Sanders Shifts

Published: Friday, June 8, 2007 11:10 AM PDT

E-MAIL STORY

Several readers have hammered me this morning for not noticing -- and burying -- an interesting bit of news that surfaced in the name-calling yesterday.

After saying he was above responding to City Attorney Mike Aguirre's contention that the mayor was corrupt, the mayor's spokesman Fred Sainz called Aguirre an "adolescent."

But then he went on to list the mayor's positions on the never-ending Sunroad fiasco, including this:

I will not be satisfied until the Sunroad building is reduced in height to 160 feet. The FAA has told us that they won't be satisfied until that happens and I stand by them.

This, indeed, appears to be a significant shift for the mayor, who not too long ago was advocating a different solution. A couple of weeks ago, the mayor sent the FAA's Karen McDonald a letter with a different stance with which he would have been satisfied.

I support your findings that the building must be reduced in size so that it is no longer a hazard to public safety. As Ms. McDonald is aware, my staff has put forward a proposal that will reduce the building height to 163 feet with the exception of the mechanical equipment enclosure room which would remain at 180 feet. The equipment enclosure room constitutes 16 percent of the overall roofline.

Either the FAA told Sanders to take his proposal and, well, you know, or Sanders is caving to Aguirre's pressure.

There's more: In his letter to the FAA, Sanders proposed altering the flight path for planes landing in certain weather conditions at Montgomery Field.

The proposal also includes working with the FAA to discontinue circling instrument approaches north of the field and allowing aircraft to circle to the south.

Again, in yesterday's e-mail to me, the Mayor's Office reported that his stance has shifted.

There will not be any alternative landing approaches at Montgomery Field. No one that broke the law should be accommodated. The status quo will remain in place until the building is reduced in size.

Read that again: No one who broke the law should be accommodated.

That's the whole issue here. If the building were a huge safety hazard, the FAA, city attorney, mayor, governor, the local girl scouts ... everyone would be clamoring to close Montgomery Field. But nobody, to my knowledge, has suggested closing Montgomery Field even on the days when weather might take planes over the new controversial office tower.

The big beef with this tower is that its developer brazenly decided to ignore FAA warnings and build to any height it desired. And the problem for us as a community is the idea that a company could set a precedent like that: Do whatever you need to do for your company's interest and the community will work around it. It'd be as if someone built a home on a freeway off-ramp and the city decided not to tear down the home but to just redirect traffic.

Sanders had been leaning toward redirecting traffic.

And now he's, apparently, changed his mind.

Sorry it took me a day to realize it.

-- SCOTT LEWIS

13 Comments so far on this story...

Apology accepted. You have had a lot to write about these last 3 years with Aguirre being in office. So next year when Aguirre is gone, you won't have to write your articles at a frantic pace and you can write about more important topics than who said what when.

Posted by PR | reply to this comment
June 8, 2007 1:29 am

Hmm... Maybe Sanders and the FAA with the help of Sexton had a come to Jesus on land use....Not the colusion suggested by Aguirre...

Posted by Sounds good to me | reply to this comment
June 8, 2007 1:47 am

I truly hope VoSD delves into this. Aguirre must be really on to something for Sanders to do such an about face! And this is serious stuff if Sanders is getting legal council from other public agency lawyers and bypassing the City Attorney. The Regional Airport Authority and the other "loaned executives" (which I'm not sure "executive" applies to in-house legal council) may now be liable for the advise they are giving the mayor, right?

Posted by dan | reply to this comment
June 8, 2007 1:55 am

Too little Too late....stick a fork in Sanders-he's done.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
June 8, 2007 2:49 am

This is not just about Sunroad. It is aabout Mayor Sanders’ not requiring his campaign donors to obey the City of San Diego Municipal Codes, thereby putting the citizens of San Diego in jeopardy, financially and physically. According to the San Diego Municipal Code, the Sunroad Centrum 12 building is actually 14 stories and 10 percent over floor area permitted under the approved building permits because of the Phantom Floor and Penthouse/Utility Room. Mayor Sanders can demand that Sunroad abide by the approved building permit and reduce the height from the bottom of the 12th floor to the top of the roof to 8.33 feet high instead of the current 28.06 feet. Mayor Sanders is in dereliction of duty because he is saying there is nothing he can do and he will wait for the convoluted court system to decide the matter.

