voiceofsandiego.org: Cafesandiego... It Is Just Politics!

When they asked me to do this blog, I said the one thing I wasn’t going to talk about was the relationship between the mayor and the city attorney. Well, the fact is you cannot go anywhere in San Diego without someone talking about the "conflict" between our mayor and city attorney.

It is the issue on everyone’s minds and lips. It has become somewhat of a local sporting event. I am sure that someone somewhere is making book on the next eruption. So how can I pretend the 800-pound gorilla isn’t in the room and talk instead about the median price of homes or something as inane?

No matter what side of the debate a person is planted -- with the Hatfields or McCoys -- everyone talks about this curious relationship as if it is a public food fight that we should all be ashamed of, or some skeleton that should be quickly returned to the closet. The constant refrain is “the political system is broken and needs to be fixed.” I just don’t see it that way. The system isn’t broken, it’s just politics. Maybe because ever since I could vote, I have been a registered “Independent” and have always thought politics is more theater than reality.

In fact, you could argue that this is the way a democracy was intended to operate. Indeed, there could not be a more stark difference in demeanor, temperament, or approach between the mayor and the city attorney. Each has clearly defined themselves. The voters have plenty to go on when it comes time to decide if we want to return one or both to public office. You would have to have been on Mars not to have formed some opinion about these individuals by this time. Whether you are with the Hatfields or the McCoys on this issue, no one in San Diego can say “I just don’t know enough to make a decision."

While it is just politics, from a purely civic perspective, one could argue that the collateral damage is unacceptable. In a perfect world we elect people to serve the public and to do the public's work. A true public servant serves the public rather than his/her own interests.

A true leader does not stick his/her finger up every two days to see which way the political wind is blowing. Rather, a true leader picks a course and leads the way to the best of his/her abilities. Elections are the people’s way to make course corrections if they think appropriate. But the time between elections is the time we all expect leaders to lead. If they go in the wrong direction, the public will let them know. And if they have it mostly right, that too will be acknowledged. In the end, the collective wisdom is the direction we follow ....at least in a democracy. So lead, and we will follow or send you packing.

-- CHUCK LA BELLA (by way of Brooklyn, Manhattan, and Washington, DC)

Nice. Now how about your personal view point on the performance of the people in office to date? As a lawyer, how do you rate the city attorney? Is he a lawyer's lawyer? Does the quid have a pro quo? What about soledad Mtn. and liability? Surely you must be one of the people who Scott consults with on background and have some familiarity with the legal escapades of the City attorney. So break it down like John Madden. I would also be curious to hear about your thoughts on Carole Lam, why she was off'd and what was so bad about fighting public corruption (assuming that was the reason). -Seagull (by way of Queens, NY)

Posted by Seagull | reply to this comment
October 18, 2007 7:02 pm

Interesting analogy--the Hatfields and the McCoys, ie. the Sandersnistas and the Aguirrephiles battling over America's finest Dogpatch, USA. I find your viewpoint that the blatant differences are compelling for the sake of civic discussion. Makes for some entertaining and educational theater. However, the real civic dichotomy is the labor crowd vs. the business royalty crowd. Sainz/Sanders vs. Aguirre is a carnival sideshow. There are thousands of citizens like my neighbors Clem, Daisy Mae, and their kids Jud, Bunny, and little Boo. They all have the reasonable expectation that city hall folk might put aside the territorial enrichment strategies and fix a few streets for more important reasons than to have an opportunity to hold a news conference. Both of these sides work gov't for there own bank accounts. Until the Clems of this village, grab their pitchforks, y'all are hamlet hambones.

Posted by Dale Peterson | reply to this comment
October 18, 2007 7:52 pm

I don't buy the "its just politics" line. We are in sorry shape and the problems we face go far beyond the Aguirre/Sainz spat. Just take fire protection. One of those kinda basic services all of us kinda need. Last year our FD was turned down on its attempt to receive national accreditation; promptly thereafter our well-regarded fire chief, Jeff Bowman, quit because there was no way the city could afford the fire stations and firefighters the chief and the accreditating agency said we need. So what are the city's plans to bring our fire department up to national standards? Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer. There isn't one.

