|
|
| Q. |
What are the top issues confronting the City? If elected, what will your priorities be? |
| A. |
Special for policy wonks:
- Restructuring of City Manager form of Government to Strong Mayor/Strong Council
|
|
|
| Q. |
Why are you running? |
| A. |
Because I love the City: the good, the bad, and the ugly. And I’m good at cleaning stuff up – and finding the things that need cleaning up. I would like to be a part of a new era of balance, accountability and effectiveness – in other words – restored public trust that the process can be used fairly. I have a record of being effective at the job of balancing interests and producing productive results for both the public and private good.
My experience serving on the City’s Planning Commission has taught me that I can make a difference in a public hearing. I happen to have the odd set of skills required to try and hold a multi-billion dollar bureaucracy accountable through the public hearing process, both before, during and after decisions are made. Public hearings are really a unique venue where they throw lots of information at you and you have to be able to think on your feet and identify problems and inconsistencies quickly. Treating people fairly is also critical.
I’m also up-to-speed on most issues because of my service on the Planning Commission where I’ve reviewed almost every project requiring a discretionary hearing in the last three years. Over the past 15 years, in varying capacities, I’ve interacted directly with staff from almost all City departments and have a good sense of what works and what doesn’t work in the City and why. This, along with fifteen years of community volunteer work, having read all the City Council’s and City Attorney’s reports on the pension debacle, and having studied the City’s budget for the past few years – makes me qualified to serve.
I have lived in the current district, Pacific Beach or Mission Beach, for the past 25 years.
|
|
|
| Q. |
How would you describe the job of a city council member? |
| A. |
- Restoring and maintaining the public trust
- Holding a multi-billion dollar bureaucracy accountable for the public purse, health, safety and welfare
- Facilitating investment, wealth creation, jobs and the infrastructure required
- Balancing competing and conflicting public and private interests for the good of all
The fundamental duty is to ask key questions during the process that ensure that the accountabilities to the applicable budget, policies, laws and permits are being followed and that communities along with private interests are being protected and well-served. You must also seek to hold staff accountable for doing the right things to ensure good performance and sound practices.
I’ve learned that when you boil it all down, the fundamental job of any public official, or really any Board member in a position to review the recommendations and practices for any public or private institution, is to be able to recognize and ask the right questions – over and over again – and to check and see that the questions are being answered and that the answers add up.
|
|
|
| Q. |
How did we get into this fix? |
|
Neil Morgan, Voice of San Diego Senior Editor asked this in one of his columns.
The sad state of affairs of the city of San Diego is the inevitable result of some essential irreconcilable rules of all the power brokers at the table, cutting deals amongst themselves at the public trough:
“The (current) rules:
- Must always raise benefits.
- Must never raise taxes.
- Leave the details to the professionals.
- Forces behind 1 and 2 invest heavily in political campaigns to enforce 1 and 2
- Keep repeating as long as you can.
- Hope everything turns out, or at least doesn’t blow on your watch.”
It’s pretty pathetic when one set of moneylenders bars the doors to their temple while others continue to lend to keep the show going – at higher rates, of course.
The political system is set up to deliver patronage, so why should anyone be surprised when the comeuppance is finally served?
Part of the problem now is resisting the particular dish – which is ironic since this Council, as did the past councils who set them careening on this course, is in the habit of eating what they are served. (And they sure tried to serve something cold to Mike Aguirre, didn’t they?)
But in the downtown barnyard shuffle, someone is forgetting to care for the goose laying all the eggs.
In the meantime, the business of the city grinds on. Does anyone else see the irony of paying hourly rates of $750 and $900 for out-of-town consultants without deadlines while resisting paying living wages around $11 an hour for people working for the city locally?
|
|
|
| Q. |
What has gone wrong in the City? |
| A. |
We’re facing a failure of our system’s checks and balances on a pretty large scale. The current problems of the city really can be traced to not enough tough questions being asked – or answered – at every level; but especially at the Council level, because that’s their job!
There has also been a culture of insider-dealmaking where too many negotiations take place outside of public view or decisions are made in advance without an appropriate airing of issues.
There can be no meaningful scrutiny or oversight if the deals are being done in advance of the hearing or the most significant decisions are being worked out by interested parties in the absence of the public’s interest being represented. Then the hearing process becomes a sham – a mere manipulation of democracy for the sake of the saying you had a hearing. Politics as theatre. This discourages many from participating.
|
|
|
| Q. |
What can be done to fix it? |
| A. |
You have to elect and support leaders who will have the insight and fortitude to ask the key questions and insure that they are answered. I believe that too many decision-makers were lulled into the role of rubber-stamping deals rather than checking to see if they were sound according to the applicable finding, policies and City Charter. The real role of the City Council and really any Board of approval or oversight, is to question and double check all the matters coming before them for integrity according to the rules and the process.
