San Diego's dance fetish

 

Did you know that San Diego has a dance fetish?  Our obsessive routine goes something like this: We take one step forward, then two steps back… one step forward, two steps back...  one forward, two back…. 

Year in and year out, the city makes a bit of progress toward the common good and then pulls back--undermining and diminishing the quality of life in our communities.  To jog your memory, here are some random past examples of how we step on our own toes:

 

Once (circa 1980s), the city had a deal with SDG&E: we permitted them to exact surcharges on customer bills.  In exchange, they were to bury the overhead power lines that crisscross our city.

 

Somehow, millions of dollars of customer fees mysteriously evaporated.  Nevertheless, former Mayor Susan Golding (and her City Council cohorts) did a switchback step: SDG&E handed over a one-time $3.4 million cash payment to the city…a bandaid on the profligate mayor's overburdened city budget.  In exchange, the city freed SDG&E from its previous undergrounding obligations.

 

Once (ante 2000), we had a stable pension system and a functioning, well-staffed city government.  Then (following the lead of City Manager Jack McGrory) our elected officials took backward steps that crippled the city’s pension system, tripped up San Diego’s financial stability, and hollowed out City Hall.  Today, around 2,000 essential city positions are rattling around City Hall…unfilled.  Might that explain why current San Diegans experience chronic gaps in basic public services?

 

Once (ten years ago), Mayor Jerry Sanders got the blessings of then-City Attorney Jan Goldsmith to pretend he was participating as an ordinary joe blow and not as the Mayor of San Diego when he actively promoted a “pension reform” ballot proposition (Prop B).  The State Supreme Court said: "NO WAY."  

 

Although this subterfuge is currently costing the city at least $100 million to unravel the resultant mess, you’ll notice that these two dance mates have waltzed away, scot free. 

 

But no need to look to the past for deleterious examples of our dance fetish.  It’s happening right before your very eyes.

 

Once, an independent Redistricting Commission was added to our City Charter by San Diego voters.  Its purpose was to ensure that Redistricting activities would be conducted independent of and separate from the Mayor and City Council.  It was a forward step for our city. 

 

But Councilmember Chris Cate recently attempted to influence the mapping outcome 0f our independent Redistricting Commission, claiming he was participating as an ordinary citizen, not as a duly-elected Councilmember.  Wasn't the Court's "NO WAY" injunction loud enough when Jerry Sanders tried that ploy?  Cate's fancy footwork may or may not pay off for him personally, but the eventual cost to the public is yet to be seen.

 

Once, our city codified a system of Developer Impact Fees (DIFs).  The rationale was that new development should pay its own way...or at least that developers should facilitate the provision of community benefits and public facilities (roads, utility hookups, public spaces, etc.) made necessary by denser neighborhood development. 

 

But with a hop, skip, and jump backwards, Mayor Todd Gloria now proposes to redirect these DIFs away from the neighborhoods that are directly impacted by new development.  He wants to funnel DIFs into the city's General Fund... under his personal control... to be doled out as it suits his political agenda... never mind neighborhood impacts....  Is this legal? A judge may have another "No Way" to say about this maneuver.

 

Once, the city had a system for permanent retention of "official business" emails.  Undaunted, political consultant Stephen Puetz (chief of staff to former Mayor Kevin Faulconer) admitted he destroyed electronic messages integral to current legal investigations of the botched acquisition of 101 Ash Street.  

 

But Mayor Todd Gloria has a fix for this issue, as well.  He'll change the retention limit for important city emails/texts to a maximum of five years before they're destroyed.  Compared to his previous decision to delete and destroy city emails each and every year (he was interim-mayor at the time, following Mayor Bob Filner’s resignation), today's proposal looks like a baby-step forward.  But at a time when permanent storage is cheaper and more feasible than ever before, this signals a significant step backward for open government, transparency, and the public good.

 

So whoa, Nelly!  We're beginning to see how today’s dance moves by our current elected leadership threaten to take the city not just steps--but a GIANT LEAP BACKWARDS.

 

Our Mayor and individual City Council members may have reasonable personal convictions about what constitutes civic progress.  But collectively, they've espoused the myth that urban super-growth will be San Diego's savior to rescue us from the dire straits of housing unaffordability and the perils of climate change.

