voiceofsandiego.org: Slop... A San Diego Secession
an independent nonprofit |
Support This Service

A San Diego Secession

Published: Monday, January 26, 2009 6:48 PM PST



Apparently, we're not the only ones to whom City Council President Ben Hueso has floated his idea that the city and county of San Diego might need to be one entity.

But Hueso's making a serious error in presenting this. He's somehow managed to let Supervisor Bill Horn legitimately criticize him. I swear getting insulted by Bill Horn must be like getting stepped on by a cockroach.

Bill Horn: A management wizard.
Here's Horn's comments in the Union-Tribune. He took Hueso's idea as a plea for help with the city's financial crisis. Watching the county supervisors, who have to make a tough decision every decade, rain derision down on the city is perhaps the most irritating activity in town.

Supervisor Bill Horn saw nothing promising, however, calling Hueso's idea "totally bizarre."

"We're willing to send over a management team to show the city how to manage," he said. "It's not that hard."


Let's leave Horn's own hysterical history alone for a moment and get to Hueso's basic mistake: He's sowing confusion about his idea by not having a ready, easy-to-understand answer for what his new city/county would look like.

Exhibit A: The confusion.

... turf wars could kill the consolidation before it even starts. Would the current governing bodies -- the Board of Supervisors and City Council -- simply combine and, if not, who would be left out?


From what I understood, Hueso doesn't necessarily want to combine the county and city, he wants the city to secede from the county. In other words, nobody needs to be left out of the musical chairs. The county can still survive -- it's just that it won't deal with anything inside of the city of San Diego's limits.

Hueso's point is fueled by the money San Diegans send to the county. What for? Most San Diego residents can't explain what the county actually does. Our writer, Rob Davis, explored this phenomenon in 2007.

The key passage is here:

... at its heart, the county is an agent of the state government, said Donald Steuer, the county's chief financial officer. About 75 percent of its $4.3 billion budget comes from the state and funds major state-imposed mandates such as health and welfare programs.

So while the county operates as a local government, particularly for the 400,000 residents who live in unincorporated areas, for others it is primarily an arm of the state, Steuer said. And 2.6 million of the county's 3 million residents live in incorporated cities, meaning they hold their local city councils and mayors responsible for land-use decisions and municipal services.


So Hueso's point boils down to this. If such a large portion of what the county does is mandated by -- and funded by -- the state, why do residents of the city of San Diego need to help support the supervisors and the rest of the overhead that goes into keeping them operational?

County and city efforts to manage the jail system, for instance, overlap, Hueso claims. If much of the rest of what the county does has to do with managing the backcountry and providing support for other cities, let them continue to do that but on their own dime.

Isn't it at least worthy of talking about?

Hueso's saying the city should secede from the county and take on the funding and responsibilities that would entail.

Horn can still have his job and his ranch and his ways but city residents would neither have to deal with his bloviating nonsense nor his vote, anymore.

I don't know if it's a great idea or not. But I'm excited about the discussion. Times of crisis provide the opportunity for major reforms and re-examinations of the way we operate.

Hueso's not saying it right, but he should just say San Diegans may want to secede from the county. And if Bill Horn is the only reason to talk about it, it's still enough of one.

-- SCOTT LEWIS




18 Comments so far on this story...

How about if the County simply takes care of the issues its supposed to within the City of San Diego? The City could get rid of all homeless services and let the County health and human services do what it is supposed to do? There are probably other areas that the County could step up to the plate and take care of issues within its legitimate realm. The idea has been floated before and has gone nowhere. I expect it will go nowhere this time as well. They will just take potshots at each other and both sides will come across as pathetic. Perhaps County residents should seek to institute term limits to help foster some change at the County.

Posted by Ann | reply to this comment
January 26, 2009 8:16 pm

I grew up near what was once the intersection of Reo Drive and State Highway 54. The area is one where the cities of San Diego and National City converge with the unincorporated regions of the county known as Bonita and Spring Valley. No one could ever get on the same page to make the traffic lights, roads, etc. effective for the region's residence. The state finally stepped in and finished the 54, solving the problem. Perhaps the state may have to step into this dispute as well. "Local control" ends up being NIMBY vs. NIMBY.

