, and a deadly health crisis,  San Diego's Mayor-- along with city planners and the development industry--have laser-focused their efforts on fast-tracking an extraordinary proposal called "Complete Communities: Housing Solutions and Mobility Choices Initiative" which:

... removes regulatory barriers to housing at all income levels, especially low, very low, and moderate-income households, while investing in neighborhood and mobility amenities, such as recreational opportunities, street trees, linear parks, bicycle facilities, urban plazas, and promenades.

The Complete Communities plan purports to diminish the city's greenhouse gas emissions while it fixes the dilemma of housing unaffordability, and will also:

… provide all residents access to the resources and opportunities necessary to improve the quality of their lives… a healthy environment and thriving communities... to enhance the quality of life for all residents, regardless of their background and identity.

And how will this urbanized Garden of Eden be created?  By enabling multistory redevelopment, substantial population growth, and high densities in neighborhoods and communities throughout San Diego.

The proposal has a magic wand that will eliminate "regulatory barriers" like existing zoning regulations, height and setback restrictions, environmental analyses, and community review.  And ABRACADABRA! a bucket of fairy dust that will guarantee generous financial incentives to builders plus a license to build whatever they see fit to build, whenever and wherever they are ready to build it. 

Part II: Incomplete Communities

You may be wondering why you have never heard of this transformative political initiative to rebuild the physical, social, and--indeed--the racial identity of our city.

It's because Complete Communities was conceived and gestated in private--no citizens' committee, no speeches from the Mayor, no open workshops, no publicized opportunity for your input, questions, or concerns.

There's no other way to say it: Mayor Faulconer has betrayed San Diego voters by handing over control of our city's future to the region's business/builder/growth industry--with the complicity of gullible YIMBY acolytes. 

And you--whether homeowner, renter, citizen, resident, or taxpayer--are not only expected to put on a facemask, your Mayor is also counting on you to don a gag and blindfold when it comes to shaping your neighborhood's future and the city's fate.  

 But the most egregious betrayal of all is that—at root--Complete Communities is a government-sponsored racist proposal.  

Why do I say that?  Consider this: 

• The housing element of San Diego's General Plan informs us that our city "must have an adequate supply of housing to maintain its economic competitive edge and house its workforce."  It warns that, "with the emergence of San Diego's knowledge-based economy it is critical to ensure there is a steady supply of housing coming online to meet the needs of this diverse group of workers." 

• Between 2000 and 2010, the number of Hispanic and Asian residents living in San Diego increased by 21% and 24%, respectively.  White and Black residents declined by 2% and 11% over the same period.

• SANDAG predicts that these trends will continue for at least another decade. The forecast says that the city's Hispanic population will account for 35% of the total population.  For the Asian population it's 16%.  For the Black population it's 6%.  The White population will decrease to 38%.

• The poverty rate within the Black and Brown communities is more than double that in San Diego's White community.

The truth is, Complete Communities it designed to meet more of the economic needs of the development industry than the need for adequate, affordable housing for the city's "diverse group of workers" and for other essential sectors of our population    

As for betrayal, consider this: During the postwar decades following World War II, the federal government provided loans, subsidies, and enabling legislation to developers to build extensive tracts of housing on the outskirts of existing cities.

War veterans and families also received government loans and subsidies, enabling them to leave crowded cities for clean/green new lives in rapidly proliferating suburban developments.

Back then, the beneficiaries this new government housing policy were--with intent--almost exclusively White families.

Fast forward to 2020.  The Complete Communities proposal, with its mandates for vigorous urbanization of San Diego neighborhoods, flips the proverbial American Dream of Suburban Paradise on its head.  That's not necessarily a bad thing. 

But notice that--intentionally or not--the beneficiaries of San Diego's newest housing policy are once again almost exclusively White individuals and couples.  

Part III: Expediting the Exodus

As envisioned by the Complete Communities proposal, the overriding majority of new construction falls into two categories: 

a) high-end "luxury" apartments, and

b) micro/mini/small studio and one-bedroom units.

The proposal uses a complex formula for creating "affordable" apartment units but the numbers come nowhere close to meeting the actual housing needs of our city's population (take another look at SANDAG forecasts).

The formula also avoids the reality that dense redevelopment throughout the city clears away existing affordable housing and displaces families and individuals who now occupy them. 

And is it impolite to point out that the formula aims for an indecently scant number of family-sized housing units considered affordable to moderate/ low-income households?

Bottom line

1. We know that the era of suburbanization intentionally left Black and Brown families in the lurch, forcing them to make their own way in neglected, decaying cities.  
2. We know that the Mayor's proposed urbanization initiative leaves San Diego's Black and Brown families in the lurch by forcing them out of city boundaries through redevelopment and displacement while providing shamefully few opportunities to stay.  
3. We know that the intended beneficiaries of Complete Communities are combinations of:  young, well-paid singles and couples touching down in San Diego for a few years; upper-income retirees;  vacation rental clients;   corporate sleepovers for expense-account clients; and   safe parking spots for foreign and domestic investors.
4. We know that there's something profoundly dishonest about a scheme that builds too much of what we don't need in order to get a small fraction of what we do need.
5. We know that the city already has the capacity to accommodate growth under existing regulations and the community planning process.  

Complete Communities should be jettisoned. Once the pandemic dust settles, once we can go eye to eye with our elected officials, that's the time for a thorough airing of fresh proposals to map an equitable future for San Diego.