The process of democracy is in place for important reasons – not to be short-circuited and avoided. When run properly, the process can ensure oversight of City dealings with public funds and actions that have public impacts.
My work at the Planning Commission – and service on other Boards and Commissions – has taught me both the benefits and the limitations of how the staff operates with decision-makers. From day one after I’m elected, I will be effective in asking the right questions, getting answers and bringing issues to the attention of other council members, the Mayor, the media and the public. The approach I will take – and the approach I always take – is to hold people accountable for answering questions and producing results.
I also believe it’s very important for whoever becomes the Mayor to direct that the staff tells the truth. At the heart of most of the problems the City’s suffering is the problem that staff has too often been directed not to answer all questions. I have experienced situations where I’ve found out that staff has been ordered to lie in a public hearing. This cannot be tolerated. This is a sign of there having been too much loyalty to individuals and not enough loyalty to the mission of public service. When you are employed with taxpayer funds, you have a duty to answer all reasonable questions honestly from all decision-makers, applicants and the public.
If staff were to have been required to respond in writing to Dianne Shipionne’s complaints, or to NASSCO CEO Richard Vorttman’s written assessment of city liabilities, we could have intervened sooner, rather than waiting for the meltdown.
I’ve also had my complaints ignored. It’s as if, when you ignore people, the issues go away. Well the legitimate issues don’t go away and when members of the public identify them, they need to be responded to.
I would also add that you can’t believe every complaint you hear, either. All public service work requires sensitivity and due process.
|
|
|
| Q. |
What are the biggest things impacting public safety in SD? |
| A. |
Drug abuse – rippling across many areas in many ways
a) Alcohol, alcohol, and alcohol – by far the most abused drug and the one that costs the city the most in police services. We need to re-evaluate as a city – really, as a society – how we handle this drug. It’s present in a huge number of domestic violence cases as well as traffic injuries and fatalities, and assaults and other damage that goes on in the streets around the areas where poorly regulated and badly managed night clubs are operating. 40% of all alcohol related transports (drunks taken to dry-out, not arrested) made by the SDPD come from the Pacific Beach area.
b) Illicit drugs – There has to be an effort to combine enforcement with recovery. The Drug Courts have lost their punch and there needs to be life pumped back into these programs where we’ve built up too much bureaucracy and not enough help and recovery going on. The SDPD needs to understand that a public health and recovery approach is an important effort deserving of creative and empowered leadership that also believes that.
c) Gangs – these are really nasty crews that commit a large amount of serious crime for such a small segment of society. There again needs to be a more holistic approach to this problem, with the cops being coordinated with those efforts. A gang court should be considered.
What is happening now in the PD as far as public safety is a band-aid approach, where the department throws officers at problems just long enough to make it look like there’s something being done – when in fact we’re losing control of issues incrementally. There’s no support of problem-oriented approaches which look at root causes of some of these problems.
The current Chief of Police pulled people out of specialized assignments with the patrol staffing as an excuse – which at the time could not be disputed. However, I don’t see any evidence of creative effort that would occur once the PD gets its staffing back.
Finally: Did you know that it is not uncommon to call 911 and get a busy signal – or get left on hold? Response times are rising beyond acceptable levels citywide. Car break-ins are out-of-control. We were just ranked #9 nationwide for car thefts – not a great place to be in the top ten. Cops have to spend so much time dealing with drunks and the petty but violent fights that arise, and the related follow-up, that there is no one to do real police work. Morale in the PD is shot and attrition is rising.
Much of this will be under the direct control of the incoming Mayor/City Manager. However, as a Council member I will know what to look for and what to ask, and will be able to propose and support changes that will matter and that must be funded by the City Council. Also, the Police Officer’s Association has filed two multi-million dollar lawsuits against the City because attempting to deal with issues through the current management and council have, sadly, proven futile. City management and the Council have ignored the provision of the City Charter that requires public safety be put first. The management of the police department has been politicized. Restoration of integrity must be the order of the day.
What would I do?
As with most things, “the squeaky wheel gets the grease.” And when you have corruption, you must use the illumination of proper public questioning to get to the bottom of things.
One small but important example of this is how to deal with improving emergency response times. When I found myself receiving project review documents citing response times from 2003, I got the publicly available response times from 2004, sent them to the head of Development Services, and pointed out that the City had a duty to use the most current available response times. The SDPD and DSD have now agreed to use more recent response times.