 

Abandoning principles of sensible zoning, they’ve taken a reckless dive into the YIMBY mosh pit to join assorted Growth Machine proselytizers and politically opportunistic lobbyists like Colin Parent (and his Circulate San Diego think tank).

Their rallying cry is Affordability! and their voices are well-nourished by financial infusions from the building industry and corporate real estate investors.   Whatever their motivation, they seem intent on leading San Diego backwards to an era of haphazard growth and environmental carelessness.  

 

But the evidence mounts daily that “supply and demand” in the housing market does not increase affordability.  High levels of density haven't made Hong Kong, Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, Miami, Tokyo affordable places to live.  It won’t be the magic bullet for San Diego, either. 

 

This bears repeating: growth is not a dirty word.  But growth--the quantity, quality, rate, impacts, losers, and beneficiaries--comes laden with enormous challenges for which there are no quick and easy answers.  

 

In the ongoing challenge to manage our growth and to continue efforts to make San Diego a more livable, well-run, environmentally sustainable, across-the-board affordable city, with social justice and fairness as our signature dance routine, one thing is certain: the role of and support for San Diego’s Community Planning Groups should be strengthened--not truncated--by our Mayor and City Council.  

 

Current proposals to promote super-growth--combined with plans to lobotomize Community Planning Groups and muffle rational neighborhood voices--are backward leaps that corrupt the public process to benefit private and corporate interests of the Growth Machine.  We should all be saying: NO WAY!

YIMBYs--newest handmaidens of the Growth Machine

Alternative facts—they're the latest rage.  Even here at home, presumably responsible voices are echoing half-truths, distortion, and misinformation about a number of big-ticket items that face San Diego.

Let’s take the subject of housing, for starters.  We all talk about the housing crisis in San Diego.   So what makes it a crisis?  

For some it's about sky-high rents.  Others say it's a matter of supply--there aren't enough houses and apartments to go around.  Still others point to the near-million it takes nowadays to buy even a little bungalow…

Do the innumerable, uncountable people living on the streets constitute a crisis?  And what about the families being pushed out of their gentrifying neighborhoods?

As for the causes of this crisis, everyone's got a different take--too many regulations? building fees? zoning restrictions? government roadblocks? parking requirements? environmental protections?

Well then, what should be done?  How about the commonsensical-sounding solution bouncing around newspaper editorials and City Hall and County meetings… planning forums and urban studies classrooms… union halls and the hallowed Chamber of Commerce... the one that says: Yes we can!  Yes we must BUILD our way out of our housing crisis!

YIMBYs (Yes In My Back Yard crusaders) on both sides of the political aisle--Democrats and Republicans alike-- have jumped on this alternative-facts bandwagon urging us to build-build-build our way out. 

The YIMBY message is paraded out by Mayor Kevin Faulconer.  By California Senator Scott Wiener.  By HUD Secretary Ben Carson.  And yes, by executive order from our very own President Donald Trump. 

Their marching orders are clear: Slash government regulations.  Reduce building restrictions.  Require greater development and density (preferably but not necessarily in transit-available, jobs-rich urban areas).  Intensify growth.  And get yourselves out of the way of the market!

YIMBYs may be new to the game but their build-build-build message is just another twist to an old script written and directed by San Diego's longtime lord and master--the Growth Machine.

The Growth Machine can be described this way: it's a broad coalition of local folk (individuals, organizations, interest groups) who share two basic traits: 1) all its members directly profit from urban growth and development; and 2) all its members tend to have an outsized influence on local political decisions.

You've met them before: our hotels, banks, convention center, newspapers, shopping centers, sports stadiums, labor unions, realtor's associations, tech companies, builders, big developers….

And they have a third thing in common: a shared philosophy about the function of the land beneath our feet.

For the Growth Machine "land" is not a social good, it's a commodity—a financial vehicle to be purchased, sold, invested in, or traded.  Who can dispute that ownership and control over land is synonymous with wealth and power?  With land valued as a commodity rather than a social good, speculation can reap huge rewards. 

Now tell me, who has the Midas touch to transform the resale value of land owned by  investors/speculators/developers into pure gold?  None other than our elected officials on the City Council and County Board of Supervisors. 