Posted by Katheryn Rhodes and Conrad Har | reply to this comment
June 8, 2007 3:29 am

Under the "Strong Mayor" form of government, Mayor Sanders is the only person in the City of San Diego that has the authority and responsibility to act by revoking Sunroad permits for defying the Municipal Code, the Building Permit, the Master Plan, the EIR, and CEQA. This ongoing drama can be stopped by a word from Mayor Sanders. We want action. Mayor Sanders, tear down this building. Show some leadership. In addition, please make Manchester Financial turn in a valid fault investigation for the Navy Broadway Complex. The active Coronado fault of the active Rose Canyon Fault Zone is headed straight towards the project. Approving this building would put Manchester and the city in direct violation of the State of California Alquist-Priolo law.

Posted by Katheryn Rhodes and Conrad Har | reply to this comment
June 8, 2007 3:29 am

Ooooh, so Sanders has changed his mind. Big deal. He's covering his arse and hoping that the bigger issue of the municipal code violations goes away. Nope. Won't happen. If the city allows the building to stand at anything above what the zoning allows, there will be additional lawsuits. Count on it.

Posted by Larry | reply to this comment
June 8, 2007 4:26 am

So you missed one of many hidden messages... welcome to my world. Isn't that politics? I don't agree that Sanders has been redirecting traffic rather than confronting problems. I think he has made major, significant and warranted changes ... but more are needed and he needs to stay in office to finish the job. For now that includes pandering to Aguirre on the one hand, while giving him a kick in the budget with the other foot. I see a few sucker punches in the future... how about you? Don't you love your job : ).

Posted by Dimples | reply to this comment
June 8, 2007 5:46 am

Sanders changing his mind? It took him this long to figure this situation out. He is not the sharpest tool in the shed. He flip flops more than a gaffed tuna.

Posted by The Roaming Gnome | reply to this comment
June 8, 2007 11:16 pm

There are no corrupt politicians in the City of San Diego government--it's the climate that's corrupt!

Posted by Steve K | reply to this comment
June 9, 2007 12:06 am

Sorry to say, most of the above respondents missed the point entirely. 1. Sanders himself put the city in the airport business when he approved the actions taken by Escobar-Eck and Jim Waring. 2.When he made the statement "no one who broke the law should be accomadated" (sic) Did Sanders not stick both feet in his mouth when he made this statement? He admitted he knew SunRoad was culpable of violating laws. 3. Fred Sainz' analogy in re the closing of the airport and building a house on a freeway entrance was/is rediculous. 4. Those of you who do not like or appreciate Mike Aguirre must be of the same character as Sanders, i.e. in my opinion-corrupt.

Posted by Peter D. | reply to this comment
June 10, 2007 4:40 am

Scott, you used the right word: "fiasco." The Mayor owes the people of San Diego a public forum where he takes questions about Sunroad from the audience for at least an hour, and answers them without evasion or political double-speak. For example, in saying there won't be alternative landing approaches at Montgomery, he doesn't say exisitng ones won't be altered or cancelled. He doesn't explain why he ever negotiated with Sunroad, which he now calls an irresponsible lawbreaker. Let's have answers to tough questions from the public. He had time to meet with Sunroad in his office, does he have time to meet with the public anywhere?

Posted by San Diego Lawyer | reply to this comment
June 10, 2007 7:03 pm

The problem with the Sanders/Sainz show is that we don't know who's playing the roles of Edgar Burgen and Charley McCarthy. They seem to be interchangeable to fit the situation. But we do know that the Downtown Boys are pulling the strings on both of them to provide us with a show within a show. Throw Fabiani into the mix and you'd really have a fiasco - just what the City needs - more entertainment by politicos.

Posted by Buddy in Mission Valley | reply to this comment
June 10, 2007 9:09 pm

Reader feedback

Users may post more than one comment, but should not pose as multiple users. Multiple posts from the same IP address but with a different user name on each will be reviewed to determine whether abuse has occurred.
Posts with overly personal attacks or unsubstantiated allegations may be edited or deleted.
Please be patient with the posts -- there may be a delay before they appear on the site -- and make sure to enter the code in the "image verification" box.