After ten months of redistricting

By the end of next year (December 2012) the city of San Diego will be swearing in a brand new Mayor.  At the same time City Council members representing Districts 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 will also be sworn in.  Bringing up the rear will be the (reelected, presumably) City Attorney. 

Does this lineup augur substantive improvements in San Diego’s civic health and well-being?  That depends -- almost entirely -- on who will be our next "strong" Mayor.  As for the nine individuals occupying the seats of what will be a reconfigured City Council — their roles will be much diminished.  The difference they will make depends on how many of them are sitting at which end of city hall's political seesaw.  

Much more about that, later.  For now, let’s see what the past ten months of the city’s redistricting process have wrought. 

San Diego’s Redistricting Commission approved a final redistricting plan last week.  The final map divides the city into nine Council districts with (give or take) ~144,000 people in each.  To satisfy constraints of census-based population changes, voting rights law, and recent city charter amendments some communities were shifted into neighboring Council districts and a new (multi-ethnic/Latino empowerment) district was inserted into the southern half of the city.  

Here are some speedy bullet points about the history of San Diego government to help put redistricting changes in a wider context:  

• San Diego was incorporated as a city March 27, 1850 
• The first city government consisted of an elected 5-member Common Council and an elected Mayor, City Marshall, City Attorney, City Clerk, City Assessor, and City Treasurer.  Other officials were appointed by the Common Council
• After only two years the city went bankrupt and the State dissolved the government
• The next several decades saw a turbulence of different government forms
• In 1931 a Manager-Council form of government was created with a 7-member Council comprised of 6 Council members and a Mayor
• In 1963 voters approved increasing the number of Council districts from 6 to 8
• In 2006 voters approved a trial Strong Mayor government
• In 2010 voters made the Strong Mayor system permanent; approved the addition of a 9th Council district; and created the requirement for a 2/3 Council majority (6 members) to override the Mayor’s veto

And that gets us to where we are today.  

The City Charter gives people one month to contest the Redistricting Commission’s final map.  If a successful challenge is mounted, the Commission would be required to produce a new plan.
        That could be a risky proposition for dissenters, who might wind up with a map they’d find even less acceptable than the one they're rejecting. 


Still, there are some pretty irate people out there.  For example, some Rancho Penasquitos residents have been up in arms over how Commissioners drew district boundaries for their Park Village neighborhood.  They're organizing a community forum on September 1 to discuss their discontent and decide on how or whether to mount an official challenge. 
        This unexpected flareup of economic/social elitism within the city's first “Asian influence” district brings to mind an old Life of Riley radio quote: “What a revoltin’ development this is!”  

Then there are the heavyweights from Kensington, whose protests have been prodded not only by economic/social elitism but apparently by political pressure from on high.  (To their credit most, but not all, elected officials had the good sense to keep a low profile during the redistricting process).  
         A challenge from this quarter could easily end up biting them in the rear, so turning lemons into lemonade might be a wiser alternative.

Here’s what the new Council district map will look like if all goes smoothly. 

Special strokes for special folks

Redistricting may sound like a dry topic but I assure you it's not. Redistricting is the church key that has pried open San Diego's can of worms and exposed to the light of day clods of hungry and competitive special interests that ordinarily maneuver underground. Redistricting has also unearthed big dollops of intra and inter-community strife, ethnic and racial tensions, and delusions of entitlement. It's a surefire way to get to know your city from a new perspective.

Earlier this summer I explained the process of San Diego redistricting this way: “Our city is currently engaged in REDISTRICTING -- drawing new boundary lines for City Council districts that will more or less equalize the number of San Diegans in each district.  This task is in the hands of a 7-member Redistricting Commission, which also has the added responsibility of carving out a new (9th) Council district” (see July 4,The Size of the Mayor’s Clout).

The target deadline for ratifying a final map is August 25. The job is almost -- but not quite -- finished.  In fact, new turns of events threaten to derail what was expected to be a respectable conclusion to the Commission’s lengthy efforts, and they could result in an expensive and disruptive detour for our city.