Posted by Poppa | reply to this comment
January 27, 2009 9:07 am

This concept (in one form or another) comes up every decade or so and goes nowhere. Why waste valuable staff time on another futile effort? Few elected officials would be willing to seriously consider losing turf so this is doomed before it even begins.

Posted by Richard | reply to this comment
January 27, 2009 7:30 am

Unbelievable! Horn's remark is actually very appropriate! The City of San Diego merging with the County is like Zimbabwe merging with Switzerland! The City has a very long way to go in changing its culture of entitlement and petty governmental arrogance before it can qualify to polish the shoes of San Diego County. I'm no great fan of the County, but as a tax-paying outsider (i.e. a "nobody" in this town) it seems to me that the County really does focus on getting the job done, while the City, with its public employee union death grip on the City Council, has its primary mission of making sure the compensation and benefits machine stays fully funded while the infrastructure collapses. Hueso's proposal is cynical and sleazy. God help us if it came to pass!

Posted by John Calvin | reply to this comment
January 27, 2009 8:41 am

The County needs leadership in its unincorporated areas which have issues that are somewhat unrelated to those of the incorporated cities. The Supervisors should focus on those, generally agricultural, rural issues, including fire and life safety services needs. The City of San Diego despite its problems, remains one of the most efficient, progressive and responsive governments in the nation. San Diego leads in every aspect of city government, including tackling hard problems in a stand-up, head-on way, without flinching or finger pointing. Other incorporated municipalities are dealing with the same issues, but with fewer resources. A 'united cities of San Diego County' approach may be just what is needed to optimize municipal resources for all the regions cities, and develop bench-strength, cooperation, and cost efficiency. Good idea Mr. City Councilmember Hueso.

Posted by Dimples | reply to this comment
January 27, 2009 9:15 am

So you must have strained something Mr. Lewis patting yourself on the back for coming up with this idea. More accurately ressurecting an old idea with too many issues to list. But for brevity's sake, to the point. Let the City create their own departments to do what the county is currently doing? Create duplicative government? Right. The City is known for running a strong fiscally sound operation. Let's allow them to get bigger. Let's have an example. Restaurant inspection. So the City would create it's own department to inspect local restaurants within City limits. And the revenue to run such a program would come from fees paid as is currently the practice under the County's program. And the City has the fiscal strength and discipline in place to use that money for that program and not rob Peter to pay Paul? Since when?

Posted by Common Sense | reply to this comment
January 27, 2009 9:49 am

who needs the county? it's just a bunch of people who think nothing like the 1/3 of the population that lives in san diego city. lets secede!

Posted by Kevo | reply to this comment
January 27, 2009 10:00 am

I doubt that sucession makes tremendous sense. While there might be SOME opportunities to ramp up existing city bureaucracies to take on new tasks (for example, the SD City Attorney taking on felony prosecutions), in other cases the City would need to create entirely new and costly bureaucracies, essentially duplicating the overhead the county has already invested in (for example, the City lacks a health department or a department for child protective services and would need to create one to serve clients in the newly formed County). What COULD make more sense is to look at departments (the library at the top of my list) where a joint powers authority structure could make sense, enabling both the city and county to realize economies of scale and eliminate upper level management under a merged system. Part of the problem (continued..)

Posted by Erik | reply to this comment
January 27, 2009 11:25 am

(Continued) Part of the problem is that a lot of the activities that the County engages in are not of interest to our mainstream political reporters and thus it is all too easy to forget about those responsibilities which would become the City's should this proposal move forward. I bet readers didn't know that the County's Health and Human Services Department has a $1.8 BILLION dollar budget. link

Posted by Erik | reply to this comment
January 27, 2009 11:31 am

Regarding debates about the city versus the county, I think the saying about choosing the devil or the deep blue sea applies?

Posted by janet | reply to this comment
January 27, 2009 1:16 pm

Regarding debates about the city versus the county, I think the saying about choosing the devil or the deep blue sea applies?