Posted by Kevin | reply to this comment
October 18, 2007 7:58 pm

I agree that this is the way a democracy is designed to operate. When decisions are made behind closed doors, and opponents present a united front to the public, democracy is circumvented. The people have no idea what the issues were, how the winner was decided, and what public resources were given away in the effort to obtain unanimity.

Posted by Maura Larkins | reply to this comment
October 18, 2007 8:22 pm

I really don't care about the theatrics or the feuding as much as I care about people doing the job they were elected to do. If Aguirre did the job of the CIty Attorney, rather than try to do the job of the mayor, the city engineer, the DA, the car wash attendant and the cashier at In N Out -- all at the same time -- RATHER than the city attorney, we wouldn't have half the problems we now have. That is the real issue. There can be no checks and balances when the City Attorney thinks he is the check and the balance.

Posted by Point Loman | reply to this comment
October 19, 2007 5:46 am

Dear Charles, Wow! You managed to not be political in your commentary about the politics going on in the little hamlet of San Diego. So this is how the big boys play can the game -- I'm paying attention. // Agreeably, the topic for discussion is politics, the lab is San Diego, and what I'm curious about is this: how do the small time dealings in San Diego compare to the big time dealings in DC -- for instance, are things in our small, amateur town reiterated in the mighty world of politics that go on in Washington? Can you find ongoing themes we face here that are the issues you see in DC? Or are we SO pathetic, that 4th string San Diego has issues dribbling the ball, much less nuancing the myriad ways to score a hit? Thank you for your thoughts.

Posted by Christopher Hall | reply to this comment
October 19, 2007 6:36 am

Yeah! Unfortunately, a healthy debate seems destructive at times, but for me it is necessary. When Sanders took office, he took it with all the pomp and circumstance of a king. He is a human being with all the blemishes each of us have and he will do some things right and some things wrong. Aguirre is exactly the same. I think both of them do some things correctly and some things not so well. I am grateful Aguirre is there. He is not so careful about his image and wants to go after the problem and solve it (with some bodies lying around). Sanders is more careful about his image, but he doesn't seem to have a clue about politics. And, I believe politics are real not theatrics as you purport. We just want and need politicians that have integrity.

Posted by Jay Hyde | reply to this comment
October 19, 2007 7:19 am

Now this is an ehtical attorney, and it was a shame he was not appointed to US Attorney here in San Diego. You have to admire a person that shoots straight no matter the cost. Chuck is no Alan Bersin!

Posted by Billy! Bob!! Henry!!! | reply to this comment
October 19, 2007 7:55 am

Hmmm, and here I thought the 800-pound gorilla in the room was John Moores. Would like to know your thoughts on how he's avoided prosecution over Peregrine/ballpark bonds so far. He must have one heckuva lawyer. Oh wait, that's you!

Posted by TY | reply to this comment
October 19, 2007 7:57 am

I would tweak D Peterson's analysis to a dichotomy between business and labor interests and those of the citizens of San Diego. Until Agguire, the only elected official, who put the citizen's interest ahead of the other two was Frye. While the former city attorney colluded with the mayors, council, and bureaucrats, Aguirre was elected as a muckraker--to deal with what Kroll called a 'climate of corruption'. Sorry--I takes a Bad Cop for this job--we don't have time for a Good Cop right now (pun intended).

Posted by Steve K | reply to this comment
October 19, 2007 8:33 am

Why do we have a strong mayor, again? Aguirre is a clown- but he blew Sunroad wide open. What did Sanders do- send resources across the country on behalf of a developer. At least Aguirre is on the "outside." Sanders discloses attorney/client privileged letters on his website- talk about liability. Sanders lost all credibility when Froman left and decided to seek a second term. Aguirre was always a nut. I wasn't going to comment on this, but Charles, and Dumanis, have no interest in sticking to their convictions so...

Posted by PBnJ | reply to this comment
October 20, 2007 12:06 pm

It Is Just Politics!

Published: Thursday, October 18, 2007 7:56 PM PDT