One brouhaha involves last-minute resistance by a cluster of Asian-Americans (apparently organized and spearheaded by their Caucasian suburban neighbors) to the formation of an Asian-Pacific Islander "influence" district in the north-central tier of the city, drawn to include Clairemont Mesa, Kearny Mesa, Mira Mesa, and a part of Rancho Penasquitos that includes their neighborhood of Park Village.

The other brouhaha involves the Redistricting Commission's decision to designate the city’s newest Council district as a Latino majority/multi-ethnic “empowerment” area in the part of town just south of I-8, behind and below where you’ll find San Diego State University.

Although it was disquieting to hear the objections of many dissenters not wishing to have their "whiter" suburban-style College-area neighborhoods included in this new District 9, general goodwill and civility on the part of these neighborhoods seem to have won the day.

But no such luck with the community of Kensington, which has been fighting with considerable muscle and political clout to extract and distance itself from the poorer and "browner" new multi-ethnic District 9.

Just last week, Kensington successfully engaged the cooperation of a majority of Redistricting Commissioners, who voted to violate their own oft-stated core principle of preserving communities intact and substituted a new principle called special strokes for special folks.

They redrew the redistricting map and set Kensington free from (undesirable?) neighbors residing in the newly created District 9 and from equally disposable fellow-Kensington residents. 

How? by hacking off the southern part of Kensington where its poorer, browner residents live; by slicing in half the unsuspecting next-door community of Normal Heights; by amputating Kensington’s sister-neighborhood Talmadge (too declasse? sleepy? undistinguished?); and by throwing them all into District 9.  Then by tenderly depositing the northern, affluent, picturesque portion of Kensington into the up-and-coming, politically well-connected Council District 3 lying to the west.  No justification, backup, principles, or standards required.  

Four Redistricting Commissioners gave their OK to this back-alley surgical procedure. Three said NO WAY.

Should there be a revote at the upcoming Redistricting Commission meeting this Monday, 2pm, at City Hall that reverses this unworthy action, some prominent Kensington people are already whispering referendum...lawsuit...

Apparently there are a number of San Diegans who consider coddling a right to which they are exclusively and unmitigatedly entitled.  

to be continued...

The size of the Mayor's clout

For my July 4th commentary I planned on doing some philosophizing about the nature of government and why government activities should be kept at arm’s distance from the activities of business/trade/commerce (my Roget’s Thesaurus lists “copulation” under the category of commerce -- I don't think I'll go there).

But the philosophizing can wait.  Instead, I want to return to an item highlighted in my June commentary (Connecting the dots).  I ask you to scan down to where it says 4) the Republican Party lawsuit.

To recap: Our city is currently engaged in REDISTRICTING -- drawing new boundary lines for City Council districts that will more or less equalize the number of San Diegans in each district.  This task is in the hands of a 7-member Redistricting Commission, which also has the added responsibility of carving out a new (9th) Council district. 

Keep in mind: the driving force behind the increase in the number of Council seats is not, as one might expect, about better representation for our communities.  No, it is strictly about the size of the Mayor’s clout.  Here's a situation where size does count. 

San Diego’s political operatives and heavyweights have been waiting impatiently for the opportunity to redraw neighborhood boundaries in a way that increases the likelihood that a super-majority of Council districts (at least 6 out of 9) will fall securely into the Republican camp. This would, of course, make the Mayor -- should he/she be a Republican -- king/queen of the hill.

But what happens if the next San Diego Mayor is a Democrat?  No problem. The same 2/3 super-majority on the City Council could simply and decisively overrule and override a renegade Mayor, causing this hapless Mayor's clout to shrivel up, fast. 

You can see how high the redistricting stakes are. As any veteran of nominally "nonpartisan" local politics knows, redistricting is a heavily-mined, take-no-prisoners battleground.  In the offing are political fortune, influence, and power. 

Of course the Democrats know it and are pushing for a redistricting map that, at the very least, would provide the potential for most Council districts to swing either way.

To prevent that from happening, San Diego Republicans are lashing out.  Their holy grail has always been a stronger (Republican) Mayor and there’s no way they'll permit a decade’s worth of behind-the-scenes maneuvering to sneak up from behind and bite them in the rear.