Posted by janet | reply to this comment
January 27, 2009 1:16 pm

Sorry to say, but the comments here seem below our usual standards. Scott, maybe you could follow up with some more detail? // Specifically, let's look closer at the revenue/expenditure balance sheet for City residents viz County services. How are property taxes divided between County and City? Sales taxes? How about expenditures? Mostly, this comes down to measuring the extent to which City residents subsidize services in the County and/or fail to receive services commensurate with their contribution. Remember, that was the problem (read: scam) with "Prop A", in which urban cottage dwellers would have paid the same for county fire protection as rural rancheros (duplicating their City fire service, to boot). This isn't about the relative competence of City and County administrations. It's about "who pays".

Posted by Augmented Ballot | reply to this comment
January 27, 2009 3:36 pm

Ah. Wish it was that simple. Just to take one example, there is nothing on the county web site that would help answer a relatively simple question - does the county make money or subsidize the cost of law enforcement for "contract cities" (i.e. those that contract with the county to provide police protection vis-a-vis the sheriff's department). Much hard (impossible?) from the existing information to figure out the "subsidies" that might be flowing between the county and city taxpayers.

Posted by Erik | reply to this comment
January 27, 2009 6:42 pm

Sure. I never said it was simple. It's incredibly complicated and there probably can't be any conclusive answer. But it's a good question, I think. And I imagine that some have tried to study it before. Plus, that's why we have intrepid reporters like Scott and VoSD...

Posted by Augmented Ballot | reply to this comment
January 27, 2009 8:23 pm

I'm no fan of the county and would welcome such a move, but the fact that Hueso can't even float a balloon properly tells me he (and the rest of this council) are not capable of taking on more responsibility. Benny's ego is really getting the best of him. First this, and then he thinks he ought to be council president for more than a year, all while having to set up a legal defense fund to help mitigate the perception that he's ethically challenged. Good choice there, San Diego.

Posted by Larry | reply to this comment
January 27, 2009 8:36 pm

Back in 19(mumble) when I was in public school in California and schools were paid for and supervised by local folks and their taxes (with no unions for teachers or administrators), the city-county form of government was part of the state and local government curriculum that you needed to take to finish high school (Is that no longer true?). Then San Francisco in California, Baltimore and Nashville/Davidson County were the only three examples in the United States. I lived in Nashville when I was at Vanderbilt University, and the local government form was immaterial to the local folks. I used to go bass fishing around central Tennessee in those days, and there was not a lot of anything outside Nashville in those days except farms. Government bureaucracies always become more concerned with their internal interests and empire than with their supposed mission (Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracies), so little chance.

Posted by Jim Dodd | reply to this comment
January 28, 2009 8:09 am

To me this is a union backed power grab. They want control over the entire county not just the City. Then we can have even bigger pensions and losses.

Posted by lee | reply to this comment
January 29, 2009 8:48 am

This discussion should not be about turf wars or secession. In this fiscally challenging time it should be about eliminating redundancy and saving money. The City and County each have administrations to manage their library systems and parks systems, among other redundant services. It ought to be simple enough to analyze whether it would save money to have one management organization for both the City and County services. My gut reaction is that you would save by setting up a Joint Powers Authority and paying one library director rather than two, having one library information system rather than two, doubling buying power, etc.

Posted by efficiency seeker | reply to this comment
January 29, 2009 9:44 am


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.
Post a comment
Name:
Email:
Comments:
Current Word Count: Verification Code
5857500

Scott Lewis on Politics

The Scott Lewis on Politics blog, abbreviated cleverly as SLOP, is a collection of observations, insights and the occasional scoop on public affairs in San Diego. Please feel free to e-mail Scott at scott.lewis@voiceofsandiego.org.


Listen to voiceofsandiego.org's radio program on AM 600 KOGO: Latest Episode (November 8): Scott Lewis and Michael Zucchet talk about the city's budget

Subscribe to the Podcast Feed



MOST POPULAR STORIES:



MOST POPULAR STORIES:


Copyright © 2009 voiceofsandiego.org. All Rights Reserved.