And who are the people most susceptible to pressure from lobbyists, campaign donors, unions, and business elites?  Who can turn the city itself into a well-greased Growth Machine? See above.

Think about it: when local politicians act in their official capacity to extend the city's water and sewer lines… build new roads… amend a community or general plan… upzone to higher building heights and densities… bestow tax subsidies… relax building and parking requirements… a modest piece of property can be instantly transformed into a goldmine. 

You might ask: won't increasing land values and tax revenues also be beneficial to the city by enabling our elected officials to enhance amenities and the quality of life for regular people and neighborhoods?  

Not necessarily.  The priorities of land speculators and developers involve intensifying land use to accommodate more, and then more, growth and development.   Attention to your sidewalks/storm drains/schools/parks/potholes/municipal service is buried somewhere in San Diego's decades-old backlog of unattended neighborhood infrastructure repairs and upgrades--now at a whopping $2billion deficit. 

Back to the subject of housing.  Regular people recognize that the housing crisis is actually an unaffordability crisis.

Most regular people know that the remedy for an unaffordability crisis is NOT denser/ high-priced/ luxury/ upper-end apartments, condominiums, and mini-mansions.  Most don't fall for the myth that higher housing densities and generous developer "incentives" will bring prices down to a reasonable level.

Most of us aren't fooled about the difference between housing "abundance" and housing "affordability."  Most intuitively understand that--in the real world--supply and demand trickle-down economic theories don’t cut it for mid/moderate/lower income residents.  Does anyone honestly believe that unleashing the power of the market will bring housing prices down?

So how can we explain the blind enthusiasm of people who brand themselves YIMBYs and declare that high density market-rate residential development is the magic bullet for ensuring that anyone who wishes to reside in our neighborhoods/ cities/ counties can have an affordable roof over their heads?

Is the seductive allure of a powerful, wily, and wealthy Growth Machine too hard to resist? 

For a clue, take a look at the organization called California YIMBY.   California YIMBY was created with a million-dollar advance from Bay Area high-tech executives as a lobbying tool for pro-development legislation in Sacramento.  Its purpose is to organize empower, and coordinate with YIMBY groups throughout the state to reduce environmental and regulatory restraints that stand in the way of high density building and growth.

The California YIMBY Victory Fund is its moneyed arm--a political action committee (PAC) that doles out generous contributions to Democratic clubs, civic associations, other political PACs, and of course to state and local politicians and candidates (local YIMBY cheerleaders Todd Gloria, Toni Atkins, and Nathan Fletcher  included).

San Diego has always competed with other cities to entice vacationers, conventioneers, and tourists to choose us over all others.  Lately, city boosters have been inviting newcomers to not only visit but to stay.  They're also ratcheting up incentives for new businesses and tech workers to come on over and relocate in San Diego.  With YIMBYs at their beck and call, the sky is the limit for the Growth Machine.

Let me state this for the record: growth is not a dirty word.  But growth--the quantity, quality, rate, impacts, losers, and beneficiaries--comes laden with enormous challenges.  There are no quick and easy answers.  That's a real fact.

The only dirty words in this debate are the alternative facts promoted by the powerful growth coalition and parroted by YIMBY acolytes.  Upzoning and slashed regulations do NOT increase affordability, reduce auto congestion, mitigate severe climate/environmental impacts, or make a dent in the plight of the homeless.   In fact, accelerated rates of growth increase these critical problems.

A real fact is that San Diego doesn't have to follow in the YIMBY footsteps.  Our city doesn't have to go the way of San Francisco or San Jose or Los Angeles.   We can choose an urban future that manages growth to meet the broadest range of human and environmental necessities.   If we want, we can start right now to remedy our housing unaffordability crisis. 

Why not:

* protect tenants from price gouging and unwarranted evictions? 
* regulate international speculation and land acquisition? 
* preserve, upgrade, and promote adaptive reuse of existing affordable housing? 
* put the screws on corporate landlords? 

Why not:

* encourage union-sponsored housing?
* curtail windfall profits exacted by landowners? 
* slap a luxury tax on investment dwellings? 
* initiate mixed-income public-sponsored housing?  
* lobby for a state bank and public co-ops?  

And why not:
* support bond measures focused exclusively on housing and let San Diego's hotel/tourism industry pay for an expanded convention center?