But then there's the question of how to actually improve response times. I would use the public process to change the system.
I’m tired of hearing complaints from victims and officers with no response from city hall. To begin, I would require that response times exceeding the published standards for the most urgent emergencies be reported in public hearings. This information is collected regularly and is an example of how the Council currently does not use the public hearing to air the most important problems they should be addressing. Changing the system requires pressure to make that change.
One of the answers will be implementing a trial alcohol ban for the 4th of July for City beaches and parks. This aligns both with reduced crime and many reduced expenses. If this does not reduce crime and costs, then we can consider another approach. But other jurisdictions implementing such a ban have achieve positive returns.
Another aspect will be enforcement against licensees that violate the laws against over-serving. Another will be to propose changing the PD to 12-hour shifts instead of ten-hour shifts. The Sheriff’s Department already uses this scheduling. It’s more efficient and easier on the personnel. We must seek to work our City’s differences with the Police Officers Association and the rank and file themselves. I am open to other suggestions as to achieve results.
I would work with the Council, City Attorney and other interested parties to address the issues raised by the police.
|
|
|
| Q. |
How would you propose to solve the public safety issues brought on by
too many alcohol licenses and bars - especially in Pacific Beach and
Mission Beach? |
|
1) Have the budget reflect, and ask the Mayor to make it a priority, for the SDPD (SD Police Dept.) to hold licensees accountable to state and local laws that currently are not enforced in a meaningful way by SDPD and State ABC (Alcohol Beverage Control) Agents - especially over-serving.
2) Continue the moratorium on the granting of new licenses in the beach communities – or other areas where over-serving of alcohol contributes to high crime.
3) Work with the City Attorney's office to pursue fines against licensees with repeated problems.
4) Study and report publicly (if necessary seek a grant) and work with citizens to pursue:
a) Identification of those licensees most often involved in incidents that require public safety responses and quantification of related taxpayer and community costs
b) Organization of a “Safe Streets Now” response to those establishments that are chronic problems. This is a proven method of empowering citizen lawsuits against “bad actors” – nuisance businesses and residences – usually in small claims court.
c) Research and implementation of “Cost Recovery” for repeated violations involving licensed establishments.
A related matter is the proposed ban of alcohol in Mission Bay Park and on nearby beaches for the 4th of July. I support implementing this ban and measuring the results. The jurisdictions where alcohol is banned experience fewer problems and lower costs – and an increasing number of families with younger children, as well as adults over 40 – are able to use the parks to celebrate our nation's birthday instead of being at risk of being exposed to public harassment and drunken fights. The City spent more than $500,000 in special services and overtime for the July 4th weekend 2005. Both taxpayer and human costs can be greatly reduced.
I have a record you can check (on the City's Planning Commission) of educating others and rejecting new Conditional Use Permits for alcohol licenses proposed in high-crime areas.
I am endorsed by prevention experts and peace officers.
(Click here to see my letter sent July 1, 2005, and published in San Diego Union Tribune in response to their Editorial entitled, “Chief’s blunder, Lansdowne testimony betrays his department” and criticizing Chief of Police Lansdowne for testifying for the defense in court in the City Council corruption trial where his department was part of bringing the case for the prosecution.)
|
|
|
| Q. |
You say you will change “business as usual” downtown and “restore public trust” at City Hall. But how will you do this? |
| A. |
I will do the public’s business in public.
I will only participate in closed sessions where Counsel can identify exactly what’s confidential and why.
I will explain why I do what I do when asked.
I will listen to all testimony and review all materials.
I will ask the questions required to determine that proposals are fair and that legitimate issues are dealt with in a timely fashion.
I will oppose giveaways of public land.
I will oppose abuses of Eminent Domain.
I will oppose the conversion of parklands to other uses.
I will hold people accountable
I will respond to queries in a timely manner
I will consider the costs and sources of funding for all proposals.
I will instruct all of my staff that they are to tell the truth, and to answer all reasonable questions from the public (in writing, if requested). I will urge the Mayor and all other office to adopt this
standard.
I will treat all parties with courtesy and respect.