• Hence the Republican Party lawsuit;  
• Hence the targeting, intimidation, and unrelenting public attacks on the personal integrity and ethics of Redistricting Commissioners -- ordinary citizens (could have been you or me, had we applied for the job), poorly prepared to withstand the heat of relentless harassment;
• Hence the pressure (ultimately successful) to install a controversial, politically-tilted mapping consultant to assist the Redistricting Commission;
• Hence the stalling and prolongation of the mapping process, in spite of promises to the public for a speedy public process and despite early deadlines set down by the Registrar of Voters;
• Hence the squeeze (unfortunately successful) on San Diego City Attorney Jan Goldsmith, forcing him to renege at the eleventh hour on a contract agreement with a Sacramento law firm already selected to legally advise the Redistricting Commission.  Were there too many labor unions among this law firm's lengthy client list?

As for the aforementioned Republican Party lawsuit against the city and Redistricting Commission – the judge threw it out (frivolous, intimidating, distracting, menacing, disruptive, pugnacious, devious, and thuggish are adjectives that come readily to mind).  But don’t relax yet.  There's another groundless lawsuit waiting in the wings.

Connecting the dots

Adequate coverage of local news is still a pipe dream in San Diego.  Let me modify that – the U-T sports section is pretty good, ditto for entertainment and movie listings.  And I finally figured out where the U-T stashed Doonesbury and Mary Worth (yup, the business section).

But keeping informed via our daily newspaper about city politics, regional issues, or official decisions made on behalf of the San Diego public poses a real challenge. In-depth investigative reporting is a whoop-de-doo event when it ought to be the norm.  And helter-skelter placement of serious local stories makes them much too easy to miss.  I know too many people who have finally given up and cancelled their U-T subscriptions.

Compounding the fall of San Diego’s 4th estate (i.e., a competitive press and vibrant news media), the formerly full-of-potential online VoiceofSanDiego appears to have lost its way (with the notable exception of Voice reporter Emily Alpert’s tenacious focus on public education).  Whatever happened to its pioneering energy and commitment to aggressive, unbiased reporting on consequential and/or controversial local issues?  

The VOSD could have, should have, might have been a contender but seems to have fallen victim to the contagious San Diego virus called don’t rock the boat (attention all San Diego biotechs: a cure for this persistent pest is long overdue).

 So who’ll do the heavy lifting? For the time being it looks like it’s up to us to seek out the stories and connect the dots.  Look at it this way: when the big picture takes shape beneath our probing pencils and we uncover new, intriguing, and useful perspectives, it will feel great!  We can start with a few news stories that you may have missed:

1) City budget negotiations.  Budget hearings at City Hall are down to the wire.  Once again you can count on our elected officials, at the zero hour, to ride in on white horses brandishing miracle money to forestall devastating cuts to our fire stations, recreation centers, and libraries. The public has spent months at City Council begging and pleading for them to be spared.

Once again the Mayor and Council are effusively congratulating one another for fudging another year's budget (thanks to a “surge in revenue and some fund shifts," says a U-T editorial).  Never mind the mysterious absence of our annual required audit of city finances.  Never mind yet another decision to borrow money (this time $100million) for ordinary expenses like street repairs.  Never mind the $41million deficit already predicted for next year’s budget!

Yes, once again the San Diego shell game saves the day.  But it’s being played with a difference, nowadays.  Our newish “strong mayor” system of government seems to have unleashed greater duplicity and sinking political accountability.   Our city continues to bleed profusely out the bottom while getting botoxed up on top, but faking it no longer embarrasses anyone anymore.  Yucky image of our city, you say?  I’d have to agree.   Put your pencils on Dot 1.

2) Bridges of Balboa Park.  Indignation on all sides has been reported over last week’s proposals at City Council for traffic improvements in our city’s pride and joy, Balboa Park.

The Mayor, alongside notable public figure Irwin Jacobs, in addition to streams of  executives from downtown business groups and Balboa Park cultural institutions, pushed hard for endorsement of the "Jacobs plan" to construct a bypass bridge and new parking facilities in the Park.  Representatives of civic groups voiced vehement objections and offered milder alternatives to deal with Balboa Park’s parking problems. 

