Say hello to Councilman Chris Cate, and a slightly smaller Democratic majority on the City Council.
Cate’s win shrinks the Democratic edge on the Council from 6-3 to 5-4, which means no more super-majority capable of overriding Republican Mayor Kevin Faulconer’s veto.
But Council members and others say that’s not as important as people seem to think.
The bigger issues to emerge from Cate’s win are that control of the Council is now in play in 2016, the four Council Republicans can now force an issue onto the docket and what type of councilman Cate will become beyond his voting record.
The Veto-Proof Red Herring
For all the talk of how the race played into whether the Council could override a mayoral veto, you’d be forgiven for missing that the Council only ever did that one time since Faulconer took office in February– and it didn’t even matter then.
Council Democrats approved a minimum wage hike earlier this year. Faulconer vetoed it. The Council overrode the veto.
We Stand Up for You. Will You Stand Up for Us?
Andrew is it true that over $1.5 million was spent to get Cate elected? If that is true, who is spending that kind of money to get him elected, and what do they expect?
The lack of a veto proof council majority IS a big deal, simply because it restrains the aspirations of the majority. They know this mayor will veto anything crazy and they won't be able to override.
Ed Harris has been a true representative of the best Interests of the people not just his council district. Unfortunately the fiscally irresponsible Republicans pressed for a costly return to the strong mayor form of government and an unneeded 19th council district. The strong mayor form of government was tossed out many years ago as it evolved into a very corrupt government. We shall see if it returns in the years ahead. Meanwhile I can only hope that Ed Harris will one day be San Diego's mayor or representative of the 52nd district in congress.
@Mark Giffin Of course you are right.
@Sara_K --Or not.
It's odd to refer to infrastructure as non-controversial. I suppose in the sense that people aren't grabbing protest signs and wearing colored shirts to City Hall, that work may not be controversial. But decisions about how we decide what gets fixed, how we classify a public asset as good or fair or poor is just behind public safety compensation as the most important budgetary consideration. If the infrastructure committee recommends prioritizing projects based on economic impact rather than creating a uniform minimum standard across the city or based on likelihood of assets failing, that choice would have major implications. Those could be good or bad, but they'd be significant.
@Andrew Keatts of course it's important. But it's also controversial, as the manner in which we fund it - Mega-bond vs. other service cuts (police, fire, parks) is the heart of the infrastructure discussion.