I will keep my sense of humor and apply it as when helpful.
|
|
|
| Q. |
Would you vote for a Pension Trustee that did not promise to waive Attorney Client privilege and turn over all the records now? |
| A. |
NO |
|
|
| Q. |
Would you support making head-to-head competition possible so that San Diego would have choices in Cable and Internet? |
| A. |
YES |
|
|
| Q. |
Dogs are licensed. And given the relentless pursuit of additional funds, would you vote to license Cats? |
| A. |
NO! And I admit I have a personal conflict on this one. I have six cats. We should not place additional burdens on the people who care for our furry friends. |
|
|
| Q. |
Would you vote to transfer misdemeanor prosecutions to the District Attorney? |
| A. |
No. The D.A. has her hands full enough with felony prosecutions countywide. City misdemeanors would not receive the attention required. I would, however, like to see the D.A. pursue enforcement of misdemeanors against city departments which no one seems to be doing now. |
|
|
| Q. |
Would you vote to prohibit Eminent Domain for the benefit of private developers and speculators? |
| A. |
Yes |
|
|
| Q. |
Would you vote to make it the policy of the City that if the trash collector knocks the trash can over he has to pick it up. |
| A. |
Yes! |
|
|
| Q. |
Given your heavy commitment to the environment, are you anti-development? |
| A. |
No. I am pro-sanity, pro-fairness, and pro-quality of life. My record on the Planning Commission shows votes both for and against projects. I make my decisions based upon the public testimony, applicable plans, legally required findings, environmental analysis, mitigation, infrastructure and public discussion.
And, sometimes you can have it both ways. As a concrete example, I was able to bring together both developers and environmentalists to support Propositions K and M; this led to the creation of two balanced communities east of Torrey Pines State Park, as well as preserving Carmel Mountain, selecting an environmentally-preferred routing for SR-56, and preserving 4,000 acres of coastal habitat.
|
|
|
| Q. |
I hear you are a tree-hugging, anti-growth, hippie that wants to prevent working people from getting affordable housing. Don’t you think providing affordable housing is important? If you squelch growth, how can we provide housing for all the San Diegans that work so hard to live here? |
| A. |
How much affordable housing do you see in San Diego today? I think our current officials are creating congestion and lack of affordable housing by not paying fair wages and not requiring developers to provide their fair share of affordable housing as projects are built.
I want to stop giving our land to developers. I want to provide the parks that were promised in the community plans and provide fair wages so that people can afford to buy houses, and I will require developers to pay their fair share for the infrastructure required to support their projects.
Our tax dollars are not going for the parks, street repairs, and housing. They are going to developers because we give our land away for free or allow it to be tied up in sweetheart lease deals.
|
|
|
| Q. |
What about affordable housing? |
|
Building industry propaganda promotes that if you just let them build more, there will be more affordable housing. The problem is that it has never worked that way. And the industry has no interest in ever building so much housing that it would lower the prices.
I was greatly illuminated by a speech that Richard Carson, chair of the UCSD economics department, made during public comment at a SANDAG (San Diego Association of Governments) meeting about regional housing needs. He called SANDAG’s approach “black magic” and noted the housing market in Southern California is regional – there are only three economically sound ways actually to provide more affordable housing. They are:
- Direct subsidies to those who qualify so they can pay their rent.
- Price or design-controlled units. Examples of this: What the city does now via the Housing Commission includes contractual rent-controlled units over many decades. Projects can also be designed with “efficiency units” that have lower prices because they are so much smaller than the market norm.
- Pay higher wages so that people can afford to buy housing at market rates.
If it’s not a version of one of the above, it’s only propaganda tailored to benefit the interests proposing it, or their fervent beliefs about how things ought to be.
We’re seeing a lot of that right now at the state level, where forces are proposing to reduce environmental review in the name of more affordable housing. If, and only if, developers agree to quantify such savings so that they actually reduce any resultant price, should anyone even consider such proposals. Reducing costs is not the same as reducing prices or making housing more affordable to those who cannot afford the market prices. Reducing costs that do not translate to reduced prices translates only into increased profits and a degraded quality of life.
Smart growth is never cheap growth – at least not for the community who has to live with any problems when impacts are not properly mitigated and the infrastructure doesn’t exist to support it.
|
|
|
| Q. |
What are your views about redevelopment? |
| A. |
I’ve voted against some and for some. I review the matters on the merits and required findings. I’m against the taking of one business merely in order to replace it with another. I voted against the taking of Mr. Mesdaq’s cigar and coffee house downtown since I felt his business could have been incorporated into the plan rather than forcing him out.
But it is not the job of a council person to be involved in any promotion of any development projects or to take any position in advance of the hearing where the matter is to be heard, deliberated and voted upon. Council people are decision makers that should be checking to see if any development or redevelopment is adhering to the applicable plans and meets the legal findings and that all parties are being treated fairly having their concerns addressed in a timely manner.
|
|
|