It’s not that San Diegans haven’t debated these issues in the past.  The official Master Plan for Balboa Park was developed in 1989 through public meetings and workshops and subsequently amended and re-amended  to reflect public and institutional changing needs.  Indeed, the Master Plan addresses and advises on automobile and pedestrian improvements.  We just haven't followed through.

I can imagine it’s very difficult for successful business people and other entrepreneurs to take a back seat or suffer gladly the messy and time-consuming process of public involvement over control of a public asset like Balboa Park, particularly when offers of private money are part of the equation.  Warnings at the Council hearing were legion about the foolhardiness of looking a gift horse in the mouth.

There will be much more to mull over in the near future concerning public/private partnerships, in general, and the creation of a private Balboa Park Conservancy, in particular.  Put your pencil on this one and call it Dot 2.

3) Mayoral candidates and who’s endorsing whom.  A handful of Mayoral hopefuls have been straining at the starting gate, looking to early endorsements to prime their fundraising pump.

My bottom line is set in stone: my heart, time, money, and vote will go to whichever candidate has the guts to pry this city loose from the powerful grip of San Diego’s establishment-sponsored, time-venerated practices of deception and denial. 

For the past seven years our sitting Mayor has indulged in these silent but potent vices.  Sad to report he’ll probably get away scot-free and glide out of office one year from now exactly the way he slipped in – with genial authority-figure, good-cop persona wholly intact.  But it will take much more than a disarming smile and being handy with sidearms to manage and navigate a troubled city like ours  So let’s hope that the gloves come off, along with the badges and holsters, once the race for Mayor takes off.   Make that Dot 3.

4) The Republican Party lawsuit.  It’s a big deal.  The San Diego Republican Party has been making lots of intimidating noise for the past few months at public hearings of the San Diego Redistricting Commission, an appointed citizens panel working on drawing new boundaries for City Council districts.

This once-every-ten-years redistricting process will not only modify Council district boundaries to accommodate significant population shifts but will also squeeze in a new (ninth) City Council district.

The Republican Party is suing the Redistricting Commission, claiming that its appointed members were illegally chosen and are politically biased.  The lawsuit cites other shortcomings, misdeeds, and reasons that the Commission should be disbanded and the process started over from scratch.

It’s bare-knuckle politics, pure and simple.

Right off, let me disabuse anyone who believes the city is adding a ninth Council member to better serve San Diego's growing population.  No.  The reason we’re getting another Council seat is that seven years ago, when the city switched over to a “strong Mayor” governing system (abandoning San Diego’s traditional City Manager system), the Mayor got the new power to veto most City Council decisions, and the City Council got the power to override the Mayor’s veto with a simple majority vote.

But proponents of the “strong mayor” system were never happy with this arrangement (note that the Council has chosen to override the Mayor's veto barely a handful of times).  They want a STRONGER MAYOR.  It would be better, they argued, if it took a 2/3 super-majority Council vote to overturn the Mayor’s veto.  But 2/3 of eight Council members doesn’t compute.  2/3 of nine does.  That's why we’re adding a ninth Council district, to firm up the Mayor's veto power.

Back to the lawsuit.  It was beginning to look as if the Redistricting Commission was more balanced and fair-minded than anyone had expected.  This apparently signaled that the Commission couldn’t be counted on to draw new boundaries to guarantee a Republican super-majority (here's where the 2/3 Council voting bloc kicks in).  Was this anathema to some sectors of the “STRONGER MAYOR” coalition?  Let’s name the Republican Party legal challenge of the legitimacy, moral character, and nonpartisan complexion of the Redistricting Commission Dot 4.

 What’s one Dot got to do with another?  Good question.  But before we analyze the picture that emerges once the dots are connected we need to take a break, step back, and philosophize for a minute about the nature of city government and its relationship to the world outside and inside its boundaries.  Don't worry -- it will be a pleasant and rewarding side trip.

Meantime, keep an eye open for the latest local news stories.  If you can locate them.